Tom Graves: No proof that John Boehner’s plan would prevent downgrading of nation’s credit rating
U.S. Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ranger, was the morning voice of the tea party today, explaining on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” why he can’t support House Speaker John Boehner’s deficit reduction plan:
Graves was pointed toward this morning’s editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which ended with this paragraph:
If conservatives defeat the Boehner plan, they’ll not only undermine their House majority. They’ll go far to re-electing Mr. Obama and making the entitlement state that much harder to reform.
Graves’ answer: “That’s an interesting opinion. They’re welcome to run for office themselves.”
The Georgia congressman said he wouldn’t vote to raise the debt-ceiling unless Congress also sends to the states a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget. He decried Washington’s “compromise mentality:”
”Compromise is what’s led us to the mess we’re in right now. We can’t compromise our way out of this….We should not be exempt from difficult decisions.”
On threats by bond rating agencies to downgrade the nation’s credit rating if the debt-ceiling isn’t raised:
”I’m not certain, and I don’t think anyone can determine, that Boehner’s plan will prevent the downgrading from occurring. …We can’t allow a lot of this to force us into making bad decisions today. This is going to impact the next generation.”
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
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
124 comments Add your comment
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
TD – The next line in that article you sent is probably just as meaningful as the one you posted (”The other chief rating agency, Moody’s Investors Service, said the U.S. government would likely keep its top rating if it avoids a default.” But, your point made. Based on that, though, I think your statement that “Just giving Obama a clean bill to rise the debt ceiling is the same as going into default. Either way our credit rating is going to be lowered”, is not supported by the Pat Dollard article.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:46 pm
@Retired Soldier — If my ol’ memory serves me correctly, Obama extended these horrendous tax cuts in order to get unemployment benefits extended. Seems like the House wanted to cut the benefits off and it was a COMPROMISE.
RetiredSoldier
July 27th, 2011
3:49 pm
Clinton-
Using your word, “horrendous” is not a compromise it is a sellout. His signature attests he supports the tax cuts. You can’t have it both ways.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:50 pm
Alright, Einsteins: An article in todays AJC on taxes and healthcare offered a couple of interesting FACTS.
One: We spend 17.4 percent of GDP on healthcare. The most of any rich nation. So wouldn’t you think that maybe a serious effort ought to be made to deal with this imbalance?
Second: Tax revenue are 14.4 percent of GDP, the lowest since 1950.
Thus, we have a HUGE SPENDING PROBLEM and a HUGE SHORTAGE OF TAX REVENUES!
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
3:50 pm
Retired Soldier – You are correct, the Tax Cuts have now been annexed by Obama. He was politically cornered into extending them, but he signed them, so they’re his. That would put ~300M of the ~2.8T in those tax cuts on Obama’s plate. The remaining 2.5T are Bush’s. Are you in favor of allowing those tax cuts to expire?
td
July 27th, 2011
3:51 pm
Clinton “Skink” Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:33 pm
Those are not the Bush tax cuts any longer. Obama signed the bill at the end of 2010 so they are now the Obama tax cuts along with the 2% reduction in FICA taxes and extension of unemployment.
I have never seen a Democrat really cut spending (besides Clinton and defense only spending). I am willing to raise the rates back to 39% 2 years after the Dems really cut some spending and that everyone has a little blood in the water. Do away with the EITC and start counting Child support, Section 8 housing assistance, Food stamps, medicaid, Pell grants and have a true graduated tax structure (like if you make between $1 to $10,000 then you pay 1%) then we can close all those loopholes and raise the top rate again.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:52 pm
@Retired Soldier; You can call it a sell out or whatever, but the unemployed saw it as a freakin’ lifeline!
Centrist
July 27th, 2011
3:54 pm
DannyX – I agreed with the framework Obama and Boehner had with $800 million of loophole and deduction cuts along with the $4 trillion in spending cuts. But Obama reneged increasing his total demand to $1.2 trillion in revenues adding tax rate hikes during a recession. The cuts turned out to be gimmicks with toothless triggers, so it all fell apart. Raising taxes with unemployment over 7% (it’s almost 10% now) is economic stupidity and simply class warfare.
Now that the cuts are much less – the markets are going to downgrade our bonds. The downgrade will probably be first of many until they reach “junk” status by the end of the decade.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:56 pm
@td — If you GOOGLE U.S. Deficits there are some pretty impressive graphs that show the deficits under the individual presidents going back quite a few years. You’ll find that the Democrats have done quite well holding down the deficits since Truman until we entered the Global Financial Meltdown in 2009.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
3:58 pm
Centrist – Can you help me look into the narrative you shared on Obama reneging, increasing his demand, and the cuts being toothless triggers?
td
July 27th, 2011
4:01 pm
Clinton “Skink” Tyree
July 27th, 2011
3:50 pm
“One: We spend 17.4 percent of GDP on healthcare. The most of any rich nation. So wouldn’t you think that maybe a serious effort ought to be made to deal with this imbalance?”
And we are the only country in the world that allows these multi million dollars lawsuits over nothing. We have OB/GYN’s having to pay a million dollars a year for liability insurance and practice very defensive medicine by ordering multiple test that are unnecessary 99% of the time. Would you think if these two issues were addressed that the cost would go down?
Centrist
July 27th, 2011
4:06 pm
@ End Hypocrisy Now – here is a link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/07/no-deal-debt-ceiling-talks-between-obama-boehner-break-down/comments/page/11/
Ghost Rider
July 27th, 2011
4:10 pm
“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘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.”
Senator Obama – 2006
Which is the lie? Was it in 2006 when he made the above statement, or is it now?
Bill
July 27th, 2011
4:11 pm
I’m hoping when Georgia gets reapportioned that I won’t be in Grave’s district any longer. I didn’t vote for him as I didn’t feel he had the qualifications, integrity, or intelligence to serve us properly. He proves me correct each time he speaks. What an embarrassment he is to Georgia.
Clinton "Skink" Tyree
July 27th, 2011
4:15 pm
@td — so a doctor screws up and kills your wife or the OB/GYN in on drugs and causes your child to be an invalid for life, or you are misdiagnosed and have years taken off you life because of the carelessness or oversight of a doctor.
Don’t you think you should have redress under the system the Founding Fathers put in place?
And, besides and OB/GYN doesn’t pay $1 mil for liability insurance. The cost varies from state to state, but the web site Ask For Insurance states that the average liability insurance for an OB/GYN is $15-20,000 per year. Now, I don’t know how much it is, but to dismantle our ability to have redress in a court of law is an extreme measure.
deegee
July 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
Retired Soldier, The extension of the Bush tax cuts is an example of why it is so difficult to reach a compromise in Washington. The other side will dishonestly use it against you.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
Centrist – To be clear, in the link you sent me, it appears Boehner made the statement that the White House asked for an additional 400M in revenue, the article states that Obama felt the Republicans would not include any tax measures (not a quote from Obama, a statement from the article). I didn’t see the ‘toothless triggers’ that you called out, but maybe I missed it.
Thomas Jefferson
July 27th, 2011
4:25 pm
Back in my day we had similar problems and we couldn’t get together either. We had gridlock and
Alexander Hamilton was yelling that democracy didn’t work, that it couldn’t stand up to a crisis.
He went on to say that we needed a monarch — one person who could take control and do the necessary thing without having to wrangle with the House and the Senate. Ol’ Alexander even worked himself into a frenzy one day and said we needed a dictator!
But me and James Madison and James Monroe and a bunch of others hung tight and democracy won out — and that bunch of Federalists nuts went down the tubes.
And, so it is. Democracy is not efficient. It’s not pretty. A lot of dirty linen is exposed. But, the right results will come forth and democracy will prevail.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:27 pm
TD – To be clear, lawsuits are determined by juries, as established in the Constitution, for both criminal and civil cases. If a judge agrees that a plaintiff has standing to sue, and then a jury finds on behalf of a plaintiff, then would you say that the plaintiff still has no right to the award Can you point out a multi-million dollar lawsuit over nothing? A lawsuit that was agreed to be heard in court, and that a jury provided an award for? And there have been no appreciable savings in Texas or Nebraska for insurance premiums, those two states being at the forefront of capping medical malpractice awards.
td
July 27th, 2011
4:27 pm
Clinton “Skink” Tyree
July 27th, 2011
4:15 pm
I am not talking about totally doing away with the ability to redress, I am talking about stopping tho frivolous lawsuits and the ones made for a simple human error.
I think we should go to the English model and the looser (law firm) pays all court cost. That way the frivolous claims would not get paid. I also think damages should be capped to lost wages, medical care and a small pain and suffering.
clem
July 27th, 2011
4:28 pm
one more time:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
td
July 27th, 2011
4:35 pm
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:19 pm
I asked this earlier and will ask you now. Where is Obama’s plan? I have not seen anything on paper. Obama puts nothing on paper so you can not believe anything he says (example: Look what Ghost Rider wrote earlier about his position on the debt ceiling now as compared when he was a Senator). The last plan he submitted was a budget that was so bad that the US Senate voted it down 97-0. That is 53 Democrats said it was crazy. The only plan I have seen passed was the one by the Republicans in the house (cut, cap and balance). The dems in the senate did not even allow it to come up for a vote.
Ol' Timer
July 27th, 2011
4:36 pm
I hate like hell to look back because it makes me appear older than I am, but I remember when these ol’ boys would fight like cats n’ dogs, cuss up a fuss, then settle down to do what was right for the country, compromise and then throw their arms around each other and go out and have a drink!
We’ve got a bunch of weenies up there now who can’t pee without asking Limbaugh or getting permission from Dick Armey, Karl Rove, Roger Ailes or the Koch Brothers.
And, these freshmen who are stretchin’ their wings would be told to shut up and fill the coffee pot!
As Archie Bunker used to say. . . “Those were the days. . . .!”
Centrist
July 27th, 2011
4:37 pm
There were several articles saying the remaining issues concerned the triggers if spending cuts did not actually meet their goals. Republicans wanted firmer ones and Democrats wanted looser ones (gimmicks to avoid actual spending cuts). Supposedly, last Sunday Obama said he would again agree to the $800 billion in revenue if Boehner would back off on the triggers – Boehner declined. I don’t care to further look for the links – it doesn’t matter anymore. I was just trying to explain that a centrist is to the right of DannyX and to the left of the TEA party.
Boehner is not going to get most of the new TEA party members of the House – they are voting the issue their constituency elected them upon just last November. Unless some Democrats in the Senate and Obama agree to something Boehner can endorse – this is going nowhere.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:39 pm
Ghost Rider – Absolutely, Obama has been hypocritical regarding raising the debt ceiling. He has apparently played politics with the issue. In 2006 he had the cover of being able to assign blame from the sidelines and attempt to get benefit for it, whereas now he ‘owns’ the actual problem. That’s political hypocrisy, and shame on him for it.
RetiredSoldier
July 27th, 2011
4:39 pm
DEGREE-
You lost me there my friend. Not sure of your point.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
TD – You are 100% spot on, Obama has not provided a plan. Harry Reid has, so we should be able to agree the Democrats have provided a plan, not specifically Obama.
jd
July 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
Still waiting on the trickle down from the 80’s — avg salaries were 30k then, and are 30k now…
td
July 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
Ol’ Timer
July 27th, 2011
4:36 pm
We are a little biased with your list. You could not think of one “wennie” liberal? Barney Frank, Pelosi, Soros, Meddows , all the “main stream media”?
Well give us a solution then? What do we cut (please be specific)?
clem
July 27th, 2011
4:44 pm
time for the 14th, prez should then hire bush’s lawyers who said he could do anything (hey we are at war) and then watch the fun in scotus as they try to figure out whether to rule for tparty or corporatocracy….
if that fails, how bout a war tax since most of the rich don’t have their kids doing the fighting
td
July 27th, 2011
4:45 pm
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:42 pm
When it passes the Senate then I will say he has a plan because Dems will have to actually cast a vote. BTW: There is no revenue increases in the Senate plan, only cuts.
td
July 27th, 2011
4:48 pm
clem
July 27th, 2011
4:44 pm
“how bout a war tax since most of the rich don’t have their kids doing the fighting”
Why was this not passed when the Dems controlled everything?
clem
July 27th, 2011
4:48 pm
good question…where do you stand
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:50 pm
TD – Then the Republicans don;t have a plan either, or did Boehner’s plan pass the House and I missed CSPAN that day?
td
July 27th, 2011
4:53 pm
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
4:50 pm
The house sent a plan to the senate last week that they decided to table. Why did they table the bill instead of debating and amending it and sending it back to the house?
Ol' Timer
July 27th, 2011
4:56 pm
@td — Everything should be on the table including defense, entitlements and PLUGGING the $2 trillion in tax breaks to the rich and large corporations that don’t pay zilch!
I think everyone should pay something. It’s unconscionable that 48% pay nothing — even if it’s $1000 — everyone has a vested interest in the success of the country and should contribute to its success.
I’m a flaming liberal and have been for 50 years, BUT I’m not stupid. This deficit and debt must be dealt with by cutting and by increasing revenue. Why can’t the GOP realize that the tax revenue as a percentage of the GDP is the lowest in 60 years and needs to be addressed?
What’s the freakin’ problem?
td
July 27th, 2011
5:02 pm
Ol’ Timer
July 27th, 2011
4:56 pm
I will ask you the same thing I asked earlier to Clinton with no answer: When is the last time a liberal has actually cut spending (besides Clinton and defense spending)? There have been promises many times but they have all backed out. I will support tax increases for the rich after substantial real cuts have been made for two years and like you said everyone has a vested interest and pay something.
R U Kidding Me?
July 27th, 2011
5:05 pm
Tom Graves on national tv talking about fiscal matters while he is facing mortgage fraud charges in civil court? What a joke and a hypocrite. What’s next? Sarah Palin appearing on Fox to tell us she just made a perfect score on her SAT?
Ol' Timer
July 27th, 2011
5:10 pm
@td — And, I might ask, when was the last time a Republican cut the deficit and reduced the debt?
Reagan didn’t. Bush I and II didn’t.
Please GOOGLE the graphs and look at the party who has dealt most effectively with the deficits and national debt. From Truman until this Financial Meltdown, it was the Democrats.
Bush controlled both houses of congress and the deficit and debt skyrocketed.
But putting that aside, why should that prevent an effective compromise in dealing with the present crisis that’s going to splatter into every household in the country?
Damn stubborness. The GOP/TEA PARTY would not support any program that Obama presents because Mitch McConnell spoke the truth: “I’m going to see that Obama is a one term president.” He didn’t say a word about doing what is right and best for the country during this crisis, his only concern is a vindetta against Obama!
deegee
July 27th, 2011
5:14 pm
The point, Retired Soldier is that Obama agreed to an extension of the Bush tax cuts at the request of Republicans in order to pass a larger stimulus bill. Now Republicans want to state dishonestly that Obama was in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts and so therefore they are no longer the Bush tax cuts but the Obama tax cuts. That’s dishonest and you know it even though you won’t admit it.
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
5:15 pm
TD – Thanks for the heads up. Too much work sometimes to follow as much as I’d like.
On spending cuts, I agree with you that Dems favor an increased federal role, so you’re likely not going to have many instances of them cutting spending. Gotta give Clinton credit there, though, as he not only cut defense spending dramatically, he deregulated the financial markets (in hindsight, not didn’t work out too well). But, it’s probably fair to not be one-sided. I mean, Bush increased spending very dramatically, and he cut revenues. SO, to say that you’ll wait to see spending cuts without revenue increases feels a bitt lopsided. Why can’t we tie revenue increases to spending cuts. If spending cuts are nopt achieved, the increased revenues revert to form. Wouldn’t that be the most down the middle solution? Granted, the spending cuts should significantly outweight the revenues, but why should one not be aligned to th other?
Ol' Timer
July 27th, 2011
5:15 pm
@td — It is very interesting that a war tax now is mentioned.
This is the first time since the War of 1812 that a “shared sacrifice” tax was not imposed on the wealthy to pay for the war.
But instead of a shared sacrifice tax, the GOP pushed through enormous tax cuts which have resulted in $2.8 Trillion in lost revenue in addition to $4.6 Trillion for the Ten Year War plus another Trillion or so for a prescription drug plan nobody wanted.
Don’t talk to me about the spending of the Dems when the Republicans have been on a drunken spending spree for years.
double
July 27th, 2011
5:22 pm
OL’Timer Amen.
deegee
July 27th, 2011
5:23 pm
Amen, Ol’ Timer! Can you imagine what the debate on Civil Rights legislation would look like in today’s congress? Thank God, it was passed during a more civil time in our recent past. At the rate we are going, the grandchildren of today’s undocumented workers will be retiring before a compromise on immigration reform is reached.
Big Hat
July 27th, 2011
5:24 pm
Proof? We ain’t got no proof. We don’t need no proof. I don’t have to show you any stink’n proof.
clem
July 27th, 2011
5:25 pm
yes old timer that’s what this article says:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/
but no one will face it on republican side.
i am with td, we need real spending cuts…..if not achieved then revenue increases, which were talked about beginning in 2013 should be rescinded. however, the cuts need to be prudent on a glide path and that’s were i somewhat agree with tea party folk we need caps, but they were too stilted on revenue generation….
go read market watch of yesterday in wsj where tea partycongressman sells out to big banks on forelcosure issue…why do tea party folks think their electees are going to help middle america?
Ol' Timer
July 27th, 2011
5:39 pm
@Clem: Please listen to a sane, rational ol’ man who was the VP of a Healthcare Co along with other responsible positions in education.
The Tea Party is being played like a banjo. There are some sincere and honest people who have been caught up in the rhetoric; but these guys are being manipulated by the super-wealthy special interests whose goal is an oligarchy.
They don’t believe the average American is smart enough to handle the demands of governance, so they’re in the process of using the Tea Party to do their dirty work.
The goal is control of the political system by the oligarchs, a diminished middle class and a large, poorly educated working class that can be treated like hoe handles — if one breaks just throw it away and get a new one.
I am definitely not a conspiracy nut, but the gap between rich and poor has broadened as never before in my lifetime. The income of the wealthy is increasing geometrically while the average working class stiff is making less than he did in 2000.
And, the GOP/TEA PARTY is willing to bring the government down to protect the tax cuts and tax loopholes for the super wealthy — loopholes and benefits unavailable to the working family.
The Oligarchs are in-waiting for the Tea Party to usher in their reign.
clem
July 27th, 2011
5:43 pm
how true, we all know deep down most folks have a price and even good meaning tea party electees eventually will succumb to the notion that they and their heirs can be part of that oligarchy
clem
July 27th, 2011
5:48 pm
old timer, any good ideas on how to get handle on health care spending?
End Hypocrisy Now
July 27th, 2011
5:57 pm
Clem/Ol’Timer – While I don’t dispute your points specifically, I think it’s important to separate the intent and the means. I don’t believe it’s an arguable point that many people truly believe in a smaller government (although it was originally argued as smaller federal, larger state), with a limit on the involvement and reliance upon the government. As an intent, that’s a pretty defensible position. The issue these days appears to be the means. These days it appears that the means by which some of the Conservative leadership is using to align to their agenda is benfiting a small percentage of the population, the status quo wealthiest among us. Break unions to affect cost changes (helps the wealthy and corporations), tort reform (helps the wealthy and corporations), tax breaks for corporations (helps wealthy and corporations), deregulation of the markets (helps wealthy and the corporations), et al. And, by no means is it a bad thing to help the wealthy and corporations (absolutely no class warfare here, although I’m sure that will be the response of some), as long as the help that is provided to those entities is commensurate with the help given to others. That’s where the current debates feel hollow. And, in practice, the wealthy and corporations are winning, and have won, class warfare. They are better off now then they ever have been. Kind of reminds me of ‘The War on Christmas’ (if anyone’s keepimng score, Christians won in a rout on that one). I think if we can get the equity of support, we can all benefit, and feel the same kinds of pain. Reagan raised taxes, and he spent wildly. Clinton raised taxes, and he reduced spending, G Bush 41 raised taxes and spending, G Bush 43 lowered taxes and raised spending. So, this is where we are. We need to make up for that imbalance, and the way to do it is through a combination of revenue increases and drastic spending cuts. As long as those revenue increases don’t stunt the economy, and the spending cuts don’t put “average” citizens in harms way. Plus, we have to rebuild our middle class. But that’s being driven moreso by individual debt (specifically health care costs and lost equity in real estate). I’m rambling, but the point is: spending cuts and revenue increases. Tie the two together, stop playing chicken with the debt ceiling, and let’s get back to equity.