Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Senate Dems Aren’t Fans of ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’

Senate Democrats told reporters Wednesday that they will do everything in their power to make sure the House-passed “Cut, Cap, and Balance” legislation fails in the upper chamber. They simply won’t support a plan that, in the words of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) “would cut and cap the hopes and dreams of our seniors, of our children [and] our middle class families.” 

Boxer claimed (incorrectly) that the House bill caps federal spending at 18.5 percent of GDP (it’s actually 19.9 percent). That would bring federal spending to its lowest levels since 1965, which, as Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.) conclusively pointed out, “was 46 years ago!” and before the creation of Medicare. Entitlement programs, they argue, will be eliminated under “Cut, Cap, and Balance” — even though the plan includes no immediate changes to these programs — hence the slogan plastered on their giant cue cards: “Cut, Cap, and Kill Medicare.”

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) lamented that the “so-called” balanced-budget amendment called for in the legislation “would make it all but impossible to raise revenues in the future” and inhibit the federal government’s “power to respond to the needs of our country” (by spending more money).

Republicans have finally lost it, they all agreed. If the Paul Ryan budget wasn’t proof enough, “Cut, Cap, and Balance” was an all-out declaration of war against the young, the old, the middle-aged, homeless kittens, and anyone who doesn’t run a hedge fund. Harkin offered this sobering assessment: “The sad reality is that America no longer has a two-party system. One of our two parties has morphed into a kind of a cult, driven by a singular fixation and obsession: preserving and expanding tax breaks for the wealthy at all costs.”

When asked about the prospects for the plan unveiled by the “Gang of Six” on Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) hedged. “Anytime that Democrats and Republicans can come together on something here, it’s a good thing,” he said, pointing out that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was meeting with Gang member Mark Warner (D., Va.) to discuss the options for including elements of the plan in a package to raise the debt ceiling by August 2. “We have to meet that deadline,” Schumer added. He predicted that the Senate would vote on “Cut, Cap, and Balance” this Saturday, if not sooner.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   12

EXPAND  

   07/20/11 13:59

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) lamented that the “so-called” balanced-budget amendment called for in the legislation “would make it all but impossible to raise revenues in the future” and inhibit the federal government’s “power to respond to the needs of our country” (by spending more money).

Wait, so that's a bad thing?  Sounds like exactly the reason to pass it, if you ask me.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
matthew8787
   07/20/11 14:08

Call every Senate office, both D and R, to support cut, cap and balance.

Make the Senate Dems aware they will pay a heavy price in 2012 if they vote NO. Put both Nelsons, Casey, Manchin, Stabenow, Tester, McCaskill, and others on the spot. Make them choose between Obama and their constituents. Pick up the phone!

It would be a devastating blow to Obama and Reid if the House bill passed in the Senate.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 14:10

Just as a reminder, federal outlays were 19.9 percent of GDP or lower from 1997 through 2005, and in 2007.  Somehow, we survived.

Come to that, it was 18.5 percent or lower in 1999, 2000, and 2001.  So not only were we doing pretty well during that time (remember the surplus?) but Boxer is wrong even there.

(Numbers from Table 1.3 in the historical tables of Obama's 2012 budget documents.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
S.C.P.
   07/20/11 14:18

I don't know where the Democrats are getting their numbers from, and maybe there's a difference between spending and outlays that I'm missing, but according to data I got from the White House website total outlays as a % of GDP for were 18.5, 18.2, and 18.2 for 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively, so an 18.5% of GDP cap wouldn't be that radical. And if the cap is 19.9% of GDP, that's a cap that's higher than actual outlays were from 1997 to 2005.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 NK
   07/20/11 14:21

TB-- your comment and source are right on. Bottom Line: to these disgusting Dems 3+ Trillion Dollars, that's right more than $3 Trillion Dollars of spending isn't enough-- it HAS to be at least $3.7 Trillion. WHY? they need the Medicare/Medicaid/Soc Security Ponzi schemes untouched so they can keep their captured voters in dependence, and then MORE spending to control the economy through crony capitalism spending programs. These people are beyond despicable. 

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 14:26

The part I don't get (actually, I do) is that lamenting about "46 years ago" doesn't make any sense with % of GDP.  Doesn't that account for inflation and population?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 BD57
   07/20/11 15:07

Yep.  Apparently, "progress" requires "government taking more of GDP."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 14:30

I am one of Senator Boxer's senior constituents. The only people cutting and capping my hopes and dreams are the ones refusing to address the debt and spending that threaten us all. And that means you, Senator.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 14:55

"When asked about the prospects for the plan unveiled by the “Gang of Six” on Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) hedged. “Anytime that Democrats and Republicans can come together on something here, it’s a good thing...' "

Except, of course, for the five Democrats who voted for CC&B.  Then it's a bad, terrible, kitten/baby/senior-murdering thing.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 14:56

For Democrats, debt / GDP careening past 100% and trillion-dollar deficits in perpetuity are responsible governance, while balanced budgets and acknowledgement of the empirical, historical fact that tax revenue never exceeds 19% of GDP are irresponsible.  Also, down is up and night is day.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
 BD57
   07/20/11 15:05

"Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa) lamented that the “so-called” balanced-budget amendment ... would ... inhibit the federal government’s “power to respond to the needs of our country” (by spending more money).

No, we wouldn't want to "inhibit" Harkin's power to respond to our "needs" ...  He's done so well at it ...

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/20/11 17:06

As I've repeatedly said, to no doubt the point of irritation of all who read my work, Republicans will make little progress until they focus less on the money issue and more on morality.

The welfare state isn't just ruinously expensive. It is morally wrong.

NOTHING can justify forcing taxpayers in Illinois to support my housing, food, or medical needs in Idaho, no matter how much I might need it.

Republicans either disagree or (more likely, in many cases) are simply too intimidated (by the likes of Boxer!) to say so openly.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact