ConservativeHome's The Republican

Are Americans soft? Not in the way Obama says, but if we’re honest with ourselves, we could stand to toughen up a bit

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

Obama’s claim that Americans have grown soft has received a lot of justified criticism.

Having blamed his troubles on everything from ATMs to Japanese tsunamis to the Arab Spring to FoxNews, he’s finally resorted to going after you and me. As Byron York has written, he's frustrated that Americans aren't embracing his agenda, which makes them "soft." Apparently Obama wasn't satisfied with the backlash he got by telling black Americans they are complainers, so he decided to dish on everyone.

He's ended up looking a bit silly in all of this. But we shouldn’t let our criticism of Obama prevent us – even in these economically troubling times – from reflecting on the question of whether we have the moral muscle we need to confront our nation’s biggest challenges.

Here are four areas in our public life that suggest we could toughen up:

Welfare for me, but not for thee. Voters who want to see federal spending slashed are generally reluctant to embrace entitlement reform. Social Security and Medicare – not foreign aid, not green tech programs, not anything else – are what threaten to bankrupt us, and yet there’s little citizen activism aimed at reforming them. They are, after all, big social welfare programs that benefit us all. If we’re tough enough, we’ll embrace reform

Tax cuts for me, spending cuts for thee. Related to the first point, wanting lower taxes without wanting equal shares of cuts is a sign of softness. Republican candidates in 2012 are big on tax cuts and tax reform, but much vaguer about how they would trim spending necessary to go along with those cuts. That’s because that takes them into the domain of cutting things ordinary middle class voters like. Rather than lead, they accept our collective timidity at face value and run away from the issue. Read Tyler Cowen’s NYT column yesterday for more on this topic. If we want to get the government under control, lowering taxes is a key part of it, but so is cutting spending at levels that are serious. Are we tough enough for that?

Tax fairness for me, but not for thee. Obama talks about the rich paying their fair share because class warfare sells. But the truth, of course, is different than what he says: the percentage of federal taxes already paid by the richest Americans makes us one of the most progressive tax systems around – and that’s according to the OECD, not some right-wing group. In a republic like ours, the rich should pay more than everyone else, but everyone else should also pay something, and right now nearly half of us don't pay any income taxes. We all have a stake in the republic. But you see very little activism for this kind of fairness because it ultimately means a net increase in the income taxes that lower middle class families pay. Who’s willing to take a tough stand on this kind of fairness and justice? Republicans talk about "comprehensive tax reform" but avoid saying too clearly what it means for the half of America that gets off each April tax-free.

Productivity for thee, not for me. Before the recession, the percentage of working age adults who were actually working was dropping – so much so that we fell below the European average in 2007. Young adults aren’t forming families like they used to, and now the recession has exacerbated these troubling trends in our labor force and households. The ideals of independence, self-sufficiency, and enterprise have been under attack by liberal elites for some time, and now they seem to be eroding in a big enough swath of the populace as a whole that we should be deeply worried about the future workforce's ability to keep America headed in the right direction. But who really talks about these trends? It would seem too harsh. It's much easier to find a part of the population without much of a voice - such as poor people or immigrants - and accuse them of not embodying American virtues, than to look in the mirror.

Obama is wrong that people who don’t support his Leviathan strategy for America are “soft.” But we shouldn’t let our defense of ourselves prohibit us from asking the tough question: are we strong enough to deal head-on with the difficult times we're living in?

Boob bait for the bubbas: Republicans have fallen for the bait year after year; will they really have the moral fortitude to resist the temptation after 2012?

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

“Boob bait for the bubbas,” as Andrew Biggs reminds us today at The American, was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s description of how to get Republicans to embrace increased government spending: call it a tax break.

The bubbas are the Republicans “who will support anything that calls itself a tax cut even if it walks, talks, and quacks like government spending.” The “boob bait” is, well, you get the picture.

Republicans have had boob bait set in front of them many times since Moynihan talked about it – and they’ve fallen for it almost every time.

They have not only fallen for it. They’ve found themselves bound to it by Americans for Tax Reform's taxpayer protection pledge that they've signed. ATR’s pledge not to raise taxes allows – encourages, actually – using breaks in the tax code as a way to keep rates from going up.

So what’s the net effect of all this tax code manipulation? Biggs reports:

Tax expenditures have grown by about 24 percent relative to the size of the economy since 1974, from 5.8 percent of GDP to 7.2 percent. So not only do tax expenditures add to overall government spending, they’re adding more today than they did 37 years ago.

So how much spending is this? $1.08 trillion. Biggs writes:

That $1.08 trillion in tax expenditures is 24 percent of all federal spending, and is all off the books, allowing a much bigger government than official statistics tell—and much bigger than people might be willing to tolerate if they knew

These expenditures are the 900 lb. gorilla sitting over there in the corner every time you hear Republicans say they are for “comprehensive tax reform” - something just about all leading Republicans say we should pursue if we're successful in beating Obama next year.

Getting a dollar for dollar offset in tax rate decreases for every eliminated tax break will be next to impossible given how many thousands of provisions we’ve allowed into the tax code. Some group, interest, or industry will see a net increase in their tax liability, and Republicans will once again be tempted to take the boob bait.

2012 Republican presidential hopefuls may trip over tax reform because of an outdated understanding of what constitutes a tax increase

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

In a comment a week ago Sunday that got surprisingly little attention, Mitch Daniels said on Meet the Press:

[It] seems to me that someone who would be our next president should take one pledge, and one only, and that's the one that involves the Bible and the west front of the Capitol Building.  And at this point, my view is that we should address our economic issues, and for that matter our debt issues, without at least raising tax rates.

He was responding to a question from Savannah Guthrie about the last Republican presidential debate in which all candidates said they would reject a deal that had $10 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax revenue.

He went on to note that, first, we should raise more revenue with tax reform that lowers rates and eliminates loopholes, and second, we should be wary of Washington’s poor record of committing to spending cuts they never ultimately make. And he concluded by saying we “ought not rule out anything” in pursuit of tackling our fiscal crisis.

After the last debate, Kevin Williamson wrote at National Review:

If Congress wanted to get rid of tax exemptions and exclusions amounting to $100 billion in new taxes in exchange for $1 trillion in cuts, and Republicans turned the deal down, I would personally drive down to Washington and pelt them with rotten vegetables, and possibly with rocks. $100 billion in new taxes plus $1 trillion in cuts balances the budget in 2012.

Commenting on Williamson’s response, Ross Douthat wrote: "I’m not sure if enough conservatives understand that this is going to be the problem facing the eventual Republican nominee in 2012." He points out that Obama and his team will do whatever they can to portray the Republican nominee as more willing to slash spending that to close one loophole for the rich.

Daniels’ remarks are consistent with these sentiments. He was clearly taking a not-so-veiled swipe at Republicans’ adherence to the Taxpayer Protection Pledge above all other policy orthodoxy when he said the next President should only take the pledge required by the Constitution. The taxpayer protection pledge defines not just tax rate increases as a tax increase, but also any removal of an exemption from the tax code that is not offset by a tax cut elsewhere. Under this definition, removing tax breaks clearly designed to benefit an interest group (ethanol providers being a good example) without cutting their taxes some other way is a tax increase.

If Republicans cannot redefine this part of the pledge, pushing tax reform is going to be extremely difficult. There have been more than 14,000 amendments to the U.S. tax code since the pledge was created over 20 years ago, and it will likely be impossible to guarantee that every single special interest loophole will be perfectly offset by the reduction in tax rates. Some group will cry foul, and all pledge signers will be stuck.

This is important to note now, since:

• With Obama rolling out a jobs plan that will surely involve more stimulus and no tax reform aimed at spurring growth and investment, Republicans will surely push tax reform as an alternative to whatever Obama does.

• With the super committee ramping up its work this fall, tax reform will receive more attention again, even if the committee does nothing with it.

• Republican presidential candidates will, as a result of these events, have to say where they stand on tax reform.

A candidate who understands that the GOP is now the Party of Change will echo what Daniels said. Boldness on entitlement reform and this aspect of tax reform is a pretty good litmus test for determining who is a true reformer and who isn't.

Party of Change, and the Party of Stasis: Three things that should be separating Republicans from Democrats going into 2012

Ryan Streeter
Follow Ryan on Twitter

In yesterday’s Washington Examiner, Michael Barone wrote:

[Obama] blithely ignored the recommendations of his own commission headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. He has said since he would take a look at raising the Medicare eligibility age -- it's now lower than the Social Security age.

But anyone can take a look at a proposal. We pay presidents a good salary to lead, not just to look.

So far the Republican presidential candidates have not done much leading on entitlements either. They have tended to take a gingerly approach to Paul Ryan's Medicare proposal and Newt Gingrich even trashed it.

The conventional wisdom is that this is simple political prudence. Don't give the other side a juicy target.

But we are faced not only with a huge short-term budget problem but with the prospect of a Western European future of an enlarged government, ever higher taxes and lower growth. Is that really what American voters want?

President Obama has shown zero interest in reforming what everyone knows is the greatest threat to America’s fiscal future: entitlements’ growing burden on our economy. He has had numerous opportunities to confront this growing crisis and has hid under the covers each time.

Congressional Democrats, who grow more left-wing with each passing month it seems, show no signs of doing anything differently than Obama on this issue.

The Democrats have today become the Part of Stasis – that is, the party that keeps things as they are. Terms like “progressive” mean nothing anymore for a party bent on defending the status quo at all costs.

On entitlements (keep them as they are), tax policy (raise taxes on the rich), and job-creation (spend federal dollars to “stimulate” the economy), they have no interest in doing anything that resembles a solution to today's problems. 

As Barone points out, the current GOP presidential candidates are not doing much better on this front when it comes to entitlements. Faced with town hall questions on Medicare and protestors holding signs such as “Hands off Medicare and Social Security,” they walk delicately around these issues. The web sites of the two frontrunners, Romney and Perry, offer only vague generalities on entitlement reform. Everyone knows why: as Barone points out, it’s a matter of “political prudence.”

But Republicans have become the Party of Change, whether some of them like it or not, especially on entitlement reform. After the Paul Ryan budget passed the House in April, the Republicans became the party of policy activism on entitlement and tax reform. Republican presidential candidates should take advantage of this new reality.

Three years after Barack Obama ran on the theme of change, he’s standing guard over failed policies of the previous century. Republicans are advocating 21^st century ideas. Candidates should make that point over and again, especially in three main ways:

Ask Americans to help save the future. First, use the attention of the national media to explain to the American people that our current path today means higher taxes, even fewer jobs, and desperation tomorrow. It’s a given, not open to interpretation. And then ask everyone under 55 to be the generation of reform, the next "greatest generation," the generation that saves America. Ask citizens to embrace the kind of change that will save our economy for ourselves when we’re older, and our children when they reach our age. Call on Americans to live with a new tax code that gives out fewer favors in exchange for rates everyone can live with. Barack Obama never asked anything of people other than to vote for him when he talked about "change" in 2008. Republicans should call on Americans to help be part of the change, to embrace reform that affects their lives, to participate in rescuing the future.

Demand fairness in our entitlement programs. Right now, the Democrats discriminate against the young. They also favor welfare for the wealthy. Let’s change that. Republicans are offering ideas that require the wealthy to bear more of their retirement security and all of us to play a more active role in choosing future healthcare options as a way to reduce the costs that young workers have to bear. Explain these points over and over. Republicans favor fairness as a way to save the future, while Democrats discriminate in ways that will wreck the future.

Demand fairness in the tax code. End loopholes and lower rates. Those should be the only two battle cries. If, through ending a series of loopholes and exemptions, some portion of the affluent population sees a slight net increase in what they pay overall, so be it. It’s time to worry less about the pledge most congressional Republicans have signed not to raise taxes and more about a tax system that is clear, predictable, and favorable to growth.

Right now, Republican candidates do not want to rock the boat - especially on entitlement reform, but also on tax reform to some degree (i.e., what it will really mean to close loopholes, etc.). Everyone is sure that rocking it will lead to electoral disaster. But Obama and the Democrats will use Mediscare tactics anyway. That ship has sailed and will keep sailing. Republicans should beat them to the punch, get out in front of the issue, and talk straight about America's future with voters - who will be more likely to reward candidates than one might think.

Obama scores a hat trick: CBO projects the third straight $1 trillion deficit under the current administration

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As if a credit downgrade and an unemployment rate of 9% weren't enough, the dismal economic news just keeps building this month for American voters.

According to today's budget update from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the federal government is on target to run another $1.3 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2011, easily erasing the $917 billion in savings secured in the recently signed Budget Control Act.

According to the Washington Times:

The deficit marks the third-largest shortfall in history, and the third straight $1 trillion deficit under President Obama, though next year’s deficit is projected to dip just under that mark, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Still, over the next decade, the federal government will rack up nearly $6 trillion in new deficits, the CBO said — far outstripping the $1.5 trillion in future savings the new deficit super committee is charged with recommending to Congress.

And the nonpartisan agency now projects that unemployment will remain higher than average for years, including a rate of 8.5 percent in the final quarter of 2012, just as Mr. Obama and Congress go back to face voters.

With a $1 trillion deficit hat trick and with 14 million Americans currently out of work, it will be quite interesting to hear what President Obama has to say in September when he finally offers his 'highly touted' jobs plan to the American public.

Forget speeches, we need solutions

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

President Obama maybe touting his upcoming jobs speech while enjoying his $1.1 million midwest bus tour, but with the country's economic outlook showing little signs of improvement, like voters across the country, Republican leaders remain more than a little annoyed.

As unemployment creeps back up to 9% this month, here's a look at what House Speaker John Boehner had to say about the President's latest announcement:

In the third year of his term, Americans are still asking President Obama, ‘Where are the Jobs?’ That’s why Republicans, in contrast to the Democrats who run the White House and Senate, have made creating a better environment for job creation our number one focus.  From our Path to Prosperity budget to our Plan for America’s Job Creators – which was built on our Pledge to America – House Republicans have laid out a clear, consistent jobs agenda, and acted on it.  The House has passed legislation to remove barriers to private-sector job creation, ease job-destroying regulations, expand American energy production, and significantly reduce our unsustainable debt burden. The House has led, but unfortunately we cannot act alone. Too many House-passed jobs bills remain stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and we continue to urge our colleagues in the Senate to act.

To get our economy moving, what the American people need from the President is leadership and serious solutions that reflect a true change in his approach to our economy and the role of government. We welcome him to our ongoing efforts to help create jobs, and look forward to seeing a detailed plan next month. It is my hope the President will offer specific proposals that depart from his previous policies and allow us to find common ground and work together to put Americans back to work.  In the meantime, Republicans will continue to advance solutions that will reduce economic uncertainty and create a better environment for private-sector job creation.

What they're saying: Conservatives counter Warren Buffett's latest call for tax hikes

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Yesterday in the New York Times investor Warren Buffett weighed in on the escalating debate over the US tax system, blatantly backing President Obama's latest plans for tax increases on higher earning Americans.

But while the Nebraska-born billionaire seemingly pleaded for Congress to raise his current rate, a growing number of conservatives have quickly countered his calls, citing a number of key points coincidently left out of Buffet's latest op-ed offering.

From political bloggers to presidential hopefuls, here's a look at the conservative response to Warren Buffett's column-based claims:

Pat Buchanan, Morning Joe:

I’m a little fed up with these people who come on, you know, their big op-eds, all these admonitions. Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion. You know, you had a plan up there, I talked to Howie Carr at Boston where the super-rich could contribute an extra amount. It was something like one-tenth of one percent did it. You get all this noise from these big rich folks. Let them send checks and set an example instead of writing op-eds.

Editorial, International Business Daily

If Buffett were as smart about tax policy as he is about investing, he'd be calling for tax reform that cuts rates and eliminates loopholes, instead of playing up the class warfare rhetoric. Until then, we'd all be well advised to ignore Buffett's tax rants.

Samuel Gregg, NRO's The Corner:

As a businessman, Warren Buffett is a great American success story. As a contributor to public debate about America’s economic future, however, he would be better off channeling a little less Barack Obama and reading a little more Adam Smith: the same Smith who pointed out that sometimes the worst enemies of free markets and wealth-creation overall are businessmen. 

Mike Brownfield, Heritage.org

Apart from misstating his tax burden, Buffett fails to call for significant reforms in Social Security and Medicare that could reduce federal spending, and he downplays the role of taxation plays in investment decisions…Then there’s the fact that a shortage of tax revenue isn’t even the root of Washington’s problem—too much spending is. While revenue will surpass its historical average of 18.0 percent of GDP by 2021, spending will shoot past its historical average of 20.3 percent, reaching 26.4 percent in the same year....A billionaire calling for more taxes might make great political theater, but there’s more to the story than Buffett—and Obama—would have you believe.

Joseph Lawler, American Spectator:

[I]t seems that Buffett doesn't fully understand why it is that he pays relatively little in income taxes. As David Indiviglio explains, there is more to the story of taxes on investment income than Buffett appreciates. Also, as others have pointed out a number of times in response to Buffett's pleas to increase his taxes, anyone can simply write a check to the Treasury if they want. 

Senator John Cornyn, Twitter:

For tax raising advocates like Warren Buffett, I am sure Treasury would take a voluntary payment for deficit reduction

Governor Rick Perry, Dallas Morning News interview:

I just think new taxes are not the answer right now...Taking money away from Warren Buffett is not going to affect anything...[it would be] the small businesses that's getting devastated...Warren Buffett, I would suggest to you, is a nice man. And God bless him, he's lived in American and had a free-market system to make a lot of money, but I disagree with his idea to raise taxes...We need to be cutting spending.

Jeffrey Miron, CNN:

Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big. Most importantly, singling out the super-rich distracts from the real problem: the myriad policies that make no sense in the first place because they inhibit economic growth and that simultaneously redistribute from low-income households to the middle and upper classes.

Unsurprising fact of the day: Small business optimism continues to tank

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With economic confidence sinking, unemployment soaring, and the country's fiscal future in flux, Gallup's latest poll results detailing the expectations of small business owners comes as no surprise.

According to the latest analysis:

Small-business owners turned less optimistic about future revenues and new hiring even prior to the events of recent weeks and the plunge in economic confidence. The percentage of owners anticipating that their revenues would increase over the next 12 months fell to 42% in July, down from 49% in April and 54% in January. At the same time, 18% expect their revenues to decrease. Small-business-owner revenue expectations are no better now than they were in October 2010.

And when it comes to future hiring expectations:

The percentage of small-business owners expecting the overall number of jobs at their company to increase over the next 12 months also fell in July, to 16% from 19% in April and 23% in January. Simultaneously, 12% of owners expect a decrease in the number of jobs at their companies over the next 12 months. Small-business hiring and firing intentions are now the lowest since this time a year ago.

As Obama claims to be turning his attention to job creation (something the GOP has regularly pursued in both the House and Senate throughout the current congressional term) the full results from Gallup's latest small business survey are available to view here.

It's Cost of Government Day 2011! Congrats, you've official earned enough gross income this year to pay your share of government spending

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

It's been a rough week for the US economy, and what better way to cap it off than recognizing that the average American would have to work 224 days this year to meet the full cost of government spending and regulation for the current fiscal year - Happy Cost of Government Day!

Each year, the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability calculate 'Cost of Government Day' - aka the official day on which the average taxpayer has earned enough gross income to pay off his/her share of the fiscal burdens imposed by federal, state and local governments. 

In an unprecedented (yet unsurprising) leap, since President Obama took office, Americans now must toil 27 days longer than they did in 2008 to cover the government's soaring spending bill (nearly 62% of national income).

Overall, according to the report summary from the AfTRF:

• Americans have lost 29 days of the calendar year thanks to Obama’s overspending and regulatory zeal. 2011 marks the third straight year COGD has fallen in August. Prior to the Obama Administration, COGD had never fallen later than July 21.
•  The effects of the bailouts and failed “stimulus” plan are still being felt by Americans, who must work a full 103 days to pay for the costs of federal spending.
• Americans spend 44 days working to pay off state and local government spending.
• Americans are forced to labor 77 days to pay for total federal regulations, a workload that will increase exponentially with the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known more popularly as Obamacare.
• The report also measures varying government burdens in each state to calculate their respective state Cost of Government Day. As in past years, taxpayers in Connecticut must work the latest to celebrate their COGD, laboring all the way until September 10 to pay off the full costs of government. Taxpayers in Mississippi worked the shortest amount of time to pay off their burden off government, laboring until July 19.

For more facts on CoD, the summary and full report from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and the Center for Fiscal Accountability are available to view here and here. 

What they're saying: Republicans weigh in on why they voted against the debt deal

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

The Budget Control Act may have cleared Congress, but despite bipartisan support (although somewhat grudgingly) for the legislation's passage, in total 85 Republicans voted against the bill (19 Senators and 66 Representatives). 

Unimpressed with the proposal's key provisions, here's a look at what a number of congressional Republicans had to say about why they voted 'no':

Senator Jim DeMint:

This debt deal doesn't solve anything, it puts America at risk. At the end of his four-year term, Obama will be responsible for nearly $6 trillion in new debt. More than any other president. Washington's debt deal doesn't change our course, it taps the brakes as we speed toward a fiscal cliff.

Senator David Vitter:

We can -- we must -- do better. #tcot #latcot #debtceiling #deficit

Senator Dan Coats: 

I opposed the final vote because it falls significantly short of what is needed to address the severity of this fiscal crisis.  For months I have been saying a credible must include at least $4 trillion over a decade and a commitment to restructure entitlements and our tax code. This bill only cuts as little as $2.1 trillion over 10 years and most of these reductions don't occur til years down the road.

Congresswoman Martha Roby:

I am pleased that a default has been avoided as a result of the vote tonight. However, I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy.

Congressman Tim Scott:

[T]his compromise did not take enough steps towards ensuring a stable economic future in order to earn my vote. The short-term spending reductions in the bill were insufficient, I believe the Balanced Budget Amendment should be mandated, and I have concerns with lingering questions regarding defense cuts. 

Despite my decision on this particular vote, I am pleased with the direction we are moving the debate, and want to thank the American people for supporting the principles of Cut, Cap, and Balance. I will continue the fight to reign in spending, reform our tax code, and get the government out of the way of our job creators.

Congressman Tim Huelskamp:

Despite having pledged to the American people an open and transparent process and despite having months to fix this problem, we were asked to vote in the 11th hour for a bill that the public had less than 16 hours to read and understand. The culture of fiscal irresponsibility may not have been created by this Congress, but we were sent here to put an end to it; I'm afraid this bill does not rise to that occasion.

Senator Marco Rubio:

I cannot support this plan because it fails to actually solve our debt problem, fails to diminish the risk of a credit rating downgrade and is not a long-term solution to avert a debt crisis.

Congressman Connie Mack:

The Congress voted again to continue funding the President’s reckless spending and financial irresponsibility. The President and Congressional Democrats have played games, used scare tactics, and offered ‘schemes’ not solutions to Washington’s spending problem. While I did not support the plan put forth today, the House has put forth three plans and the President has failed to put any plan on the table. America needs a permanent fix to Washington’s spending problem and today the co-sponsorship of the Mack Penny Plan has reached a new high of fifty-six Members of Congress, and I expect many others to join the effort during the August recess.

Senator Jeff Sessions:

[M]y great reservation that compels me to oppose this bill is that we are undermining the one thing most vital to ending the debt crisis looming over us: accountability. 

The new normal in Washington has become panic-driven 11th hour votes in which Members are told to fall into line before pandemonium ensues. This is no way to run the Congress or to run the government.

I fear we are relinquishing our responsibility as Senators.

Senator Chuck Grassley:

I voted against the plan because it delays meaningful spending reductions, fails to address entitlement spending in a way that will save the programs for future generations of retirees, and leaves open the possibility of tax increases.

In fact, the White House said yesterday it will seek to increase taxes in the second part of the deal.  Tax increases are the wrong answer for a struggling economy, and recent history proves that higher taxes don’t go to the bottom line.  Instead, they’re a license for Washington to spend even more.  Since World War II, for every dollar in new taxes, the government has spent $1.17.

Senator Pat Toomey:

Unfortunately, the debt ceiling deal...does nothing to deal with the path of our government's unsustainable deficit spending. For fiscal year 2012, this legislation will only cut two-tenths of 1 percent of total spending. Not only will our debt grow each year under this plan, it will continue to grow even as a percentage of our economy. Finally, I am concerned that the long-term cuts over the next decade will not materialize. All Congress has to do to override this bill's spending restraints in the future is pass another law that overrides them. If Congress is truly serious about cutting spending, it would mandate serious spending cuts in next year's budget - the only year in which cuts are actually guaranteed.

Senator Dean Heller:

I respect the effort by all involved to reach a compromise, but this agreement simply does not make the long-term, structural changes necessary to rebuild our economy. Congress has again shied away from making the tough decisions necessary to seriously address our nation’s need for fiscal health and economic growth. Twice I have voted in favor of forward-looking plans that would prevent tax increases, protect Social Security and Medicare and require Congress to send a Balance Budget Amendment to the States.