Why I Voted Against Raising the Debt Ceiling

After much thought and consideration, I decided to vote against the Budget Control Act because it falls significantly short of what is needed to address the severity of this financial crisis. I did not take this vote lightly. I listened carefully to the concerns of thousands of Hoosiers who called my office and wrote to me to share their opinions.

While I am disappointed with the final legislation, I believe progress has been made in this debate. The culture of Washington is changing from "what can we spend" to "where can we cut." This is a step in the right direction and I am optimistic that we can carry this momentum in the months ahead.

The real work begins today. My sleeves are rolled up. I will continue to push to rein in government spending, reform the tax code to create economic growth and restructure entitlement programs to prevent them from becoming bankrupt and denying important retirement benefits for Hoosiers. Congress must commit to address the root causes of our debt. We must make the difficult choices necessary to restore economic growth and good paying jobs for the American people.

Majority Leader Harry Reids legislation falls far short of addressing the dangerous debt crisis that threatens our nations economy. The bipartisan opposition to this bill demonstrates the need for a much more comprehensive and substantive plan," said Coats.

"The American people deserve better than this. If Washington is serious about averting both a default and a downgrade of our economy, Congress needs to adopt a bold plan that includes spending reductions beyond what is currently being proposed and a commitment to reform entitlement programs and the tax code, Coats added.

Lugar Statement on Debt Reduction

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar will vote for the final default avoidance plan that substantially cuts government spending by at least $2.4 trillion, implements spending caps to restrain future spending, and advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the constitution.

“Initially, President Obama asked Congress to raise the limit on U.S. debt without any cuts in spending. He then asked for increases in taxes. Republicans succeeded in gaining substantial cuts in spending and no increases in taxes. We were also successful in gaining spending caps to restrain future spending. We were not successful in convincing the President or Democrats – who control the Senate – to support the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the final agreement continues to advance the cause with additional votes and incentives to encourage more support for it,” Lugar said. “Additional deficit reductions will be determined by Congress and not an outside commission nor the President. If the Congress fails to find agreement, then mandatory cuts kick in. This is also a victory for conservative fiscal responsibility.”

“Though the bill isn’t everything we wanted, it's still a victory for conservatives over President Obama's out-of-control spending and big government policies. And we stopped his efforts to increase taxes dead in its tracks," Lugar said.

In voting for the plan in the House of Representatives where it passed 269-to-161, Cong. Mike Pence said, "Leadership means knowing when to say 'yes' and when to say 'no.' The time has come to get something done and move onto policies that will further advance our fiscal solvency and put Hoosiers back to work."

Last week, Governor Mitch Daniels said in support of the Boehner Plan that, “I hope Congress passes it and then begins work immediately on step two of our long march back to national solvency and economic prosperity.”

Lugar voted for Boehner deficit reduction plan on July 29 and against the proposal by Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid on July 31.

On July 22, Lugar voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan, which he co-sponsored. That bill was defeated 51-46, with Democrats all opposed and Republicans all in support. The Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan becoming law would have averted a default.

Lugar was an original co-sponsor of Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) legislation that would prioritize payments to Social Security recipients, military personnel and interest on the national debt if the federal government had gone into default.

On May 25, Lugar voted for the Ryan Budget and the Toomey Budgets. Lugar said then that, “the Senate Democratic leadership opposes a constructive debate on dealing with our $14 trillion debt. In voting to proceed to a budget, Republicans are saying that we are prepared to begin a constructive debate. Republicans are also saying that we want to protect and preserve Medicare. Democrats, on the other hand, want to protect the status quo, which would push Medicare into bankruptcy.”

“I have supported the Balanced Budget Amendment 16 times. It is a common sense and prudent proposal to rein in spending. In March of 1995, the Senate was only one vote shy of passing this amendment. Since that time, nearly $10 trillion has been added to our national debt. Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment now will go a long way in improving our long-term economic security and job growth potential,” Lugar said. The Boehner bill also included the balanced budget amendment.

Lugar’s fiscal conservative and pro-economic growth voting record has been consistently recognized with the Spirit of Enterprise Award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Guardian of Small Business Award from National Federation of Independent Businesses, as well as the Watch Dog of the Treasury Award.

Lugar has also supported significant tax reform, including scrapping the income and the IRS, and putting in place the FairTax, http://lugar.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=333102&&.

Debt plan is first step to conquer deficit

Last week I cast my vote in support of the debt limit package, the so-called Budget Control Act. It wasn't an easy decision, but I believe that the hindsight of history, as it so often does, will prove that a controversial choice was the right one.

Ronald Reagan's leadership in the final decade of the Cold War serves as an appropriate example.

At the time, Americans were losing faith in Washington, and they had placed their confidence in Reagan, a Washington outsider who wouldn't settle for a business-as-usual foreign policy. He promised to confront the Communist menace -- and put it on a path to extinction.

So when he sent Marines into Grenada in 1983 to stop the Soviet Union from militarizing the small Caribbean island, many Americans were initially unimpressed. The stakes were high, and for many citizens nothing short of total victory would do.

So how does this relate to today?

Many of us would like to see Washington confront our spending and debt problems and eliminate them as quickly as possible. Yes, the Budget Control Act immediately cuts billions from Washington's spending, averts a job-crushing national default, and enacts serious spending controls to impede further recklessness. Yes, it advances the cause of a Balanced Budget Amendment by requiring Congress to vote on the measure. And yes, it does all of this without stifling job creation by imposing new taxes.

But the package is only a fiscal Grenada, so to speak. It is not the bold solution to our fiscal crisis that many of us were hoping for, but a meaningful start -- a single beachhead in a much larger struggle.

For months, I have supported measures in Congress to address our fiscal situation, including an ambitious budget which I helped draft and which earned majority support in the House. The bill would have tamed our national debt and created millions of new private sector jobs. It died in the Senate, but supporters of the plan showed Americans that many of us are prepared to make difficult decisions.

With the Budget Control Act, we have now established that Washington, like every American family and business, must begin to set priorities. We have shifted the terms of our political debate, recognizing we cannot tax our way to prosperity but must find ways to spend less. And we have created the conditions for bolder measures to restore our economic health in the near future.

Soon after Reagan left office, the Berlin Wall came down. His incremental strategy to defeat Communism was vindicated. It wasn't long before all of us were neatly weaving Grenada and other early Reagan-era skirmishes into a larger narrative, a story filled with small wins and modest compromises that ended triumphantly for the American people.

Today, Americans must remain vigilant in this fight to rescue our economy from over-spending. We have taken the beachhead. More battles lie ahead. We must keep our eyes trained on the horizon in the faith that our Wall of Debt will come down.

Young represents Indiana's 9th congressional district.

Now is the Time for a Balanced Budget

Yesterday the Senate passed and the President signed the largest debt ceiling increase in history into law. I wanted to let you know I voted against that increase.

I opposed this increase because it was another business-as-usual Washington deal that did not address the root cause of this debt ceiling crisis-our out-of-control spending. In fact, this deal does not touch the existing $14.3 trillion debt and still adds $7 trillion to our debt over the next decade.

I do not discount that not raising the debt ceiling by August 2 could have had a negative impact on the economy, investor confidence and the daily lives of Americans. But the truth is raising the debt ceiling is only treating a symptom, not curing the disease. The disease is our massive debt, a debt that has the very real potential to ruin our economy and rob our children and grandchildren of the opportunities that have always been the birthright of every American.

After President Obama signed the debt ceiling increase yesterday, the markets saw the largest decline in a year and credit agencies continue to warn that without a long-term solution to put the United States on a sound fiscal trajectory, downgrade and even greater economic ills loom as possibilities.

It is long past time we considered how the present affects the future. For decades now, we have lived far beyond our means, piling up trillions in debt we have every intention of letting our children and grandchildren pay for. This is inter-generational theft and the only way to stop it is permanent and structural reforms that address our spending problem in the long-term like a balanced budget amendment.

While there is much to criticize about the deal President Obama signed into law yesterday, there is a silver lining. In the law is a requirement that both the House and Senate MUST vote on a balanced budget amendment before the end of the year. I am fully committed to making sure that Congress follows the law that was passed, and that we all fight to pass a strong balanced budget amendment out of the House and Senate and send it to the American people, so that finally their voice can be heard.

That is where I need your help. Talk to your friends, family, neighbors and coworkers. We must keep the pressure on to pass a balanced budget amendment.

Make no mistake, President Obama, Senator Reid and liberals across our nation will fiercely oppose a balanced budget amendment.

A balanced budget amendment is a grave threat to those who believe in bigger government, higher taxes and more spending . It is a grave threat to those that believe big government made America great.

The fight for a balance budget amendment is a fight we must win. Nothing less than the future of our children and grandchildren is at stake.

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, a leading Republican who is now running to be Indianas next governor, said today he will vote for the debt-ceiling deal hammered out over the weekend by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders.

Pence, moments after coming out of a House Republican conference, said he has decided to support the deal.

I believe it is a small step in the right direction, but its a start and I believe it is worthy of support, Pence said.

He said he supports it because it contains dollar-for-dollar spending cuts for the increase in the debt ceiling, no tax increases and several means to give us a fighting chance to pass a balanced budget amendment in the House and Senate and send it to the states.

Pence, who has been a favorite of many tea party activists in Indiana, found himself coming under some rare criticism from some in that movement for supporting an earlier proposal by House Speaker John Boehner, in addition to this latest deal.

Leadership means knowing when to say yes and when to say no, and I think the time has come to say yes to this bi-partisan agreement and move forward, Pence said. I would emphasize it is only a modest first step in the direction of fiscal discipline and reform. We have a long way to go to put our nation back on a pathway to fiscal solvency. But I feel compelled to seize this moment and embrace this bipartisan agreement, and Ill be supporting it later today on the floor.

To friends who have been asking about my vote in favor of the debt deal, this excerpt from the Indianapolis Star sums up my reasoning quite well. This was a tough call. We had to find a way to pay the nation's bills. As the Good Book says 'if you owe debts, pay debts'. This debt deal didn't go nearly far enough but it did give us a way to avoid risking default without raising taxes, with dollar for dollar spending cuts and it gives us a fighting chance at a Balanced Budget Amendment, so I thought it was worth supporting. I didn't think the Budget Control Act was so much a 'good deal' as it was a 'good start', especially considering we don't control the Senate or the White House. We have a long way to go to restore fiscal discipline to our nation's capitol. I chose to support this modest first step toward fiscal discipline but I respect all those who take a different view. Thank you all for your steadfastness and prayers.

- Mike Pence

Debt and Jobs

Like many of you, I spent the weekend attempting to put Standard and Poors Friday night downgrade of U.S. government debt into context and understand its point of view. After hearing from many of you and from respected experts outside of government, I wanted to take a brief moment and outline my initial thoughts. I welcome and would appreciate any feedback you may have.

Two Crises:

As we all know, America is facing two related but separate crises. The first is the federal governments debt crisis that is the result of decades of fiscal mismanagement by both political parties. The second is the economic and jobs crisis, which has resulted in record unemployment and made it harder for businesses to grow and create jobs. I believe that Americas jobs crisis has been compounded by the Obama Administrations anti-business, hyper-regulatory, pro-tax increase agenda which has led to dangerous uncertainty in our economy. While much of our time this Congress has been focused on the former, it is the latter that is most directly and dramatically impacting the lives of individuals, families, and small businesses throughout this country.

Anyone who has looked at the numbers cannot seriously discount S&Ps concerns over our governments rising public debt burden. I do, however, believe its analysis is overly focused on resolving the debt crisis in a manner that would greatly worsen the jobs crisis, which would be a catastrophic mistake. This is not surprising, as S&Ps job is to opine on the federal governments balance sheet. Indeed, S&P makes clear in its Friday report that it takes, no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the Administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing.

As legislators focused not just on our debt crisis, but also on getting the 14 million currently unemployed Americans back to work, we cannot afford to be so ambivalent when it comes to revenues. As I learned during the two months of debt limit negotiations, revenues is just a code word for the Presidents desire to tax individuals, families, and small business people earning over $200-250,000 per year.

S&P seems particularly focused on what it sees as the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences on the best way to eliminate the deficit. By this it means in part our unwillingness to raise taxes. The bottom of page four of the S&P analysis describes that a base case scenario, which results in the AA+ rating with a negative outlook, now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the [Budget Control Act].

Now to be fair, S&P is also clearly concerned about what it perceives as an unwillingness to tackle our insolvent entitlement programs, which are the biggest drivers of our debt, the containment of which [S&P] and most other independent observers regard as key to long-term fiscal sustainability.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

In all of the discussions Speaker Boehner and I have had with the President this year, the President has repeatedly made clear that even if we agree to all of his requested tax increases, he would never support the type of structural changes to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security necessary to make these programs solvent as envisioned in our budget resolution.

More disturbingly, the President and Congressional Democrats have also argued that they will only consider modest changes to our current entitlement programs if we agree to tax increases.

For those 14 million Americans currently looking for work, this is a trade we simply cannot afford to make. Raising taxes in this economy will only make it harder for working families and the very small businesses we are counting on to create jobs and get our economy going.

But dont take my word for it; here is what two Harvard economists concluded in a 2009 study about the various approaches to closing budget deficits, For fiscal adjustments we show that spending cuts are much more effective than tax increases in stabilizing the debt and avoiding economic downturns. In fact, we uncover several episodes in which spending cuts adopted to reduce deficits have been associated with economic expansions rather than recessions. (Alesina, A. and Ardagna, S., Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 15438, Oct. 2009, p. 3, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15438.)

The Path Forward:

Over the next several months, there will be tremendous pressure on Congress to prove that S&Ps analysis of the inability of the political parties to bridge our differences is wrong. In short, there will be pressure to compromise on tax increases. We will be told that there is no other way forward. I respectfully disagree.

As we have said from the beginning of the year, the new Republican Majority was elected to change the way Washington does business. We were not elected to raise taxes or take more money out of the pockets of hard working families and business people. People understand Washington cant keep spending money that it doesnt have. They want to see less government not more taxes. This means that spending must be reduced from its current level of 24% of GDP. This is why we were elected, and we are doing the things that we promised we would do. Since we only control one-half of one-third of Washington, these changes are happening incrementally but make no mistake, they are happening. And that is a sign of progress.

With the Budget Control Act, we made a $917 billion down payment on deficit reduction without raising taxes. The Joint Committee created by the legislation presents another opportunity for an additional $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in savings by the end of the calendar year. Based on the savings identified in our Budget Resolution and in the Biden Group, I firmly believe we can find bipartisan agreement on savings from mandatory programs that can be agreed to without tax increases. I believe this is what we must demand from the Joint Committee as it begins its work.

Now these efforts alone will not solve our debt crisis. That will require fundamental structural reform to our entitlement programs in order to preserve the safety net for the next generation without bankrupting our nation.

Just a few weeks ago, the President himself acknowledged the resistance of his own party to such reforms, as well as the reality that without reform, entitlement programs are unsustainable. On July 11, President Obama said, the vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements; would prefer, frankly, not to have to do anything on some of these debt and deficit problems. And Im sympathetic to their concerns, because theyre looking after folks who are already hurting and already vulnerable, and there are a lot of families out there and seniors who are dependent on some of these programs. And what Ive tried to explain to them is, number one, if you look at the numbers, then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. I mean, its not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.

But doing nothing is exactly what the President did in his budget. The President remains opposed to any structural reforms, and would only nibble around the edges of these programs IF taxes are increased on job creators. Given that reality, I firmly believe that these are issues that will be central to the decision that voters will make in the 2012 election.

On Fox News this past Sunday, our colleague Paul Ryan perhaps summed it up best. When discussing the Joint Committee and the goals being set for it, he said, I think people are overemphasizing what the Committee is going to achieve. I don't think the Committee will have a full fix to the problems. Democrats do not want to address the health care bill or put out a plan. The President hasn't put out a specific plan to fix the problem and they don't want to go with structural entitlement reform which is what you have to do to get the economy growing I want to make sure people understand that I don't think [the committee] is going to fix all of our fiscal problems. I hope it is a Committee that will get a down payment on the problems. Ultimately, I think the leadership in Washington needs to be changed.

This is our challenge for the next 15 months.

In the meantime, our primary focus must be to get the economy going and get people back to work, which is why I have been working with many of our Committee Chairmen to prepare a fall legislative agenda focused on economic growth through reducing the regulatory and tax burden on job creators. While I will be providing you with a more detailed list of legislative proposals before we return in September, it is my intention that the House will take continual and steady action on bills to reduce or eliminate regulatory barriers to job creation this fall.

The new Republican Majority is finally holding Washington accountable, and has begun to change business as usual. Our country currently faces two very serious crises - debt and jobs. These two crises are not mutually exclusive, but they are equally dangerous. That is why it is absolutely critical that as policies are developed to overcome each, we consider their impact upon each other. Anything less would be negligent.

Thank you,
Eric

A Roadmap For America's Future

My Fellow Hoosier,

We are living under the burden of a crushing debt of almost $14 Trillion that threatens the security of our nation and robs future generations of Americans of yet uncreated wealth.

We must not be content with future solutions to present challenges. While it will take time to build our way out of the fiscal hole we have dug for ourselves, there must come a point in time when we decide to stop digging. The time for choosing the right course of action is now. As a nation, we are faced with two differing philosophies which both claim to hold the answer to our nation's woes.

The philosophy put forth in Rep. Paul Ryan's budget says we ought to cut spending and reform entitlements so we can responsibly reduce and eliminate our debt. The other philosophy, put forth in President Obama's budget, suggests that increased spending on government programs and expanding an already bloated bureaucracy will provide new and needed jobs for Americans. Should we cut our spending to reduce our debt, or should we increase our spending to reduce our debt? This really boils down to an even simpler question: will we start climbing, or will we keep digging? We must decide to start cutting government spending and begin to climb.

The government does not contribute to our nation's wealth; the government runs on our nation's wealth. Because of this fact, the federal government expands at the expense of the private sector. If we buy into the philosophy that says we need an ever-increasing government, we must eventually address the problem of where the wealth will come from to fund this massive government. Where will the government's revenue come from when the majority of Americans are employed by the United States Government? In the words of Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."

How do we get government out of the way, so that ordinary Americans can once again make America extraordinary? What can be done to stem the tide of government spending that has stifled our economic growth, paralyzed our nation's job creators, and put us on a path to national financial ruin? I believe the first step is following a budget that makes sense and does several things:

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION: Fosters a better environment for private-sector job creation by lifting debt-fueled uncertainty and advancing pro-growth tax reforms.

SPENDING CUTS AND CONTROLS: Stops Washington from spending money it does not have on government programs that do not work. Locks in spending cuts with spending controls.

REAL SECURITY: Fulfills the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans by making the tough decisions necessary to save critical health and retirement programs.

PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE: Repeals and defunds the President's health care law, advancing instead common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.

RESTORING AMERICA'S EXCEPTIONAL PROMISE: Tackles the existential threat posed by rapidly growing government and debt, applying the nation's timeless principles to this generation's greatest challenge. Ensures that the next generation inherits a stronger, more prosperous America. (Taken from Paul Ryan's budget proposal.)

We need to get our message out. Liberal spenders in Washington have many platforms from which they can voice their message. Fiscal conservatives need to be creative and fight this advantage.

Standing For Conservative Values in Washington,

Marlin Stutzman

Boehner, Cantor: Mr. President, Let's Get To Work

Standard & Poor's decision to downgrade our creditworthiness is a clarion call to get America's fiscal house in order. The jobs and savings of too many Americans are at stake for Washington to continue ducking the toughest choices.

The American people elected the new House Republican majority with orders to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have, and we listened. This spring, the House passed a budget that would cut spending by trillions of dollars and encourage private-sector job creation through economic growth — without raising taxes. Among its key components are tax reforms that broaden the base and lower the rates for everyone, while making the tax code more fair by closing loopholes.

Our budget also included real reforms that preserve and strengthen our insolvent entitlement programs, which are the biggest drivers of our debt. These kinds of reforms are "key to long-term fiscal sustainability," according to S&P's report. Unfortunately, the Democrats running Washington rejected both our budget and a "cut, cap and balance" plan the House passed recently that would also save trillions.

Over the last few months, we tried to persuade President Obama to do something significant to address our debt crisis, on the scale achieved in the House Republican budget. Yet time and again, he and his allies demanded tax increases on families and small businesses, tax increases that would destroy jobs. With nervous markets, unemployment at more than 9% and millions of Americans asking, "Where are the jobs?," the worst thing Washington can do for our economy is raise taxes on the people we need to start hiring again.

The Budget Control Act, recently signed into law after months of hard work, represents a step toward fiscal sanity in Washington, but only a step. It includes spending cuts larger than the increase in the debt limit, real caps to restrain future spending, and no tax increases.

There's certainly no victory lap to be taken, especially when more could have been done. Our hope is S&P's wake-up call will show President Obama and his allies that they can no longer afford to tinker around the edges when it comes to our debt crisis.

Over the next few months, as a result of the Budget Control Act, lawmakers of both parties on the newly formed joint select committee will be in a position to make tough choices to rein in the mandatory and entitlement spending that is driving our long-term debt. We believe this work can be done without imposing job-crushing tax increases. We should be able to move forward on the areas in which we agree on the former, without tying them to areas of disagreement — such as the latter.

The House and Senate will also consider a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget. Ratification of a balanced-budget amendment would provide greater certainty about our nation's fiscal trajectory over the long haul, helping private sector small-business people — who are being overwhelmed with uncertainty from Washington — to plan, invest and get back to creating jobs. That is the type of commitment to fiscal responsibility that S&P and other rating services are looking for.

Of course, out-of-control spending isn't the only Washington-imposed roadblock to job creation. That's why we must dedicate ourselves to pro-growth policies that help create middle-class jobs, make it easier for existing businesses to thrive and allow more start-up companies to flourish. This means easing the tax burden on small businesses and removing burdensome, redundant regulations that impede private sector investment and job creation. It's past time to harness our abundant supply of natural resources in America, develop new sources of energy and create jobs here at home. And we should increase competitiveness for American manufacturers by passing job-creating free trade agreements that would open new markets for American-made goods. All told, at least 10 House-passed jobs bills reflecting some of these reforms are awaiting action in the Democratic-led Senate.

The American people understand that Washington can't keep spending money it doesn't have. They want to see less government — not more taxes. The Republican majority in the House continues to listen, which is why despite being outnumbered in Washington, these changes are happening incrementally.

Time and again, we have reached out to President Obama in the hope that he would finally be ready to do what is needed to solve our debt crisis and tackle America's job crisis. The offer still stands. Let's get to work.

John Boehner, R-Ohio, is speaker of the House. Eric Cantor, R-Va., is the House majority leader.

OH PLEASE!

Am I the only one who notices the disconnect and hypocrisy in former Congressman Lee Hamiltons article, This Is No Way to Run a Government? Can he seriously deride the current Congress because it can only pass a budget in the last minute while purposely ignoring the fact that the only reason Congress is wasting their time doing this is because the previous Congress, represented by his Party, failed to do the job while they were in office?

According to Mr. Hamilton, the way Congress used to work, budgets were crafted by a series of committees holding public hearings and debating separate appropriation bills. I assume he is acknowledging that if this had been done in September 2010.when it was supposed to have been done by the Democrat Congressthese last minute measures in April of 2011 would not be necessary. And are we to assume that Mr. Hamilton was never involved in measures of Continuing Resolutions as a Congressman himself? Check the records!

Of course, its easier to criticize the Republican majority in Congress for using Continuing Resolutions to reduce the deficit than it is to blame the President of his own Party for producing the debt in the first placea debt which threatens to make us slaves to our creditors (the Chinese) for generations to come. It sounds to me like someone is stumping for next years elections for President and Congress in an attempt to get rid of those who would actually expect us to be accountable for our excessive spending and our debts.

Lee talks about a deal put together behind closed doors by a handful of people which was presented to the bulk of Congress for a take-it-or-leave-it vote. Is he talking about the budget or health care? It is always effective to use the same arguments against your opposition as they used against you to get elected. That way, we might forget who and what got us into this mess in the first place. Oh, and Lee, we are a Republic, not a Democracy. If our Congressmen dont know the difference, how can we expect our high school students to?

This is the same, tired old rhetoric that is used every time we actually get representatives who try to bring spending back under control. Congress has gotten into the habit of out-of-control spending that must stop. It is time to take the credit card away from Congress and cut it up. We dont need more taxes.we need less spending. Lets see, is there any other way I can say this? Stop spending like drunken sailorsno disrespect to drunken sailors. You get the idea.

Dave Matthews, Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party