ConservativeHome's The Republican

What they're saying: Conservatives take on Maxine Waters

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

President Obama may have called for an end to incendiary rhetoric earlier this year, but if Democrats' recent behavior against the Tea Party is anything to go by, it seems his own party may have missed the message.

Still awaiting an apology from Vice President Biden (and a growing list of liberals) here's a look at what a number of conservatives have had to say in response to Rep. Maxine Waters contentious remarks from this past weekend:

Former Senator and 2012 hopeful Rick Santorum:

She’s a caricature of what’s wrong with Congress...She’s one of these real nasty anti-basic traditional and fundamental values of this country (types), so I’m not surprised that she would say to a group of folks who stand up and defend the constitution of this country, who stand up and defend the declaration and our founding principles, that she finds these people folks that should be condemned...This is the left in America...They absolutely despise the founding principles of this country that believe in free people and believe in limited government.

Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, co-founders, Tea Party Patriots:

We’ve had Democrats calling American citizens ‘terrorists’ and ‘hostage takers,’ and now an elected Democratic representative says that we can ‘go straight to hell..The president and all leaders of the Democratic Party, who have called for civility in the past, are neglecting to censure their own. Is civility only required from their opponents? Perhaps it’s time for a new-NEW era of civility. ... The president’s silence on these latest violations of civility has been deafening, but not surprising.

Ryan Rhodes (Iowa Tea Party Co-Founder who confronted Obama at the Iowa State Fair about Vice President Biden's 'terrorist' comment):

I think it's this type of the stuff that President Obama as the leader of his party has to come out and say something about or I encourage Tea Partyers across the country to continue asking him how we come to middle ground, how we have civility when their telling us that they basically want us to die...it's just not acceptable language 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich:

The people who are attacking Tea Parties have noting to offer. They have no solution, and they are creating no jobs, they are presiding over the worse unemployment since the Great Depression, the largest deficits in American history, and therefore the only thing they can do is smear their opponents...I think it's a sad commentary on the American left that it has no new thinking it has no willingness to be inventive.

Washington Post Columnist Charles Krauthammer:

Look, they are very upset because they lost the debate; they weren't even in the debate on the debt ceiling. But I do think that it works for liberals to talk to liberals in that kind of dismissive and sort of angry tone about Tea Party, it's sort of accepted on the Upper West Side. But it doesn't work in the general election. And I think that's why you get less of that out of the White House. Tea Party involves a lot of independents, a lot of disaffected Democrats. And when you insult it or really get vile about it, you are alienating people you are gonna need if you want to win.

The Weekly Standard's Steve Hayes:

I do expect to see the Democrats do quite a bit of this in the campaign because they don't have a positive argument to make on behalf of the policies that the White House and fellow Democrats have made. But if this were effective, we wouldn't have a Republican majority in the House. I mean this is exactly what Democrats did all throughout the summer and throughout the fall of 2010 and Republicans won in record numbers. Simply beating up the Tea Party is not a good electoral strategy for Democrats.

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.

Dissecting the debate: The conservative response to last night's event in Iowa

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

While it didn't exactly exceed expectations, the latest debate from the GOP presidential field certainly proved to be entertaining as candidates quickly sharpened their claws ahead of this weekend's straw poll in Iowa.

With scrappy sparring in high supply last night, here's a look at what a number of conservative's have said about the latest event in the race for the Republican nomination:

Ryan Streeter, ConservativeHome:

The debate showed a primary field that has decided to dispense with being nice to each other. The sparring on the stage was not only entertaining, but at times revealed differences in policy and worldview among candidates...The main show was Romney winning, Pawlenty continuing to struggle, and Perry waiting in the wings.

Tevi Troy, NRO's The Corner:

Overall, the candidates need to keep their eyes on the prize. Obama remains the issue, and after the terrible month he has had, it is more important than ever to make sure that his 2012 opponent is someone who can take tough shots and keep on coming. Last night’s debate put the candidates to the test in that regard.

Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary:

If he was watching, Perry had to be grateful to Pawlenty and the other candidates, such as Santorum and Huntsman who pointed out Bachmann’s shortcomings. He comes in just at the right moment as her summer surges starts to loose its steam. His goal will be to directly challenge Romney and to make it a choice between the two as the only plausible candidates. Though the passion of her supporters may keep Bachmann in the first tier for now, Perry is now in good position to jump in ahead of her.

Erick Erickson, Red State:

Last night in Iowa, the Republicans debated. It was like the Island of Misfit Toys. Mitt Romney won the debate if only because Ames is apparently not big enough for two Minnesotans. The barbs between Bachmann and Pawlenty did them no favors. Ron Paul embarrassed himself without even knowing it. The debate was a spectacle to behold.

Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

There's a serious case to be made that Pawlenty is the strongest general election candidate among those competing in the straw poll Saturday. But whether his generally strong and sometimes impassioned performance is enough to get straw poll voters to focus on that is unclear.

What they're saying: The GOP's 'super committee six' reflect on their recently announced appointments

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

Just days after Standard & Poor downgrade, Republican leaders John Boehner and Mitch McConnell officially confirmed their picks for the highly anticipated bipartisan 'super committee,' charged with slashing $1 trillion from the US deficit.

A highly sought after appointment, from committee chairmen to congressional freshmen here's a look at what the GOP picks had to say about their latest role:

Senator Pat Toomey:

Despite the difficulties ahead, I am committed to tackling this challenge and am hopeful that we can produce a proposal that seriously reduces our nation's deficits and grows our economy. Throughout the debate over the debt ceiling, I stressed that we need a solution that achieves the dual goals of putting our government on a path toward a balance budget, and maximizing economic growth and enabling us to create the jobs we badly need. I remain committed to both of these vital goals.

Senator Rob Portman:

With the U.S. debt now equal to 100% of the GDP, Washington cannot continue to kick the can down the road again. Not only does Washington’s out of control spending have a long-term impact on America’s economic stability, but it has an immediate impact on our ability to generate jobs and opportunity.

Representative Dave Camp:

Last Friday’s downgrade of our debt by S&P is a strong reminder of how important it is for this Committee to lead and focus on restoring confidence in America by further cutting out of control spending and reducing the deficit.  If we are successful in curbing the overspending in Washington that has sparked fear in the financial markets and created uncertainty on Main Street, we will start to see the job creation we desperately need.

Representative Fred Upton:

As someone who worked on the federal budget for President Reagan, I saw firsthand that sound economic policy is the bedrock of job creation and fiscal responsibility...No one believes this is going to be easy, but working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of the Congress, we will work to address our fiscal challenges and get America back to work.

Representative Jeb Hensarling:

The debt crisis is a legitimate threat to our nation’s future, and the American people cannot afford to wait any longer.  Everyone can agree that we must stop spending money we don’t have, and the time to act is now.  This commission will not be able to solve the crisis in a matter of months, but we can work together to tackle these challenges in order to bring back jobs, hope, and opportunity for the America people.

Senator Jon Kyl also joins his colleagues as the sixth Republican on the bipartisan committee.  A statement on his appointment was not yet available.

What they're saying: Reacting to the US credit downgrade, GOP freshmen once again make the case for 'Cut, Cap, Balance'

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

After a dramatic conclusion to Washington's latest budget battle, Americans ended the week with the unfortunate and unnerving news that despite the latest debt deal the US has lost its AAA credit rating.

And with the ever present possibility of further downgrades, lawmakers have been quick to weigh in on the unprecedented move, with many Republican freshmen once again raising their voices on behalf of the 'Cut, Cap, Balance' proposal.

Advocating for substantial spending reform and offering 'we told you so's' as Washington contends with the possibility of further economic decline, here's a look at what a number of GOP newbies had to say in response to Friday's downgrade announcement:

Congressman Mike Pompeo:

Since Obama has been President, we have accumulated an unprecedented $4 trillion in new deficits.  After 3 years, the President has yet to produce a plan to decrease spending or improve our economy.  I've seen enough.  As a result, I voted for a plan passed by the United States House of Representatives that would have trimmed almost $6 trillion in spending—Cut, Cap and Balance. 

Sadly, the Senate and the President mocked this plan.  Worse still, they refused to take action by even considering it in the Senate.  Cut, Cap and Balance is a credible plan that would begin to properly right the ship..The American people get it—cut the spending—I pray the President finally understands.

Congressman Joe Walsh:

Heeding the warnings of the rating agencies, Republicans in the House of Representatives took a different path and passed Cut, Cap and Balance legislation which would have brought structural change to the way Washington borrows and spends money. Regretfully, the Administration responded by calling the legislation an "empty political statement" and the President threatened a veto."

Simply put, if President Obama and Democrats in Congress had embraced Cut, Cap, and Balance and if the President were sincerely focused on the severe financial challenges facing the country instead of his re-election, this action by Standard and Poor's could have been avoided.

Senator Rand Paul:

There is plenty of blame to go around. Both parties have contributed to our $14 trillion debt. But it is hard to say this crisis wasn’t predictable, because it was. House and Senate conservatives clearly predicted this, and also offered the only solution that could have prevented our downgrade with our Cut Cap and Balance plan...We must rescue our finances through a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we must do it soon. We must cut spending immediately. And we must get new leadership, and put in place people who have seen problems coming and offered credible solutions, rather than those who continue to misdiagnose and mismanage our economy.

Congressman Reid Ribble:

Our legislation passed the House of Representatives on a bipartisan basis but was flippantly rejected by both Senator Reid and President Obama as being ‘draconian.’

In Washington, where some seem to act like rhetoric matters more than facts, spin more than substance, and misdirection more than problem solving, I wonder how the Democrat deficit doubters will react to these S&P analysts. I urge Senator Reid to give Cut, Cap and Balancethe full and proper debate that it deserves before our economy veers more dangerously toward crisis. Alarms are sounding for a reason...because our fiscal house is at risk of burning down.

Congressman Chris Gibson:

Given S&P's downgrade of our credit last night, I'm calling on the Senate and President to reconsider their position and pass this legislation. By passing "Cut, Cap, and Balance," and enacting comprehensive tax reform that closes "loopholes" allowing for lower marginal tax rates to grow the economy, we will solve the current fiscal crisis putting us on firm footing to make the the 21st century our best yet.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:

This is a blow to the United States, and it is a grim signal that we cannot continue to delay addressing our crippling debt. One of the reasons I opposed the recent deal to raise the debt ceiling was because it still left us vulnerable to the threat of a downgrade. The President and Congress must end business as usual in Washington and finally confront our debt crisis in a meaningful way with real cuts, serious budget reforms and entitlement reform.

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. 

Why they voted 'No': A look at the nine House Republicans who opposed 'Cut, Cap, Balance'

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As expected, the Cut, Cap, Balance bill passed the House yesterday 234-190. And although strongly supported by GOP leaders (and five blue dog Democrats) across a range of political offices, nine House Republicans (including two presidential hopefuls) yesterday voiced their opposition to key provisions within the legislation, ultimately voting against the measure during last night's roll call.

With the proposal facing a challenge from the 'Gang of Six' plan, as well as President Obama's veto promise, here's a look at what a number of representatives who voted 'No' had to say about their decision:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

While I embrace the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, the motion does not go far enough in fundamentally restructuring the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The principles found in this bill are a step in the right direction toward the fundamental restructuring we need in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars.

Along with cutting spending, putting in place enforceable spending caps that put us on a path to balance and passing a balanced budget amendment, we must also repeal and defund ObamaCare.

Congressman Ron Paul:

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget.  It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House...while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560.  It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms. 

Congressman Paul Broun

I gave my word to my constituents in Georgia and to the rest of the American people that I would not vote for any bill that increases the debt limit.  Although the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is a step in the right direction, it still raises the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, and we simply cannot afford it.

Also missing from the Cut, Cap, and Balance bill is the urgency to pay down the debt by immediately reducing the outrageous spending levels to which Washington has become so accustomed.  Unfortunately, the cuts outlined in Cut, Cap, and Balance take effect over a period of ten years.  We no longer have ten years to spare – it’s too little, too late.

Congressman Quico Canseco:

While I support the main principles of this legislation, cutting government spending, capping government spending and balancing the federal budget, I did not support this bill because it was tied to an increase in our debt.

We are sitting on the edge of an fiscal abyss not because we can't spend enough money. We are here because we have continued spending money we don't have. Now is the time to get serious about our spending driven debt crisis. I believe we must rise to this challenge to give our children and grandchildren a bright future and not continue politics as usual here in Washington.

Congressman Scott DesJarlais:

I could not support the Cut, Cap and Balance Act in its entirety and therefore voted against it.

While I do agree that we need to cut current spending, cap future spending at under 20% of our nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) and send a Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment to the states for ratification, I simply cannot vote in favor of giving this president another 2.4 trillion dollars to continue his reckless government spending spree for the next year and a half.

Congressman Morgan Griffith:

I support the general goal of cut, cap, and balance, and I appreciate House leadership bringing this concept to the floor for a vote. However, to keep my commitments made to my constituents, I cannot support raising the debt ceiling without significant cuts and a substantial change to the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars. The Balanced Budget Amendment, if passed by the House and Senate and then by the States, would substantially change the way Washington spends money, but I have repeatedly stated that year one cuts must be more than $100-200 billion.

Congressman Connie Mack:

I believe voting for this increase, at this time, is a step in the wrong direction and puts our party on record as supporting a raise in the debt ceiling without any plan from President Obama.

Representatives Walter Jones and Dana Rohrabacher also voted against the bill.

What they're saying: Despite a name dispute and President Obama's veto promise, GOP freshmen step up their support for 'Cut, Cap, Balance"

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

With just two weeks to go before the debt ceiling deadline, House members are expected to vote on the GOP's 'Cut, Cap, Balance' plan around 7:00pm EST this evening.

Amid a torrent of comments and criticisms, President Obama's obstinate veto promise, and even a disagreement over the proposal's name, here's a look at what GOP freshmen have had to say about the need for a 'Cut, Cap, Balance' approach to tackle the nation's debt crisis and the Administration's blatant refusal to act responsibly:

Congresswoman Kristi Kristi Noem: 

@RepKristiNoem: Growing up on a farm & ranch, I've dug plenty of holes. Washington needs to stop digging and fix our debt crisis. #CutCapBalance

Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler:

It’s hard to believe that this President refuses all responsible efforts to rein in our out-of-control debt...It’s clear he is committed to taxing and spending and has no intention of cutting up the credit cards..This threat from President Obama makes it abundantly clear that he and he, alone, must be held accountable if this country defaults...This careless response to a logical solution to our debt problem provides ample proof that the President puts the interests of big government above the good of our country. It is time to end irrational spending. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

Congressman Mike Fitzpatrick:

The Cut, Cap, and Balance Act sets us on a path to fiscal solvency by making real spending cuts now placing statutory limits on spending and sending a balanced budget to the states, a measure that so many of us have consistently supported. These decisions, Mr. Chairman, will not be easy. No change ever is. As these debates have gone on for the past several months, I have been reminded of Thomas Payne when he wrote, that “if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace”. We need to decide what our legacy to our children and their children will be; a mountain of debt or sound government that lives within its means.

Congressman Allen West:

The voices of the American people who want sound fiscal, taxation, and regulatory policy need to be heard this week. I am issuing a “call to action” – let the White House, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid hear how you feel. Are there REALLY 80% of Americans who want higher taxes? I must confess, when I see anyone with an Obama 2012 bumper sticker, I recognize them as a threat to the gene pool.

Congressman Allen Nunnelee:

I urge the President to reconsider his veto threat.  Cut, Cap and Balance is the responsible plan to address our nation’s debt crisis.  We have the power to act now, become responsible citizens and stop sending the bill to our children and grandchildren. Only then can we ensure that future generations grow up with the same promise and prosperity we enjoy

Congressman Frank Guinta:

 The President's veto warning further represents a failure of his ability to lead in these debt ceiling discussions. The American people are given two stark, drastically different choices. We can continue down the same failed tax and spend path that both parties have lead us down for years or we can fundamentally change track. We can turn our country toward the direction that Granite Staters have asked me to fight for – a course that reins in our debt and deficit, creates an environment that produces middle class jobs and finally forces the federal government to balance its budget like families across America do every day

Ahead of today's Twitter @townhall, a look at some of the 140 character queries from congressional Republicans

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As the White House prepares for its first Twitter based Town Hall meeting today, thousands of #AskObama tweets have poured across the social media site.  And while most of the questions won't make it to this afternoon's 'prime time' event, GOP Congress members have tactfully used the opportunity to push for answers on a number of pressing policy concerns.

From the ATF to unemployment, here's a look at some of the 140 character queries for President Obama from congressional Republicans:

Congressman Tom Price:

@RepTomPrice Are you going to release an updated, score-able budget, rather than just a political speech? #AskObama

Congressman Tom Graves:

@RepTomGraves #AskObama with unemployment at 9.1%, do you have a plan #4jobs?

Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart:

@MarioDB #AskObama: Mr. President, Your Chosen Head Of The DNC Says Democrats Own The Economy. Do You Agree? Is This The Obama Economy?

Republican Study Committee:

@RepublicanStudy #AskObama what he has against a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. #CutCapBalance

House Ways and Means Committee:

@WaysandMeansGOP #AskObama Why are you holding up the 3 bipartisan trade agreements that would create 250K US Jobs? 1.usa.gov/lCfVwZ

House Natural Resources Committee:

@NatResources Why is your Admin. placing the majority of American #offshore #energy resources off limits? #askobama j.mp/r67QES

House Oversight Chair Darrell Issa:

@DarrellIssa #AskObama: who is right on #fastandfurious: Eric Holder or #ATFDir.Melson, whom we just interviewed? INFO:http://1.usa.gov/pvqXJQ #2nd

Congressman Tim Huelskamp:

@CongHuelskamp #AskObama: Will you back #GOP leg that hinders job-killing regulation + red tape? jobs.GOP.Gov #4jobs

Congressman Tom Rooney:

@TomRooney 798 days, $3.2 trillion in new debt since Senate Democrats passed a budget. What's your plan #4Jobs? #AskObama

Congressman Bob Gibbs:

@RepBobGibbs #AskObama: Will you tell the Senate 2 vote on #HR872, leg that will reduce uncertainty #smallbiz owners say prevent them from hiring? #4jobs

Congressman David Rivera:

@RepRivera Will Free Trade Agreements w/ Colombia, Panama & S Korea come before Cong, w/out additional conditions, before Aug recess? #AskObama #4jobs

Congressman Dennis Ross:

@RepDennisRoss Which is a better revenue generator? Economic growth or tax increases? Unlike the classroom lecture, u can't have both.#AskObama

Senator Orrin Hatch:

@OrrinHatch Gas prices are high. We’re losing 90m barrels of oil due to your moratorium, plus jobs. Why not open more land in Utah? #AskObama

Congresswoman Renee Ellmers:

@RepReneeEllmers What are you doing to remove regulation, taxation and uncertainty which small biz owners say prevent them from hiring? #askobama #4jobs

What they're saying: GOP freshmen weigh in on their successful push to stay in session

Natalie Gonnella
Follow Natalie on Twitter

As Americans gear up to celebrate the country's cherished past next week, lawmakers will be working to save it's future. After a strong push from Republican freshmen, and despite complaints from Democrats like Tom Harkin, Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to cancel the Senate's July 4th recess to focus on debt negotiations.

With current talks stalled in gridlock as the August 2nd deadline quickly nears, here's a look at what freshmen Senators had to say about the decision to stay in session:

Senator Rand Paul:

[This week], Sen. Johnson took a bold step in calling to attention the inaction of our Senate Democrat leadership and President Obama. I stand by him and his mission to keep the Senate here in Washington to tackle the most critical issue facing our national security...It has been nearly 800 days since the U.S. Senate passed a budget, the 112th Congress has been in session for six months and there has been no improvement on the issue of balancing our budget and addressing our debt.

Senator Kelly Ayotte:

It's critical that the President and Congress use next week to take action to address our fiscal challenges...We must work together to pass significant spending reductions and budget reforms.  As much as I'd prefer to be back in New Hampshire, now is not the time for a break in the negotiations.

Senator Ron Johnson:

I’m happy to hear that Senator Reid and President Obama agree with the point that Senator Sessions and I made earlier in the week – that it’s important for the Senate to stay in session over the Fourth of July recess to address our nation’s looming fiscal crisis. It’s also important that we don’t waste this time – that we stay and work to seriously address the root cause of this crisis – Washington’s excess of spending.

Senator Pat Toomey:

With our country's debt spiraling out of control, Congress should be focused on getting our fiscal house in order rather than taking a week off. We can no longer push off the necessary debate for another day...Our growing debt problem is hampering our economic recovery right now, and Congress does not have the luxury of going on recess. I urge the Senate leadership to begin a serious discussion that includes substantive spending cuts, structural spending reforms, and a path towards a balanced budget.