Conservative U.S. Senators Unveil Budget Plan
By Shaun Kenney | Thursday, July 7th, 2011 | PoliticsThe Lee-Toomey Act accomplishes the following:
* Cuts non-defense discretionary spending by $435 billion (a $142 billion cut),
* Enacts a spending cap,
* Requires SJ Res 10 (one of the four Balanced Budget Amendments) to be passed before a debt ceiling increase is passed.
The legislation is supported by some of the more conservative members of the U.S. Senate — DeMint, Rubio, Paul, Lee, and Coburn — but is already being decried by Tea Party and other organizations as not ambitious enough, or worse a cave-in.
No word from any of the Virginia U.S. Senate candidates on where they stand on the deal.
U.S. Senate candidate David McCormick is the first Virginia candidate out with a response.
“Reduced spending and a balanced budget amendment are long overdue, and the direction Congress needs to go. I introduced my own budget proposal on May 18th due to my unending resolve to balance the budget within a short period of time (6 years), to put forth a plan that pays off the entire federal debt (22 years), and to address the problems with entitlement programs immediately. None of the budgets coming from Washington legislators do this and that is unacceptable.
As a nation we have a moral duty and obligation to pay our debt, period. If the Lee-Toomey plan does not allow for the debt ceiling to be raised without the passage of a balanced budget, I cannot in good faith support it. I would hope that the Republicans would consider a small debt increase to fund our debt obligations while the 2012 budget is being negotiated. It is of the utmost importance we take back the Senate in 2012 and never allow the progressives and liberals to control any of the budget process.”
Other responses will be listed as they arrive! Meanwhile, 20 Senate Democrats support the BBA… or at least, they used to:
UPDATE: U.S. Senate Candidate Timothy Donner issued a statement as well:
With the deadline approaching for raising the debt ceiling, I have enthusiastically signed the recently introduced Cut, Cap and Balance pledge and am urging Sens. Warner & Webb to follow suit. And while multiple proposals related to this pledge have been introduced, I am proposing a single constitutional amendment that would address all three elements of the pledge.
My proposal is for a cap and balance constitutional amendment limiting the size of the federal budget to its historic average of 18% of the gross domestic product (GDP) and requiring a balanced budget. This would force permanent change in the way Washington does business. The size of the federal budget would be based on the size of the US economy, hard decisions on spending would be required, and expenditures would not exceed revenues. It is important to distinguish this proposal from the frequently proposed constitutional amendment requiring only a balanced budget. Such an amendment does not limit the size of federal budgets, and could well backfire by requiring tax increases to bring revenues and expenditures into balance.
This cap and balance constitutional amendment is a cornerstone of our campaign to bring permanent, structural change that will strictly limit the ability of Congress to expand in size and scope and continue its out-of-control spending and unsustainable deficits.
Donner breaks out with a fifth Balanced Budget Amendment proposal! Let’s see if Congress listens.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
8 Responses to "Conservative U.S. Senators Unveil Budget Plan"
Is the spending cap a hard dollar amount or a percentage of GDP? Also, there’s an element of extorsion here I don’t like. I thought I heard Paul say the other day that an up or down vote on the balanced budget amendment would be required. That’s reasonable. But holding the economy hostage to passage of a constitutional amendment, which requires a super majority to pass?
And is a balanced budget amendment even a good idea? Certainly doesn’t seem to be a silver bullet, given the experiences of some of the states.
I guess throwing the nation into a depression is considered to be a responsible way to act by these Senators who three short years ago could have cared less about the deficit. Frankly, the more this goes unresolved, and the more the far right republicans reveal their disdain for the welfare of the nation and its citizens, the more their relection chances diminish. Clearly, in these few short weeks, we will see who cares the most about our economy, about jobs, and the welfare of our citizens, and the more the republicans talk, and propose these outrageous “solutions”, the more it is clear it ain’t them.
Why are they going for a Balanced Budget Amendment? It’ll only give these radical Democrats a reason to scream for more taxes. It’s not like they’re doing anything by the Constitution anyway. Why would this amendment be any different?
@Mike, how does raising taxes create jobs? Seems like the jobs/stimulus bill has been a complete disaster. 9.1% unemployment. These were in line with the same actions FDR took during the Great Depression.
Mike Barrett, I don’t understand these things you are saying. You said “reveal their disdain for the welfare of the nation and its citizens”. Why would you write something like that ? The TEA party is one of the few groups that is fighting for citizens of this nation, they want to make cuts so that some sane level of spending can be sustained. What this government is doing with deficit spending is irrational, the promises just don’t match up with the realities, and cuts have to be made.
We aren’t like Greece or Ireland, but those countries do show what happens when borrowing goes too far. Up until very recently politicians were promising Greek citizens the world, health care, generous pensions, early retirement ages, there were few limits to the giveaways, but they might as well have been telling their citizens that they were going to give them mansions and ferrari sports cars because they had about as much chance of delivering on one promise as another. If they had made cuts when they were able to, before it went critical, they could have managed it all in a sustainable way, but by waiting until the last minute their credit rating has been slashed to junk and now they can’t borrow more and don’t even have the money to service their debt. That situation is very similar to the situation we have with medicare, another completely unsustainable program, we need all politicians to be honest about this so we can just make the necessary cuts and move on.
I think pretending that we can go on spending like we have been forever is irresponsible, and telling the American public that cuts aren’t going to have to be made is dishonest.
Well Temporary, you have clearly not been reading what I have said in my posts. I support cuts as well as reductions in tax credits, sufficient to move toward a balanced budget by 2020 or so. That can be done in such a way that we don’t plunge the nation back into recession, a fear expressed not just by me, but today by Warren Buffet, and by just about every economist speaking about the effects of default. Your comparison of our economy to Greece or Ireland is so utterly ridiculous as to indicate your desperation at finding an example that will play well on these pages. The republicans have overplayed their hand in regard to support of their rich and powerful corporate masters and the refusal to increase the debt level, and my view is that the majority of voters see that and will punish them severely if they continue these tactics.
Mike Barrett, I agree with you that the tax code must be flattened, that is a common recommendation of the non-partisan people who oversee the system. Congress has made so many exemptions and giveways through tax code manipulation that it has had a great effect on the government’s revenue at the expense of the rest of us. When you make a loophole you create a benefit for one group at the expense of another, it isn’t fair. I agree with your sentiment that Republicans are being dishonest by calling all of those efforts to get rid of tax exemptions “tax increases”, but I suspect that the reason they are doing that has a lot to do with Democrats targeting only the exemptions that Democrats don’t like instead of putting all loopholes on the negotiating table.
You wrote, “Your comparison of our economy to Greece or Ireland is so utterly ridiculous as to indicate your desperation at finding an example that will play well on these pages.” That is funny, especially since I wrote “We aren’t like Greece or Ireland” as the first words in the second paragraph of my post to you. That leads me to believe that you are attempting to stir up my emotions by trying to provoke me, which makes me smile, and I forgive you for it.
Cuts will have to be made, and I think you know that. I agree with some of what you say regarding getting rid of loopholes in the tax code, but it should go well beyond private jets and oil subsidies and all of the loopholes in the tax code should be on the table. You’d be hard pressed to find a tax subsidy, giveaway, etc, that I’m not in favor of closing. Unfortunately flattening the tax code isn’t even going to get us close, you’re still going to have to cut medicare, defense, etc, spending in those programs dwarfs any revenue increases we’ll get from closing tax loopholes.
Yes, I agree that cuts have to be made, and frankly, I agree that includes defense. Weapons programs should bear the brunt, and the military must be restructured away from cold war based defense systems to new challenges. I think Medicare will benefit from the new health care law. The federal work force should shrink, and the COLA system for pensions should be reformed as well. But regretfully, moderates of both parties are being drowned out by the extremists who refuse to compromise on both cuts are revenue increases, but more so on the republican side because the party has turned hard right and there are few moderates remaining.
I actually agree in part with Mike Barrett. Defense must be cut too. But I would place an emphasizes on overseas bases and commitments. We don’t need troops in South Korea, when the the truth is we could only stop an invasion using nuclear weapons. NATO is outdated and is used to get us into wars that we have no business being involved in (Balkans, Libya). Yes, a lot of that is the UN too. If we do anymore UN military missions, we should only do so if other nations at least match our level of commitment. And Congress should be sending us to war not NATO and the UN. We do need to keep the capability to deploy a strong force rapidly, to anywhere in the world.
Oops. Got side tracked again. As far as the topic, at least some Senators are going in the right direction.
Leave your response