I want to commend Sens. Toomey and McCaskill for their principled stand to permanently end earmarks. For too long, Washington has recklessly spent the taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars on pork-barrel projects and this legislation would end this destructive practice once and for all. I am encouraged by their bipartisan efforts and Ending Spending looks forward to working to support and pass this important bill.
To watch C-SPAN’s coverage of the Senators’ press conference, follow this link.
Like many of you, we were unfortunately not surprised when the Super Committee failed. At our own Super Savings event in early November, only 1 of the 6 experts we assembled thought that the Super Committee would reach a bipartisan agreement regarding the over $1 trillion in spending cuts as they set out to do.
So what happened?
“All now know that the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction has failed to reach an agreement. While there will still be $1.2 trillion of spending cuts as guaranteed under the Budget Control Act, we regrettably missed a historic opportunity to lift the burden of debt and help spur economic growth and job creation. Americans deserve an explanation.”
That’s how a good op-ed by Rep. Hensarling, recently published by the Wall Street Journal, begins. The Republican U.S. Congressman from Texas served as the co-chair of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. He outlines a number of ways in which the Republicans tried to work with their Democratic colleagues and President Obama — to no avail.
One such example:
Republicans were willing to agree to additional tax revenue, but only in the context of fundamental pro-growth tax reform that would broaden the base, lower rates, and maintain current levels of progressivity. This is the approach to tax reform used by recent bipartisan deficit reduction efforts such as the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and the Rivlin-Domenici plan.
The Democrats said no. They were unwilling to agree to anything less than $1 trillion in tax hikes—and unwilling to offer any structural reforms to put our health-care entitlements on a permanently sustainable basis.
Click through to read the entire op-ed to learn more about some Republican-pitched efforts to compromise, including reforming Medicare and Medicaid.
In a separate op-ed, Rep. Van Hollen argued a different perspective. In “The Super Committee failed because Republicans Refused to Compromise,” the Democratic U.S. Congressman from Maryland stated:
There has been much misinformation about the Republican tax proposal. The Republican claim to have raised $300 billion in “new tax revenue” is misleading. In reality, their willingness to raise $250 billion of that revenue was conditioned on Democrats agreeing to make permanent more than $800 billion of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which are scheduled to expire at the end of next year — thereby locking in $550 billion of tax breaks for the top 2 percent of earners. Their proposal was further conditioned on reducing tax rates while dramatically cutting various deductions. Analyses by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and other independent groups indicate that the Republican plan to drop the top rate from 35 percent to 28 percent, while slashing deductions and preserving the current low rates on capital gains, would very likely increase the tax burden on many middle-income families and give the superwealthy a massive tax cut.
…
When measured against the bipartisan standard set by Simpson-Bowles, supercommittee Democrats made every effort to move to the middle and put forward a deficit-reduction plan that met the test of balance. Republican proposals, however, fell far short, relying totally upon spending cuts and achieving $1 trillion less in total deficit reduction.
After weeks of intense talks, the failure to break the political gridlock is disappointing. We can no longer afford to punt on the difficult choices that we have been elected to address. The path to a balanced and fair solution is clear — but unless both sides are prepared to muster the political will, we cannot get there.
Despite it all, Rep. Hensarling ends his review of the Super Committee’s failure with optimism — and here at Ending Spending, we sure hope he’s right.
A great opportunity has been missed, but America’s fate will not be sealed by the failure of a temporary congressional committee. Spending cuts will begin anyway in 2013, but in a manner many of us, including our secretary of defense, believe could fundamentally harm our national security. I am committed to ensuring that full deficit reduction is realized, but Congress must work to achieve these savings in a more sensible manner that does not make us less safe.
As Winston Churchill said, “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” Despite my disappointment with the committee’s setback, I remain confident that we will yet again prove Churchill right.
Related Reading:
The Super Committee failed because Democrats Insisted on $1 Trillion in New Taxes
Thank you, Joint Committee, and Good Night.
Attended a recent event sponsored by Public Notice regarding defense spending. Two questions posed to the panel were why does the US have 43% of the world’s total defense spending (48% including the costs of wars) and are there programs we spend money on that are not needed?
See their responses and ideas for a more effectively and efficient use of the defense dollars spent such as possible duplication by having both a Department of Defense and a Department of Homeland Security.
It’s not HOW MUCH we spend on defense, but ON WHAT we spend the taxpayer’s dollars.
Must read: In a new piece, Reagan economic adviser Martin Feldstein analyzes the depressing recent economic data – anemic GDP growth of just 1.8% in the first quarter of 2011 – and concludes that the Obama administration’s fiscal policies are to blame.
Which ones, specifically? Well, let’s see — all of them, it appears. Misguided spending. Taxes. And lack of a plan to address the debt.
“The administration’s most obvious failure was its misguided fiscal policies: the cash-for-clunkers subsidy for car buyers, the tax credit for first-time home buyers, and the $830 billion “stimulus” package. Cash-for-clunkers gave a temporary boost to motor-vehicle production but had no lasting impact on the economy. The home-buyer credit stimulated the demand for homes only temporarily. …
A third problem stems from the administration’s lack of an explicit plan to deal with future budget deficits and with the exploding national debt. This creates uncertainty about future tax increases and interest rates that impedes spending by households and investment by businesses. The national debt has jumped to 69% of GDP this year, from 40% in 2008. It is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reach more than 85% by the end of the decade, and to keep rising after that.”
As a result of these challenges, Feldstein concludes that the “economy will continue to suffer until there is a coherent and favorable economic policy.”
Today I attended a “discussion of the debt limit and correcting our unsustainable fiscal path” with Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.
Senator Toomey commented that although the White House initially urged Congress to “stop whining” and increase the debt limit without placing any conditions on the vote, it has since warmed to the idea of spending cuts. The Senator said he would vote to increase the debt limit, which was reached Monday, only if it came with spending cuts and process reforms.
I had the chance to ask the Senator which budget process reforms were necessary in order to secure his vote for a debt limit increase. As you can see from our exchange below, Sen. Toomey strongly backs a “real cuts” to the 2012 spending levels, statutory spending caps (perhaps like those contained in the bill sponsored by Senators McCaskill and Corker) and a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution (sponsored by Senators Hatch and Lee).
Toomey also stressed that the danger of default can be averted by prioritizing debt payments, and for that reason he introduced the Full Faith and Credit Act, a short bill codifying that the authority of the Treasury “to pay with legal tender the principal and interest on debt held by the public shall take priority over all other obligations incurred by the Government of the United States” once the statutory debt limit is reached. Toomey also introduced a budget plan in the Senate that would balance the books within a decade, but he conceded that the legislation would not make it through the Senate.
Among other interesting announcements, Toomey said the budget resolution introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan and passed by the House is “visionary” and that he would vote for it when it reaches the Senate.
With your support, it seems our work together to end earmarks is causing quite an unprecedented fight.
Sen. Reid has blasted President Obama for his pledge in the State of the Union Address to “veto any bill that contains earmarks.”
His criticism? He calls the vow an “applause line,” and that the President is “wrong and should just back off.” Reid’s comments could very well be construed as incredibly condescending, stating that the President “has got enough to do without messing with what we do in Congress.”
But is Harry Reid out on a limb - by himself?
Even Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, is pushing back against Reid’s comments. Durbin said, “At this point, [Republican Speaker John] Boehner isn’t going to send any bills with earmarks, and we are out of the business, as well,” and “I don’t think the president is going to have to use the veto pen.”
The President and Reid’s right-hand-man have the Senate Majority Leader surrounded on this issue, not to mention the new Republican majority in the House and the Senate Republicans who’ve also pledged not to earmark. How will this dissent play out in the new session of Congress and the next election cycle? Join the discussion on Facebook to chime in.
For more details, watch the video below or follow this link to read an interview with the Senate Majority Leader.