by Tony Perkins' Washington Update, Family Research Council: If there are three words that every conservative should dread, it's "short-term deal." In the last continuing resolution (CR), those 13 little letters cost Americans some big-time reforms. Thanks to tricky accounting gimmicks, Republicans got buffaloed out of billions in spending cuts when the future "savings" didn't amount to nearly as much as members thought. After taking a lot of heat for that deal, most of us assumed that Republicans had wised up. Instead, the Senate seems intent on reliving the bad memories of the CR debate during the debt ceiling talks. Yesterday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), who is part of the bipartisan working group, says his party wants a minimum of $2.4 trillion in cuts to offset the $2.4 trillion raise on borrowing. While this dollar-for-dollar idea makes for a great sound bite, it doesn't make for a great financial remedy if it's spread out over the next ten to 20 years. "...[T]here has to be at least as many dollars in cuts as there are in an increase in the debt ceiling," Sen. Kyl told reporters. But if Democrats won't bite on a deal, Republicans might try for a short-term fix. "If we can't get about two and a half trillion in savings, then I don't think there'd be much appetite on our side to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion... A debt ceiling increase is only over roughly an 18-month period of time," he said. The savings "could play out [over] more than a decade." Voters have heard that one before--and it should be just as unpopular now as it was then.
First of all, this Congress doesn't have the power to bind future members on spending. All Congress would be doing is kicking the reforms farther down the road while our economy spirals even more out of control. If leaders want to sprinkle the spending cuts over the next decade, then they should have to spread out the borrowing too. Why not pass a 10-year plan to raise the debt ceiling and force our borrowing limit to trickle out as slowly as the savings? I understand that both parties want to ease the pain of these spending cuts, but there's no telling what the economic landscape will look like in 2021. The cost of a dollar borrowed today is worth more than a dollar in cuts 10 years from now. To be real, any reductions have to be done at the same time as the borrowing--otherwise, it's disingenuous. Both parties contributed to this mess, and now is the time--not only to resolve it--but to ensure it doesn't happen again.
One way to do that is by getting serious about a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA). There have been rumblings that some Republicans are pushing for a weak amendment that gives future Congresses the ability to raise taxes to pay for their spending habits. Others are whispering that the GOP might sacrifice the strong amendment language in the House for an early vote that isn't tied directly to the debt ceiling vote. Either would be unacceptable. Utah Sens. Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch have proposed S.J. Res. 10, which would cap future spending at 18% of the GDP, while requiring a supermajority in both chambers to run an annual deficit for a specific purpose, raise the debt ceiling, and increase taxes. So far, it has the support of all 47 Republicans. At least they recognize that America doesn't need short-lived changes--it needs long-term solutions.
Court in the Act? It's not the end of the road for ObamaCare, but it could be close. Yesterday, the health care law made one last stop in Atlanta before it reaches its final destination in the U.S. Supreme Court. Represented by former Solicitor General Paul Clement (and Defense of Marriage Act hero), 26 states lined up against the President's signature law in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's the biggest suit against ObamaCare yet, and if the lower court ruling is any indication, it may be the most powerful. At the heart of Florida v. HHS is the individual mandate, a requirement that almost all Americans buy health insurance by 2014. The problem, as FRC's Ken Klukowski explains it, is that "[i]f government can command you to buy insurance, it can command you to do anything."Attorneys argued both sides of the mandate during Wednesday's hearing, which lasted about two and half hours. As expected, the three judges asked tough and probing questions about the implications for individual freedom. At one point, Judge Joel Dubina asked, "If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on congressional power left?" There was a separate challenge to the massive expansion of Medicaid in the statute, which has been another point of contention for our side. And while it would saddle the states with tens of billions of new costs, the judges didn't seem inclined to agree with us that it is unlawful.
The judges also spent a good amount of time discussing severability, which is the topic first highlighted and discussed in FRC's brief. At the very least, the panel was considering whether striking down the mandate meant that part or all of the law would also be void. While we can't predict how the court will rule, the panel did seem incredulous about the constitutionality of the mandate and seemed to be considering how much of the law to throw out with it.
Tags: BBA, Balanced Budget Amendment, Tony Perkins, Washington Update, Family Research Council, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
0 comments:
Post a Comment