Minnesota GOP lawmakers back ‘cut, cap and balance’ legislation

House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama at a Thursday meeting discussing deficit reduction.
REUTERS/Jason Reed
House Speaker John Boehner and President Barack Obama at a Thursday meeting discussing deficit reduction.
Rep. John Kline
Rep. John Kline

It’s essentially a symbolic vote for House Republicans, who in May allowed a “clean” (cut-free) debt limit increase to come to the floor simply so they could vote it down. The opposite is happening here: they’ll vote in favor a doomed bill in order to show voter’s their commitment to the cause.

Rep. Tim Walz
Rep. Tim Walz

“It may be a good sound bite, but its bad policy,” said White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer in a conference call with reporters.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (8)

  1. Submitted by David Greene on 07/19/2011 - 09:59 am.

    “We just don’t have the money to pay for all these programs”

    Here it is. The Big Lie. We _do_ in fact have more than enough to pay for these programs. The problem is the unwillingness of those at the top to contribute to the common good. They’ve got all the resources. The rest of us are handing on by a thread.

  2. Submitted by Alec Timmerman on 07/19/2011 - 10:15 am.

    Richest nation on the planet is out of money? Really?

    Obama offered $3 trillion in cuts! Three Freaking Trillion. They turned it down because it also had one trillion in loophole closures and tax increases.

    Don’t let any conservative fool you for a second that they care about the deficit. If they did, they would have taken Obama’s offer.

  3. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 07/19/2011 - 10:29 am.

    What a pathetic bunch of posturing politicians (in the worst sense of the word).

    Cut, cap and balance?

    First–they should name their cuts. They don’t want to do that because even their pet projects would have to go. The “cut” of their proposal would require reducing the federal budget by $800 billion next year. (By the way, that $800 billion cut would reduce the GDP by 5% next year). The largest cut amount they, themselves, have been willing to put forward is $111 billion. So, “You lie!!” should be heard loud and clear.

    Second, they would “cap” spending and revenue at 18% of GDP. Well, for their information, the only time expenditure came down to near 18% of GDP was during the Clinton administration and the only time revenue was consistently over 18% was during the Clinton administration. So, perhaps these people should be working hard to re-elect Clinton and his policies. (Ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Revenue_and_Expense_to_GDP_Chart_1993_-_2011.png) THe revered Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 met neither of their conditions, so it would be an entirely different world than we have seen that they are proposing to impose.

    Third, “balance”, would be an entirely “pro cyclical” economic measure. Picture cuts in unemployment benefits at times of maximum unemployment. Picture cuts in Medicare and Medicaid when most people are enrolled. As has been well documented before, constitutional measures that control spending have many consequences in subsequent years (see California).

    All in all, pandering to the plutocrats continues.

  4. Submitted by Deb Reed on 07/19/2011 - 10:38 am.

    If only republicans would stop playing games! To believe them about anything, they need to cut their pocketbooks just as they want the middle to low income, seniors and education to do! If it wasn’t so sad, you would have to laugh at their ideas!

  5. Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 07/19/2011 - 11:04 am.

    There’s a Tom Tomorrow Cartoon posted yesterday (July 18) that speaks to this that reminds us that last December, Obama compromised by continuing the Bush tax cuts which were set to expire with the understanding that the right wing would be reasonable on the debt ceiling issue. Obama as “Middle-Man” gasps, “no one could have foreseen this!”

    Obviously, ten years are not enough time for the Bush tax cuts to work their magic and start making those jobs!

  6. Submitted by Michael Zalar on 07/19/2011 - 02:24 pm.

    Here’s a nice article on exactly what an 18% cap would mean.
    It seems the Republican creedo is “we need to destroy America to save it”

  7. Submitted by Richard Schulze on 07/19/2011 - 05:07 pm.

    The only smart vote would be to eliminate the debt ceiling vote in the future, and let the annual budget process automatically set the debt limit. But then there wouldn’t be as much camera time …

    I couldn’t believe the GOP would ride the crazy train too far. They are looking for the exit now.

    I hate politics. It is frequently a waste of time …

  8. Submitted by Bernice Vetsch on 07/19/2011 - 05:34 pm.

    Wall Street has apparently told the Republicans that it will not stand for a governmental failure to honor its debts.

    I don’t know if the Street also told them that this new demand — like 99.9% of all their demands — is incredibly destructive and that it would just take a little longer to destroy our government, our economy and that of the world than would merely defaulting on our debts.

    The Chicago School of Economics seems to be as bad for America and the world as the School for Assassins at Fort Benning, albeit a little slower to achieve death rather than just injury.

Leave a Reply