The debt-ceiling deadline gets an extension
It turns out that the Obama’s administration’s self-imposed Aug. 2 deadline for reaching a debt-ceiling deal isn’t as drop-dead as we’ve been told. From the New York Times:
Thanks to an inflow of tax payments and maneuvering by the Treasury Department, the government can probably continue to pay all of its bills for several days after Aug. 2, providing potentially critical breathing room for Congress to raise the debt ceiling, according to estimates by several Wall Street banks and a Washington research organization.
The consensus is that the government will not run short of money until Aug. 10, when it would be unable to cut millions of Social Security checks without borrowing more money.
Note that, while some of us have observed in the past that the Treasury could continue making interest payments on the debt and meet its obligations on Social Security and essential defense even past Aug. 2, this report is talking about continuing to pay all the bills after Aug. 2.
Having a few extra days is no bad thing, given that House Republicans don’t want to pass Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan and that their own plan is is as much as 30 percent less effective than advertised.
It would be nice to have a GOP that is not just vocal about cutting spending but also competent at writing bills that, you know, cut spending. (Sigh.)
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
227 comments Add your comment
Swami Dave
July 27th, 2011
1:12 pm
Moderate Line
“There are only 100 new Republicans in the house and senate out of 500+. Our credit ratings is only in jeopardy because the threat of debt ceiling not being passed in time so one could easily argue that if the Republicans had not been elected the credit rating would not be an issue.”
Moodys has already stated that the credit rating of the United States will be at risk (and would have always been) based on the growing size of our debt as a ratio to GDP. Were Congress to have passed a “clean” debt ceiling increase (as was PrezBOs initial demand threatening veto) or not – our credit rating was at risk based on those sheer financial numbers.
By associating the debt ceiling increase to actual spending cuts (preferably in the nearer term under control of THIS Congress), the best chances for continuation of our current debt rating exist. Increases without fiscal controls or with gimmicked fiscal restraints will lead to the same outcome (greater debt & a lowering of the rating).
You are simply mistaken.
-SD
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:14 pm
“Last year the Wall Street Journal reported that Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, had between $1,000 and $15,000 invested in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury EFT. The fund aggressively “shorts” long-term U.S. Treasury bonds, meaning that it performs well when U.S. debt is undesirable. (A short is when the trader hopes to profit from the decline in the value of an asset.)”
With interest rates on treasury certificates at historic lows, it’s a good bet that they will eventually go up regardless of politics or other circumstances, so the fund described above is a good hedge position for any investor. And $1,000 to $15,000 won’t even buy a decebt used car any more. But, since liberals don’t take responsibility for planning and investing for their own retirement, instead preferring to rely on government to do their thinking/investing, they are easily confused and mis-lead by discussion of such simple concepts.
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
1:15 pm
Yahtzee @ 11:36 am:
What in the world are you talking about? The debt is a function of both spending and the revenues needed to cover the spending. If my wife loses her job, my debt will increase because my fixed obligations will remain until I do something about my fixed obligations (even if I keep spending the same or cut spending). What you GOP sympathizers never talk about is the increase in federal spending from one year to the next. From my research President Obama has increased spending but not at the rate of the past four presidents:
RWR – 2.6% average increase in spending from one year to the next over his term
GHWB – 2.1%
WJC – 1.5%
GWB – 3.8%
BHO – 1.65%
retiredds
July 27th, 2011
1:15 pm
I have a question for the “gubmint don’t create jobs”. I am curious as to why almost the entire GA delegation in Washington wants the “gubmint” to fund the deepening of the Savannah Port? It couldn’t be about the jobs it might create, would it? But I guess if the “gubmint” were to cough up several hundreds of millions of $$$$, and those $$$$ created jobs, they wouldn’t be real jobs because the “gubmint don’t” create jobs. And the GA delegation are mostly Republican last I looked. Now they can’t be asking for these $$$$ for the Savannah Port because they are for cutting spending, right?
I am happy to report that Republicans are no worse than Democrats at spending $$$$$$$$ all of those who post here, including me, (and running commensurate deficits, which get added into the nation’s debt and the interest on the debt).
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
“RWR – 2.6% average increase in spending from one year to the next over his term
GHWB – 2.1%
WJC – 1.5%
GWB – 3.8%
BHO – 1.65%”
Since the stimulus/porkulus raised spending dramatically in Bush’s final year in office, that set the spending bar very high for Obama, hence the low increase presented in your statistics. But, those bailuts and stimulus were supposed to be one-time events, not precedent-steers to permanently raiset he bar on feederal budgets.
Nice try though.
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
Swami Dave,
As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt despite the fact that the debt ceiling had been raised dozens of times before for decades. Then Bush became President.
In fact, the debt ceiling is a reflection of deficit and debt, not a cause. It’s not akin to seeking credit; it’s akin to agreeing to pay the bills on the budget that Congress already passed, including the Republican House.
For the record, had the Paul Ryan plan been enacted, the debt ceiling would still have to be raised…repeatedly. (If you sincerely care about reducing deficits, then take a look at the budget proposal from the House Progressive Caucus which balances the budget a decade before Ryan and friends.)
The amount of available credit is determined by lenders, not Congress. And lenders want to lend, as indicated by historically low interest rates on Treasury Bonds. Why? Because our federal government is the strongest and most liquid investment available. That is, assuming Congress doesn’t crash the economy on purpose.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Can’t type today…”not precedent-setters to permanently raise the bar on federal budgets.”
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
1:22 pm
Sorry, that should read, “… not at the rate of the last 3 GOP presidents.”
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:23 pm
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
1:20 pm
“Swami Dave,
As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt”
Completely, entirely, 100% false. A demonstrable lie. Thanks for repeating the usual lib talking points though.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:26 pm
Here’s the national debt by year, from the website of the United States Treasury. Maybe Bart Abel will tell us which year(s) we had a surplus and started paying the debt down. Or maybe not.
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
Ayn Rant
July 27th, 2011
1:27 pm
An extension? Good! There’s still time to pass a clean debt ceiling raise, or better yet, eliminate the debt ceiling and get on with the real job of budgeting spending cuts and revenue increases.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:29 pm
National debt under 8 years of George W. Bush increased by $4.4 trillion, from $5.6 trillion to $10.0 trillion.
National debt has increased by $3.5 trillion IN JUST TWO YEARS under Barack Obama, from $10.0 trillion to $13.5 trillion.
What say you, libbies????
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:32 pm
“get on with the real job of budgeting spending cuts and revenue increases.”
Let’s call them tax increases, not revenue increases, shall we?
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:32 pm
Anybody seen Bart?
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
1:33 pm
Outlaw Josey Wales @ 1:20 pm:
Okay, I went back and checked my numbers. I deleted the increase in spending from President Bush’s last year in office and his 7 year average was still 3.8%. Many of you just can’t get over the fact that the GOP is a bunch of big spenders.
Moderate Line
July 27th, 2011
1:36 pm
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:26 pm
Here’s the national debt by year, from the website of the United States Treasury. Maybe Bart Abel will tell us which year(s) we had a surplus and started paying the debt down. Or maybe not.
+++
If a surplus is a year in which the government spent less than it took in these numbers will not reflect it because these numbers include money the government owes itself.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
“Many of you just can’t get over the fact that the GOP is a bunch of big spenders.”
…yet another liberal lie. Many former GOP supporters are completely disgusted with GOP spending habits, hence the creation of the Tea Party, and hence the GOP faction that is refusing to support any compromise that Boehner might make with the Democrats.
Thanks for parrotting the talking points though.
Moderate Line
July 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
Swami Dave
July 27th, 2011
1:12 pm
Moderate Line
“There are only 100 new Republicans in the house and senate out of 500+. Our credit ratings is only in jeopardy because the threat of debt ceiling not being passed in time so one could easily argue that if the Republicans had not been elected the credit rating would not be an issue.”
Moodys has already stated that the credit rating of the United States will be at risk (and would have always been) based on the growing size of our debt as a ratio to GDP. Were Congress to have passed a “clean” debt ceiling increase (as was PrezBOs initial demand threatening veto) or not – our credit rating was at risk based on those sheer financial numbers.
By associating the debt ceiling increase to actual spending cuts (preferably in the nearer term under control of THIS Congress), the best chances for continuation of our current debt rating exist. Increases without fiscal controls or with gimmicked fiscal restraints will lead to the same outcome (greater debt & a lowering of the rating).
You are simply mistaken.
-SD
++++
You are simply mistaken. If the Republicans did not control the house a debt ceiling bill would be passed. Whether it would address the long term debt may be a question with the Republicans the chance of a debt ceiling being passed looks like it might not happen at ALL.
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:41 pm
“If a surplus is a year in which the government spent less than it took in these numbers will not reflect it because these numbers include money the government owes itself.”
Why don’t you break that down for us then and tell us how much of the current $14 trillion in debt is real, and how much is just debt the government owes itself?
This ought to be fun….
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:44 pm
“You are simply mistaken. If the Republicans did not control the house a debt ceiling bill would be passed.”
Are you sure? Because Barack Obama voted AGAINST increasing the debt ceiling when he was a Senator and Bush was president, calling it reckless, etc, etc.
Has the Complainer in Chief changed his opinion on debt in the interim?
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:46 pm
As President Obama and congressional Republicans joust in the coming weeks over the federal debt ceiling, consider this quote:
“The fact that we’re here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means ‘The buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”
– Senator Barack Obama, 2006
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
I admittedly make mistakes, Josey, but I don’t tell lies.
To be clear, in absolute dollar amounts the debt did not go down under Clinton. However, during his last year in office, Clinton paid both principal and interest on the debt which reduced it’s rate of growth. At the time, interest was compounding faster than we could pay down the principal, but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t beginning to pay down our debt, as I said earlier.
In addition, in real dollars (adjusted for inflation), the debt in 2000 is lower than the debt in 1999, and debt as a percentage of the economy (GDP) shrunk under Clinton.
My point still stands. The debt ceiling is a reflection of budgets already passed and not a reflection of lenders’ desire to lend.
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
Outlaw @ 1:29 pm:
You may be correct with your numbers but the reason debt is increasing under BHO is because of revenue. (BTW – I don’t support increasing income tax rates as a means to increase revenue.) He has not increased spending (on a percentage basis) near the rate of Reagan, GHWB, or GWB. What is going to be the biggest contributor to debt is the increase spending on medical treatment for seniors as more boomers join their ranks and existing seniors live longer (actually GWB’s spending numbers were somewhat skewed by this).
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
Note that Senator Obama said we have a debt problem…not a revenue or tax problem. As I posted above, note also that he freely extended the Bush tax cuts and then reduced Social security taxes by 33%.
Liberals are so funny…
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:50 pm
Well, based on Mr. Obama’s comments from 2006 and the posts of Bart and mehlman at 1:47, it sounds like we’re all in agreement that Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
I guess it’s safe to assume you both support the Tea Party position on the debt ceiling in that case?
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:52 pm
“However, during his last year in office, Clinton paid both principal and interest on the debt which reduced it’s rate of growth. At the time, interest was compounding faster than we could pay down the principal, but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t beginning to pay down our debt, as I said earlier.”
Let me get this straight…
So I can pay on the principal, ignore the compounding interest, and claim that I’m paying down debt???
LMAO!!!
The Outlaw Josey Wales
July 27th, 2011
1:55 pm
I wish I still had a mortgage. I could call the bank and tell them I want to pay principal only, and ignore the interest.
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
1:59 pm
Nobody said anything about “ignoring” interest, but somebody is “ignoring” the rest of my comment and other facts to support her beliefs.
retiredds
July 27th, 2011
1:59 pm
The truth is it doesn’t matter that Obama opposed raiding the debt ceiling while he was a Senator. The debt situation has been (and I choose my words intentionally here) so out of control for decades that a sitting President doesn’t have a choice but to recommend raising the debt limit. In other words since both parties have shot the moon on the expenditure side the only options they have left us is almost worse than the cure. The alternative is default and if you or your relatives have any investments that include US. Government securities that means no interest will be paid on your investment (better check your mutual fund holdings). Also, for those who don’t care about that, a default on U.S. securities means that any other equity or bond position you hold declines in value so don’t attempt to sell. Just like the mortgage market no one understood that in markets for securities and other tangible investments there is a “bid” side, what one is willing to pay for your asset. So in closing, if the US government defaults your bid side on any security will be much lower that you might want.
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
2:04 pm
Senator Obama was correct in 2006 – we do have a debt problem. My point is that the GOP’s current revulsion over spending is disengenuous and that Obama’s “massive” spending is not the cause of the problem. In fact if I could paraphrase Speaker Boener’s speech the other night, I would say, “The President (Bush) wanted a blank check 6 years ago and we gave it to him”.
Rand Paul actually stated it correctly several months ago when he stated that the federal government’s spending on items outside of it’s authority did not begin with Barack Obama.
MrLiberty
July 27th, 2011
2:08 pm
The Balanced Budget amendment is a red herring. There has been a public law passed under the Carter Administration that requires the government to have a balanced budget. It is law and nobody cares. We have a First Amendment that is almost null and void. We have a Fourth Amendment that was completely destroyed by the Patriot Act, the TSA, and a long list of governmet agencies. We have strict limits on congressional power, executive power, the power of the Federal Government and nearly everyone in congress and the white house except Ron and Rand Paul doesn’t care one bit about these things. The constitution is a dead letter in Washinton. Adding another amendment to it isn’t going to help matters.
Funny how they can come up with enough votes to pass the amendment but not enough to approve the spending cuts needed to actually balance the budget. That is Washington for you.
And who will enforce this amendment? The same Supreme Court that says the Patriot Act is ok? The same one who says that campaign contributions are speech and then allows congress to limit contributions by individuals but not by corporations?
Don’t be a sucker. The republicans and the democrats (with the exception of Ron and Rand Paul) don’t respect the constitution and don’t enough about economics to do the right thing.
Swami Dave
July 27th, 2011
2:11 pm
Bart
“As you might recall, we used to have surpluses and were beginning to pay down our debt despite the fact that the debt ceiling had been raised dozens of times before for decades. Then Bush became President.”
Demonstrably false. We have not “paid down” our debt in years as easily evidenced by the Government’s own OMB numbers.
“In fact, the debt ceiling is a reflection of deficit and debt, not a cause. It’s not akin to seeking credit; it’s akin to agreeing to pay the bills on the budget that Congress already passed, including the Republican House.”
-That sounds like legislation that should be amended to lower its cost or repealed. It represents obligations made by Congress (both Republican and Democrat) that our budget will not cover.
“For the record, had the Paul Ryan plan been enacted, the debt ceiling would still have to be raised…repeatedly.”
An issue that I have with the Ryan budget that it is not aggressive enough in redirecting the current growth projections of deficits produced by past overspending. However, the Ryan budget (as the only legislative plan that has actually PASSED one of the Congressional bodies in the last couple of years) is better than either (a) no budget or (b) a budget that does nothing to address long-term deficits (as did PrezBO’s that failed to garner ONE vote in the Senate)
“The amount of available credit is determined by lenders, not Congress. And lenders want to lend, as indicated by historically low interest rates on Treasury Bonds.”
Yes, and much to the chagrin of Moderate Line, Moodys publicly announced that our debt rating risks lowering without (their number) as much as $4T in reductions. This reality whether or not there are issues arising from the debt ceiling. This is, yet again, a publicly-reported fact by numerous agencies.
With apology, I would expect to find little of value to a review of the Progressive Caucus budget that would almost certainly raise taxes and find defense (an ACTUAL Constitutional role of our government) as a target for their “austerity”. Thanks, but no thanks.
-SD
Fletch
July 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
“It would be nice to have a GOP that is not just vocal about cutting spending but also competent at writing bills that, you know, cut spending. (Sigh.)
– By Kyle Wingfield”
And yet, posters are still able to work in the Obama thing. God, this is why I don’t support either party. Both share the blame for the economy, but I wouldn’t dare tell the sheep that.
mehlman rings twice
July 27th, 2011
2:15 pm
Mr. Liberty @ 2:08 pm:
Good point.
retiredds
July 27th, 2011
2:17 pm
just above I stated that no interest would be paid on your securities if your investment account held US Government securities. That is incorrect. Interest would only not be paid on a US Government security, be it either Bonds, Notes, and the remaining discount on a Treasury Bill. So if your fund holds 10-15% of its holdings in US Governments no interest would be paid on that portion from the date of the default.
And, by the way, they way these securities have been marketed over the decades is these securities are the safest because they are “guaranteed by the US Government. Draw your own conclusions from that. That is also part of the reason that EVERY President since and including Ronald Reagan has signed off on raising the debt ceiling. Reagan even implied that it would be abhorrent to not raise the debt ceiling and force the possibility of the US defaulting on its obligations.
kayaker 71
July 27th, 2011
2:29 pm
The numbers are all smoke and mirrors. There will be no default. Saying so sells lots of newspapers, cable time and blog spaces. The press is having a field day with this charade, pitting the “evil” Republicans or Democrats (depending on what TV show you watch) against each other. Fox even has a picture within a picture with the words “only 6 days left”, which is constantly on the screen. It gives the distaff parties to the negotiations and their supporters something to rail on about but it really doesn’t mean anything. Their biggest concern is whether or not these debates will have any effect on the 2012 elections. That’s why the Democrats are insisting in Reid’s bill that any agreement extend beyond November 2012. Bozo can’t use any more bad press especially from his base, which is somewhat disenchanted with his handling of this whole affair. But default…. that’s a fairy tale.
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
2:31 pm
Swami,
See previous discussion on paying down the debt.
In response to your comment…”I would expect to find little of value to a review of the Progressive Caucus budget that would almost certainly raise taxes and find defense (an ACTUAL Constitutional role of our government) as a target for their ‘austerity’.”–
Somehow, I knew that you wouldn’t be interested in looking at it. That’s something I noticed about Republican sympathizers. They insist on staying in Fox News/talk radio bubble. No outside information allowed.
You can disagree with how Democrats want to balance the budget, but you can’t claim that Republicans care more about doing so when the Ryan/GOP plan takes a decade or so longer.
retiredds
July 27th, 2011
2:32 pm
Kayaker 71, I am very comforted by your words. I can go to sleep tonight and not worry about default. Thank you.
Jack McFarland
July 27th, 2011
2:34 pm
That is exactly what I was saying, Fletch.
kaeth
July 27th, 2011
2:39 pm
is the definition of a “lib” someone that simply doesn’t agree with the tea party?
because i see the “libs” writing detailed and thoughtful responses and the conservatives making fun of them and writing off their claims without much evidence. i have to say if i was coming into this blind, they’d win the argument simply for coherency.
Kim Reamer
July 27th, 2011
2:44 pm
This is the repsonse I got from the MI Dem Senator Debbie Stabinaw when I contact her:
Thank you for contacting me about supporting the budget proposal passed by the House of Representatives. While I do not agree with the approach taken by the House, I share your concerns about the legacy we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.
We all know that we need to make some tough choices about our federal budget. We need to evaluate every government program to make sure they are getting results and eliminate the ones that aren’t. I am working to cut the red tape and bureaucracies that hurt businesses and stifle creativity. We have already eliminated congressional earmarks. Now it is time to eliminate wasteful taxpayer-funded handouts to special interests and wealthy individuals.
When I served in the House of Representatives during the Clinton Administration, I worked to develop and pass the first balanced budget in thirty years. As a Senator, I have continued to fight for a leaner, smarter, government. I repeatedly voted to support the pay-as-you-go principle. This means making tough choices and ensuring that we are not hurting America’s future with unrestrained deficit spending. I will keep your concerns in mind as spending bills come before me in the Senate.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please continue to keep me informed about issues of concern to you and your family.
Sincerely,
Debbie Stabenow
United States Senator
This is my response: Thank you or should I say, thank your staff for responding. Unfortunately, you did not have the balance budget approach when you voted for Obama Care which did not have the support of the American public. It created more red tape, robs the people of their coverage, and created a multitude of handouts. Lastly, this is not a pay as you go program but you supported it. As for the budget, where is the 2011 budget? If no budget then how can you say pay as you go? Do not play words. You, the Senate and Obama over spent and now you want what was over spent approved. This is not the answer. The spending must be reduced and controlled. What you say and do is a different thing. We need people in the Senate who will work for the people and not against them. That is where my vote will go.
Let us turn the table on the Dems in the upcomming elections and reverse this mess. It is time the Republicans to shine for if they don’t then I would support a 3rd party. No more bindge spending.
retiredds
July 27th, 2011
2:49 pm
Kim, I have dozens of similar replies from our two GA US Senators. Even if you ask them a specific question the reply is like the one you received. They all have the form letter 101, just accept that fact.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
2:50 pm
The debt ceiling is NOT the problem. The problem is the DEBT. S&P has said that we must reduce the debt by $4 Trillion.
You've got to be kidding me.
July 27th, 2011
2:55 pm
Considering the bickering going on here..does it really surprise anyone that they can’t agree and get anything done. Everyone’s so busy pointing fingers and the problem just keeps getting worse.
Our nations debt is like a high interest credit card, you have a balance but only pay the minimum amount due but keep using it each month anyway…guess what….it eventually snowballs out of control
The debt issue is Obama’s fault. It’s was an issue LONG before he was elected. It’s been a problem for years..it’s just finally reach terminal velocity.
You've got to be kidding me.
July 27th, 2011
2:57 pm
Sorry… typo there…I meant ISN’T Obama’s fault.
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
2:59 pm
RE: “…you did not have the balance budget approach when you voted for Obama Care”
Congressional Budget Office: The health care law is projected to REDUCE deficits by $124 billion over 2010-2019. Repealing the health care law would INCREASE the deficit by $119 billion from 2012 to 2019 and increase them even more from
http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CBO%20on%20HR2.pdf
Hillbilly D
July 27th, 2011
3:06 pm
The only thing either party is interested in, is kicking the can down the road until after the 2012 election and hoping they can make the other party look bad, doing it.
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:07 pm
The only bill that will prevent a downgrade of the US Aaa rating is the Cut, Cap & Balance bill, already passed by the House. The House worked long & hard to pass the bill with bipartisan support from 5 Dems. Last Fri., Reid complained that the House had dismissed & that the Cut, Cap & Balance bill would be a waste of the Senators’ time. He refused to allow the Senators to debate or vote on the bill. He allowed a vote to “table” the bill & dismissed the Senators.
I can’t think of anything better to have done with the Senators’ time than debating this bill on the floor. Reid was afraid that it might pass. Only 5 Dem. Senators were needed. There are still Dems. in the Senate who voted YEA for the Balanced Budget Amendments in 1995 & 1997, which failed both times by one vote.
The House should refuse to go any further until the Senate votes on this bill. They can vote it down, amend it or agree to it. The House & the American people deserve to know where the Senate stands.
Bart Abel
July 27th, 2011
3:11 pm
Heritage Foundation, 1989 founder of health insurance mandates–
“[N]either the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement…
Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of health care. But on the other hand, each household has the obligation, to the extent it is able, to avoid placing demands on society by protecting itself…
A mandate on households certainly would force those with adequate means to obtain insurance protection.”
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf
Linda
July 27th, 2011
3:13 pm
The Cut, Cap & Balance bill does not cap spending at 18% of GDP. The caps are graduated from 22.5% of GDP in 2012 to 19.9% in 2021.
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/07/15/the-cut-cap