Why I Voted for the Deal
By Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA)
The German magazine Der Spiegel described Washington as
having a “Civil War Atmosphere” during the recent fight over raising the
debt limit. There was certainly some amped up rhetoric, such as Vice
President Biden calling Tea Partiers “terrorists,” but nevertheless
there were no fistfights on the floor of the House. There were no
cane-beatings on the floor of the Senate.
Personally, I wish there could be more civility in Washington. However, we have to remember why it was so difficult to reach an agreement. The two parties in Washington have very different views about the role of the government.
In the past few years, President Obama has supported a stimulus package costing nearly $800 billion*, a health care law costing more than $1 trillion, bailouts amounting hundreds of billions of dollars, and increased spending in dozens of other government programs. He earnestly believes that this money has been well spent. He continues to maintain that the stimulus was a success, even though it failed to reduce unemployment.
Republicans have a starkly different view. We want a limited federal government that spends less and taxes less. When Barack Obama and John Boehner walk into a room together, they are entering with different principles and different assumptions.
It is with full knowledge of these great differences that I cast a vote this week for the Budget Control Act of 2011.
This was by no means a perfect bill. The legislation calls for spending cuts over the next ten years totaling $1.2 trillion. It then establishes a new, bipartisan joint committee to plan for an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts. The increase in the debt limit authorized by the bill would be less than total amount of cuts.
The new joint committee will have 12 members; six from the House and six from the Senate evenly divided between the two parties. They are required to report a bill by November 23. Congress will then have to vote up or down on their legislation, without amendments or filibuster. If they fail to reach an agreement, then there will be across the board cuts in defense and domestic spending.
I know that this bill will not solve our budget problems. While I thought that this was the best we could do under the present divided government, we cannot pat ourselves on the back and call it a day.
There are only a handful of ways to deal with our debt. Raising taxes and cutting spending usually receive the most attention. Economic growth would certainly help reduce annual deficits. Inducing inflation or simply defaulting would also reduce the debt, but would create more many problems than would be solved.
I believe that there are four things we should do to get our debt under control.
First, we should pass the balanced budget amendment. Congress has been irresponsible for far too long. The deficit has increased even in good economic years. We cannot keep assuming that it will be easier to balance the budget at some point in the future.
Second, we need annual spending caps that bring our expenses down to a manageable level. We should be spending only as much as we historically have taken in in tax revenue.
Third, we need to reform entitlement spending, especially Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama agrees, stating that: “Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else.”
Finally, we must reform our federal tax system. We need to eliminate special interest provisions and lower rates to be competitive with the rest of the world. What you pay in taxes shouldn’t be determined by how much you spend lobbying in D.C.
Despite the bitter fight we just went through, I am still constantly reminded that there are many things we agree on. I work closely with Democrats on a number of issues: health, job growth, and protecting human rights. We respect each other’s differences and work together for the good of the nation. It was not easy to reach an agreement, but we did so before the government could no longer meet its obligations. Democracy is not always pretty, but it works.
Personally, I wish there could be more civility in Washington. However, we have to remember why it was so difficult to reach an agreement. The two parties in Washington have very different views about the role of the government.
In the past few years, President Obama has supported a stimulus package costing nearly $800 billion*, a health care law costing more than $1 trillion, bailouts amounting hundreds of billions of dollars, and increased spending in dozens of other government programs. He earnestly believes that this money has been well spent. He continues to maintain that the stimulus was a success, even though it failed to reduce unemployment.
Republicans have a starkly different view. We want a limited federal government that spends less and taxes less. When Barack Obama and John Boehner walk into a room together, they are entering with different principles and different assumptions.
It is with full knowledge of these great differences that I cast a vote this week for the Budget Control Act of 2011.
This was by no means a perfect bill. The legislation calls for spending cuts over the next ten years totaling $1.2 trillion. It then establishes a new, bipartisan joint committee to plan for an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts. The increase in the debt limit authorized by the bill would be less than total amount of cuts.
The new joint committee will have 12 members; six from the House and six from the Senate evenly divided between the two parties. They are required to report a bill by November 23. Congress will then have to vote up or down on their legislation, without amendments or filibuster. If they fail to reach an agreement, then there will be across the board cuts in defense and domestic spending.
I know that this bill will not solve our budget problems. While I thought that this was the best we could do under the present divided government, we cannot pat ourselves on the back and call it a day.
There are only a handful of ways to deal with our debt. Raising taxes and cutting spending usually receive the most attention. Economic growth would certainly help reduce annual deficits. Inducing inflation or simply defaulting would also reduce the debt, but would create more many problems than would be solved.
I believe that there are four things we should do to get our debt under control.
First, we should pass the balanced budget amendment. Congress has been irresponsible for far too long. The deficit has increased even in good economic years. We cannot keep assuming that it will be easier to balance the budget at some point in the future.
Second, we need annual spending caps that bring our expenses down to a manageable level. We should be spending only as much as we historically have taken in in tax revenue.
Third, we need to reform entitlement spending, especially Medicare and Medicaid. President Obama agrees, stating that: “Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else.”
Finally, we must reform our federal tax system. We need to eliminate special interest provisions and lower rates to be competitive with the rest of the world. What you pay in taxes shouldn’t be determined by how much you spend lobbying in D.C.
Despite the bitter fight we just went through, I am still constantly reminded that there are many things we agree on. I work closely with Democrats on a number of issues: health, job growth, and protecting human rights. We respect each other’s differences and work together for the good of the nation. It was not easy to reach an agreement, but we did so before the government could no longer meet its obligations. Democracy is not always pretty, but it works.
Congressman Joe Pitts represents the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
* Editor's Note: Congressman Pitts omitted that fully a third, or $300M, of President Obama's 2009 $800M stimulus package was a middle class tax cut.
2 comments:
!.The CBO says that the healthcare law will save money over 10 years, not cost a trillion dollars. Whether they are right or not is up for debate, but there was a real effort to take the money already there and use it more effectively.
2. The bailouts were started under Bush with bipartisan support in congress. It is likely that the total cost of all bailouts will be between 0 and 16 billion dollars. A pretty good deal for saving a financial system and auto manufacturing. The stimulus bill is only 6% of total debt. Where did the rest come from?
3. Obama era choices have accounted for 1.7 trillion in new debt while bush era choices have accounted for more then 7 trillion. 700 billion of Obama's debt was a one time expense and does not contribute to the yearly deficits. (found these numbers in the Washington Post section called, "Running in the red")
Points well made Mr. Knickerbocker. I would also like to point out that when the debt celing was raised, I believe 7 times during the Bush era, no congressperson held the nation's credit standing hostage while trying to get their minority policies accepted.
I see more and more grandstanding by our elected officials and less honest work for the people. Of course we are our own government and when voters aren't paying attention to policy and only listening to what sounds good or easy, our democracy suffers.
One last point, the balanced budget ammendment...how many households in this country actually run on balanced budgets? We borrow for homes, cars, educations and sometimes we need to live on our credit cards in lean times. Our solutions to these household issues are better paying jobs and belt tightening, just like the government should be doing, cutting some and finding more revenue.
Post a Comment