Even the Liberal New York Times Sounds the Alarm about the Federal Debt

by Rod Williams, Jan. 2, 2023- We're rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell. 

I have a gloomy outlook for the new year and beyond. This may be a year of political violence. We may have an election in which half the country does not accept the outcome. Our faith in Democracy is faltering. 

In foreign affairs, an isolationist mood in the country may mean America abdicates its leadership role in the world. A Russian victory in Ukraine may occur and that may lead to additional Russian aggression and drag us into a war to defend a NATO ally. It is doubtful we are up to the task of challenging Chinese aggression. We no longer have the industrial capacity to be the "arsenal of democracy." 

With approximately two million foreigners a year pouring across our open southern border, many of them being from nations which wish us harm, we are ripe for a major jihadist terrorist attack. The threat of nuclear exchange appears to me to be as great as any time in our history. The list goes on.

One of the threats to our national security which does not get a lot of attention is the threat to our national security caused by our growing national debt. One glimmer of hope is that this is now being recognized as a serious threat. Even liberals are waking up. Those of you who read the conservative journals of analysis and opinion know it is threat. The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and a few other publications, and organizations like Committe for a Responsible Federal Budget provide the data and explain the problem. Even we who know it is serious problem, have heard it for so many years that we become somewhat jaded.  Now however, even the tax and spend liberals are realizing that our current debt trajectory is not sustainable.

Writing in today's New York Times, German Lopez writes the following: 

The federal debt starts the new year at a level that is hard to grasp: $34 trillion. That is 1.2 times the U.S.’s annual economic output. At the end of World War II, the ratio was only about 1.1.

Both parties have contributed to the situation. Republicans have passed large tax cuts. Democrats have enacted ambitious climate and health care initiatives. Both funneled money to Americans in response to the Covid pandemic.

For years, many economists believed the country’s debt was not a problem. Interest rates were low, which held down debt payments. Inflation was also low, which suggested the debt wasn’t hampering the economy. If anything, additional government spending helped create jobs when unemployment was elevated for much of the 2010s.

But times have changed, and federal deficits now look scarier.

The author quotes liberal's favorite economist Paul Krugman as saying, “Serious deficit reduction, a bad idea a decade ago, is a good idea now.” I would disagree that serious deficit reduction was ever a "bad idea," but at least someone to whom liberals with listen is now saying serious deficit reduction is a good idea.

For a New York Times columnist to say federal deficits are scary is a sea change. It is not just this one article, but I have been seeing a change in tone from other liberal voices. It is encouraging that liberals are starting to see the problem. Unfortunately, at the same time liberals may be waking up, what passes for conservatism today may be retreating in concern about deficits and the national debt. Republicans are backtracking. To address the problem of the growing national debt we must address Social Security and Medicare and Republicans have joined Democrats in taking those issues off the table. 

We're rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell. 

Top Stories

Deficit Tops $1.7 Trillion As Interest Rates Surge

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, October 10, 2023-  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) today released its final Monthly Budget Review of Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, finding that the budget deficit totaled $1.7 trillion in FY 2023 and $166 billion in September. After adjusting for the enactment and reversal of the President’s student debt cancellation plan and timing shifts, the deficit more than doubled between FY 2022 and 2023, from $0.9 trillion to $2 trillion. At the same time, interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities have been surging, with the rate on the ten-year Treasury note closing above 4.7 percent last week – levels not seen since 2007. 

The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: 

After declining in recent years due to the pandemic ending, the deficit is now back on the rise, totaling $1.7 trillion in 2023 and more than double last year’s when you exclude the President’s now-overturned student debt cancellation and timing shifts. At a time when the economy is growing and unemployment remains near historic lows, this should have been a time to reduce deficits in order to help us better prepare to respond to future economic downturns or foreign crises.  

Instead, we’re now facing the prospect of new foreign conflicts at a time when interest rates have been surging and when we’ve already been borrowing at a pace normally reserved for times of emergency or recession. While it’s not clear that interest rates are surging because of our borrowing, we do know that these increases add additional stresses to our budget through higher interest payments, and reducing deficits would help stem their rise.  

With deficits doubling, interest rates surging, major trust funds on course to be exhausted in a decade, and new security threats emerging – everything is telling us it’s time to address the debt.  

The first step is to ensure that we don’t end the year with any kind of a borrowing binge, as we have seen in years past.  

Also, we should establish a bipartisan commission to put our debt trajectory on a more sustainable path, an idea which has been gaining bipartisan traction in Congress and among thought leaders.   

There are always convenient justifications for why we should borrow more – it is important, it is an emergency, it will pay for itself, trying to pay for it is just too hard. Those justifications are precisely what got us to this moment where our debt is dangerously high and growing, and economic and national security conditions leave us exceedingly vulnerable. We must change course.  

It will be tough, but we need to embrace the leadership and courage necessary to right our fiscal course.  

Top Stories

How Tennessee Congressmen voted on the budget deal.

Representatives
District 1: Phil Roe (Republican), No
District 2: Jimmy Duncan Jr. (Republican), No 
District 3: Chuck Fleischmann (Republican), No
District 4: Scott DesJarlais (Republican), No
District 5: Jim Cooper (Democrat), Yes
District 6: Diane Black (Republican), No
District 7: Marsha Blackburn (Republican), No
District 8: Stephen Fincher (Republican), No
District 9: Steve Cohen (Democrat), Yes

For more on the budget deal, read this article in The Tennessean. 

Top Stories

Sen. Alexander voted yes and Sen. Corker voted no on the budget deal.

The Tennessean - Tennessee’s Republican senators split their votes early Friday on a two-year budget agreement, a reflection of how the issue of government spending levels has divided the GOP.
The deal, which prevents the government from defaulting on its debts and allows for an $80 billion spending increase over two years, passed the Senate 64-35 about 3 a.m. Friday. (link)

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander and Marsha Blackburn betray conservative values and vote for the Farm Bill

One of the things that most disappoint me about Republican politicians is that they continue to vote against a market economy, free enterprise, and spending restraints when they vote for farm bills that provide price supports for farmers and other protections that insulate farmers from market forces, pay farmers for not farming, and distort agricultural production.

Many farmers and people from areas dependent on agriculture are conservative except, when it come to farm policy and there they want their subsidy and their government safety net just as much as the inner city welfare receipent. They are against other people getting welfare but do not view farm policy in the same light. They oppose increases in the Federal deficit for student loans or mass transit, but not for farm subsidies. They oppose government sponsored health insurance but love government crop insurnace. They oppose government intrusion in their lives except when it come to accepting a government check for not planting crops.  These people in the South and Mid-west who approve of government dictated soviet-style farm policy and agriculture welfare are otherwise conservative and they vote Republican, so Republicans who are othersize conservative support a social welfare, big-government farm policy despite it being inconsistent with core Republican values.

Thrusday, the farm bill that would have spend $940 billion over the next ten years went down in defeat. This is very unusual. In 2008 all but 14 senators and 109 House members voted to overrid President Bush’s veto of the farm bill. The reason this farm bill faile was not because Republicans decided to be consistent and vote against welfare, a growing deficit and cast a vote for free enterprise; it failed because Democrates did not think it spend enough on foods stamps.

In the House 62 Republicans who opposed it for the right reason, joined 172 Democrates who opposed it for the wrong reason and the farm bill was defeated. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 66-27 votes.

In the Senate, Sen. Lamar Alexander was one of 18 Republicans to support the bill while Senator Corker opposed it.  I am dissappointed in the vote of Lamar Alexander and proud of Senator Corker.  I have supported both and will continue to do so, but am less enthsiastic about Lamar becasue of this vote.  His reelection is almost certainly assured. He could have afforded to vote the right way. He is not going to have a serious challenger from the left.   Maybe, he does think that he voted the right way. Maybe he is not really a beliver in free markets and limited government.  Anyway it is disappointing.

Here is how they voted in the House:

1st – Phil Roe (R) yes
2nd – John J. Duncan, Jr (R) no
3rd – Chuck Fleischmann (R) yes
4th – Scott DesJarlais (R) yes
5th – Jim Cooper (D) no
6th – Diane Black (R) yes
7th – Marsha Blackburn (R) yes
8th – Stephen Fincher (R) yes
9th – Steve Cohen (D) no

I have been a long time fan and supporter of Marsha Blackburn and have often admired her for the stands she has take on issues. She has been one of my favorite Representatives.  I am not going to fall out with someone over one vote, but I am very dissapointed. Also, I am disappointed in Diane Black. The only Representative in the Tennessee delegation who voted the right way for the right reason was Knoxville's John J. Duncan. Maybe John Duncan is someone to watch.

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander to cosponsor balanced budget amendment

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander on Wednesday announced he will be an original cosponsor of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“For eight years as governor, I balanced Tennessee’s budget, and other states balance their budgets—I don’t see why Washington can’t do the same,” said Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
The second-term senator said the federal government is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends, and that’s money the country dosen’t have.


“We must make tough decisions now to fix the debt,” he said.

The proposal by Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, would require that the president submit, and Congress pass, a balanced budget. It would require a supermajority vote in both the House and Senate to raise taxes or increase the debt limit.

It also would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, which is roughly equal to the historical revenue average of 18.1 percent of gross domestic product. Under President Obama, spending was nearly 23 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a press release said.

The release said the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that, by 2025, every tax dollar the federal government collects will go toward entitlement spending like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as interest on the debt.

“The Medicare trustees have said that within 12 years, the Medicare program will not have enough money to pay all of its hospital bills,” Alexander said.

Alexander and fellow Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker have introduced the “Dollar for Dollar Act,” which would reduce the growth in entitlement spending by $1 trillion. He also is an original cosponsor of the “No Budget, No Pay Act,” which would cut off pay to members of Congress if they don’t pass a budget and all 12 appropriations bills by the beginning of the fiscal year Oct. 1.

Top Stories

Fix the Deficit: Cut Spending 1% a Year

From Tea Party.net

There’s a lot of talk circling Washington about how to balance the budget, and most of these plans are long on rhetoric and short on substance. There is one plan, however, that not only provides achievable short-term benchmarks but also a long-term solution to achieve and maintain a balanced budget.

Rep. Connie Mack (R-FL) has introduced the “One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011,” which will reduce the size of the federal budget by 1% a year for six years. This will balance the budget by 2019 and will install a budget cap of 18% of GDP in 2018. It's about time for Congress to dig its way out of debt!

This plan has been co-sponsored by over 50 members of the House of Representatives, and it provides a realistic blueprint to put America back in the black.

As H.R. 1848 makes its way through the legislative process, we need to turn up the heat on Conservatives in Congress to pass it. Immediate spending cuts, combined with a framework to a six-year plan to balance the budget, will provide certainty to the markets. This is a vital first step on the path to economic recovery, and it’s up to you to pressure your Congressmembers to make it happen!

Click here to sign a petition and email a letter to your Senators and Congressman! 

My comment

When  you click where indicated above you will be directed to the website of Tea Party.net and you will be invited to make a donation. I think Tea Party.net is one of the better national tea party organizations and I give them a little money. If you do not want to donate, there is no obligation. Once on that page, click again where indicated and you will be on the petition page. By people participating in petition drives like this, is one way these national organizations get large mailing list. I see nothing wrong with someone with whom I politically agree having my address. 

Please follow the link and sign the petition. Also, this site makes it real easy to write your two senators and your congressman a letter which will be emailed to them.  You can send the short form letter as written or edit it or write your own. Already 57,890 letters and emails have been sent to Congress advocating the 1% reduction act. When you put in your address and zip code, the system immediately pulls up the names of your Senators and Congressman. This is a very easy and quick way to let your opinion be known. Please do it now!

Top Stories

Doorbell

In simple fashion, this video brings home the significance of the federal debt crisis and the impact of the debt on the next generation.

Top Stories

Why in 823 Days have Dems not Passed a Budget?

Jeff Session, ranking member of the US Senate Budget committee sets the record straight and explains:

Durbin's claim is incorrect for three reasons. First, budget law states that budget resolutions are privileged, meaning they cannot be filibustered, only require a simple majority vote for passage, and can be brought up by the majority party (which controls the Senate floor schedule) at any time. Second, for a large portion of last year, Democrats controlled 60 seats in the Senate, and still chose not to pass a budget plan for the nation. Finally, Senate Democrats have not even written or introduced a budget plan this year, much less passed one out of the Senate.

This is an outrage! Pass a damn budget!

Top Stories

A visual look at deficit, debt and future liabilities.

Visualization: USA national debt in physical $100 bills

Top Stories

Bob Corker on Cut, Cap and Balance

Today, Sen. Corker voted in support of H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this week. In a party-line 51 to 46 vote, the Senate blocked further proceedings on the legislation.

“It’s disappointing the Senate wouldn’t even allow us to debate legislation that will help put our nation back on a sustainable path,” said Corker, an original co-sponsor of the Senate version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. “This bill put on paper what I’ve been pushing from day one of the 112th Congress: we need spending cuts now, a long-term plan like the CAP Act to put a fiscal straitjacket on Congress, and a constitutional amendment to keep Congress from falling off the wagon as it relates to over-spending. Now, more than 814 days since the Senate passed a budget, we must put enforceable limits on all future spending in a way that encourages economic growth and demonstrates to the American people and the world that we will get our debt and deficits under control.”

Top Stories

Standard & Poor's downgraded the United States to negative

"Because the U.S. has, relative to its 'AAA' peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable," the agency said in a statement.(link)

Anyone who is not alarmed, is not paying attention.

Top Stories

Shut 'er Down! Did Republicans Cave?

I know many Kamikaze Republican are disappointed the government did not shut down.

They wanted Republicans to hold firm to a plan to cut the budget $100 billion and not pass any budget that cut less. Democrats were not going to pass a budget with $100 billion in cuts, the government would have shut down, Republican would have been blamed, nothing would have been accomplished and this would have guaranteed the reelection of Barack Obama the same way Republicans helped reelect President Clinton when in 1996 they shut down the government. Actually, Republicans did not shut down the government in 1996; Clinton did by vetoing the budget he was sent by Congress. It did not matter; Republicans got the blame. This time the government would not have been shut down because the President vetoed a budget sent to him by Congress, but would have shut down because Congress did not sent him a budget.The result would have been the same; Republicans would have been blamed for the shut down.

I realized the seriousness of the budget crisis. I realized we have a $14 Trillion national debt and 40 cent of every dollar the government spends is borrowed money.  I realize we have a crisis. Please do not lecture me on the debt. I am fully aware of the enormity of the problem.  We have a crisis. I get it. However, shutting down the government would have led to Republicans losing elections and the Democrats would have won the PR battle. Most Americans are still in denial about the financial status of our nation. Shutting down the government would not have convinced them of anything.


While I would have preferred a larger cut, I actually think this is a pretty good beginning on a return to financial responsibility.

Boehner said the agreement will “cut spending and keep our government open,” and this agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending over the next decade  and will “help create a better environment for job creators in our country.”

Here are some key facts on the bipartisan agreement: (link)

• THE LARGEST SPENDING CUT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.  The agreement will immediately cut $38.5 billion in federal spending – the largest spending cut in American history in terms of dollars – just months after President Obama asked Congress for a spending “freeze” that would mean zero cuts. 

• HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN SPENDING CUTS OVER THE NEXT DECADE.  The agreement will cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the federal budget over the next decade – “real money,” as the Wall Street Journal editorial board recently noted.

• OFFICIALLY ENDS THE “STIMULUS” SPENDING BINGE.  The agreement begins to reverse the “stimulus” spending binge that began in 2009 – signaling the official end of a period of unprecedented government intervention that former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and other economists say hurt job creation in America by crowding out private investment. 

• SETS STAGE FOR TRILLIONS MORE IN SPENDING CUTS.  Clears the way for congressional action on House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget – The Path to Prosperity – which cuts trillions in spending and offers a long-term blueprint for American job creation.

• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE ON REPEAL OF OBAMACARE.  The agreement reached with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would repeal President Obama’s government takeover of health care in its entirety.  The House passed such legislation in January as part of the Pledge to America.

• NEW TOOLS IN THE FIGHT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE.  The agreement will generate new tools for the fight to repeal Obamacare by requiring numerous studies that will force the Obama Administration to reveal the true impact of the law’s mandates, including a study of how individuals and families will see increased premiums as a result of certain Obamacare mandates; a full audit of all the waivers that the Obama Administration has given to firms and organizations – including unions - who can't meet the new annual coverage limits; a full audit of what's happening with the comparative effectiveness research funding that was in Obamacare and the president’s failed “stimulus” spending bill; and a report on all of the contractors who have been hired to implement the law and the costs to taxpayers of such contracts.    

• DENIES ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO THE IRS.  The Obama administration has sought increased federal funding for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) – money that could be used to hire additional agents to enforce the administration’s agenda on a variety of issues.  This increased funding is denied in the agreement.

• GUARANTEES SENATE VOTE & DEBATE ON DE-FUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD.  The agreement with Senate Democrats guarantees a Senate debate and vote on legislation that would end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. 

• BANS TAXPAYER FUNDING OF ABORTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.  The agreement includes a complete ban on local and federal funding of abortion in the District of Columbia, applying the pro-life principles of the Hyde Amendment (“D.C. Hyde”). 

• MANDATORY AUDITS OF THE NEW JOB-CRUSHING BUREAUCRACY SET UP UNDER DODD-FRANK.  The agreement subjects the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created by the job-destroying Dodd-Frank law to yearly audits by both the private sector and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to monitor its impact on the economy, including its impact on jobs, by examining whether sound cost-benefit analyses are being used with rulemakings.  

That is not a bad beginning. I assume it is the best we could get.

Top Stories

Dear Katryna, I am so sorry that you are having financial difficulty and I wanted to respond

Dear Katryna,

I am so sorry that you are having financial difficulty and I wanted to respond to your letter. You say that Republican are cutting student aid. The way I understand it is that Republican are not cutting the amount of money being spend on student aid. The Republicans are proposing to cut $100-billion from the president's budget request and included in those cuts are cuts to student aid. During this recession so many people could not find jobs that many of them  have gone back to school so there has been an increase in demand for student aid and the Democrats proposed adding $5.7 billion to the Pell Grant program to cover the shortfall in the program.

Due to unexpected demand in the wake of the Great Recession, the Pell Grant program needs a funding fix to prevent grant cuts in 2011. So, the Democrats proposed the funding fix and the Republicans are proposing a reduction from the amount of that funding fix. The costs of the Pell Grant program have been growing at a rapid rate. More is going to be spend on Pell Grants and yet each Pell Grant recipient will get less under the Republican plan. Does that make sense to you?

Republicans are proposing to trim the maximum Pell Grant by 15 percent, or $845, from the current $5,550. Katryna, are you sure you are going to lose your student aid or just have a reduction? Now, some people who would have qualified for Pell grant under the Democrat spending level will not qualify under the Republican spending level but most will simply see a reduction in the amount of student aid. I don’t know if you will lose your student aid or not of course, but don’t jump to conclusions. The funding calculation is complicated and it is means tested so some people will qualify by virtue of qualifying for other programs and others will really lose their aid, but most will only see a reduction.

Did you know that President Obama is also proposing cut to the Pell Grant program? Obama's program cuts would end supplemental Pell Grants starting in summer 2012. Since 2009, students planning to attend summer school could apply for a second Pell Grant to pay for school year-round. Obama's proposal would do away with the year-round Pell Grant. MoveOn didn't explain that to you did they? The truth is that both Republicans and Democrats are proposing to spend more on Pell grants and both would reduce the amount of Pell grants anyone person could get, but the Republicans would cut more.

I think we have to cut a lot out of the federal budget, so no, I will not be asking Senator Corker to restore Pell grants to their former level. I am asking Corker to show courage and slash federal spending.

I know that losing your Pell Grant, if you do lose it, will be a hardship on you, but you see our nation is broke. Forty cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed money. Our government is deeply indebted to the Chinese and others and we keep borrowing money to pay our expenses. We are much like a household that keeps taking out new loans to pay the payments on previous loans. 

The national debt is $14 Trillion dollars and it continues to increase at the rate of $4.11 billion per day and each citizen's share of this debt is $45,889.90. This is not sustainable. If we do not get a handle on this runaway spending, we will all lose the American dream and America will become a third world nation. I do not want to alarm you, but we can’t keep living on borrowed money for ever. Also, another problem is that the government is just creating money out of thin air. People refer to this as “printing money” although it is not really "printed money" but it is created as if it were printed and this can lead to rapid run-away inflation. So, unless the government gets a handle on spending we could see a rapid economic decline in the United States. We could see massive poverty never seen before in this nation. Painful cuts are necessary to stop spending more money than the nation can afford.

I know MoveOn wants you to feel resentment against rich people and blames our financial problems on the wealthy by saying they are not taxes enough. The wealthiest 5% of Americans pay half all taxes and the lower 50% of income earners pay no taxes. Also, job growth is created by wealthy Americans investing money. If we tax the wealthy more, we may have less job growth because we will have less investment. Higher taxes does not necessarily mean more tax collection despite what liberals will tell you. We do not have a problem in this country because we do not tax enough but because we spend too much.

Assuming you do lose your student aid, can you not qualify for student loans? If your education is a good investment, should you not be the one making the investment?

Katryna, you open your letter saying, "I never wanted a handout." Katryna, a grant is a handout. When the government gives you money and you don't have to pay it back, that is a handout. Also, Katryna you say you earned less than $4500 last year. You can't live on that. I bet you are living in subsidized public housing, getting food stamps, medicaid and you got the earned income tax credit last year. Am I right? I bet that in reality you are getting a lot of handouts. Is that not true?

Katryna, you say "I'm going to have to choose between paying rent or buying diapers." Have you thought about using cloth diapers and washing them out. People used to do that all the time. You don't have to buy diapers. You can rinse  them out in the commode and then wash them.

Katryna, I must ask you, where is your child's father? Is he paying child support? Did you have your child out of wedlock? You say you want to provide your daughter with the opportunities that your mother couldn't give you. You say nothing about your father. Your mother was a single mom, wasn't she? Did you do a really foolish thing and get pregnant without being married? I know that many do. In fact almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. The disappearance of marriage in low-income communities is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. Katryna, I think you should not blame your problems on Republicans but admit that your brought your problems on yourself, by your decision to have a child out of wedlock. Nevertheless, I do feel sorry for you.

Please continue to try to get out of poverty. Try to get student loans if you can't get the Pell Grant. If you do have to give up the dream of getting a nursing degree, please do not give up the dream of getting out of poverty. There is help available. Contact United Way or a good neighborhood community center to learn about job training programs and money management programs. A lot of poverty is due to poor decision making. Enroll in a life skills course and improve your life skills. Get a full time job.  Get out of the environment of public housing which creates a mindset that keeps people in poverty. And Katryna, please teach your child not to follow in your footsteps. Teach her that being a single Mom is foolish and most of the time it is a ticket to poverty.

I wish you the best.

Sincerly,
Rod

Dear fellow MoveOn member,

I never wanted a handout.

I just wanted to get my nursing degree and build the life I've dreamed of. I wanted to provide my daughter with the opportunities that my mother couldn't give me when I was growing up.

That's my dream, but I'm afraid my dream is about to die. 

Republicans are trying to cut the financial aid I rely on to pay my tuition. Last year, as a student, I couldn't find steady work and earned less than $4,500. If my financial aid is taken away from me, I won't be able to afford to get my nursing degree. 

Once again I'm going to have to choose between paying rent or buying diapers, between having heat or having enough food for my family to eat. Can you imagine the pain involved in making those choices?

Can you help save my dream? The Senate is on recess, and Senator Bob Corker is home in Tennessee. Can you call him in his district office in Nashville, and ask him to vote against any budget that makes cuts to education, health care, and Social Security, and puts corporations and millionaires above hardworking Americans like me?

Here's where to call:

Senator Bob Corker

Nashville office: 615-279-8125

Then, please report your call to MoveOn by clicking here:

http://pol.moveon.org/call?cp_id=1545&tg=FSTN_2&dofcs=1&dofcp=615-279-8125&id=26616-15255949-7pS3m_x&t=3

I recently got a part-time job at Walmart and with that money, along with my student aid, I'm now able to cover all my expenses. I even had enough money to get new glasses for the first time in six years. I've struggled to get this far, but I finally feel like I'm going to be able to make a good life for myself and my daughter.

Please, don't let the Republicans take all this away from me. You see, the cuts they want to make aren't abstract. And they aren't limited to student aid, either. They're trying to cut job training, food aid to women and children, and more. Congress doesn't seem to understand the consequences to people like me all across the country if these programs are cut.

Can you call Senator Bob Corker, and ask him to vote against any budget that makes cuts to education, health care, and Social Security, and puts corporations and millionaires above hardworking Americans like me?

Thank you.

–Katryna Wade, Arkansas

Top Stories

Corker: Cap Federal Spending

Corker Votes to Extend Existing Tax Rates, Introduces Amendment to Cap Federal Spending as a Percentage of GDP

December 15 2010

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has offered a bipartisan amendment to the tax cut package that would establish a binding federal spending cap tied to the country’s economic output, instilling fiscal discipline and smaller government while incentivizing lawmakers to pass pro-growth policies. Senator Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., is the lead Democrat sponsor of the amendment.

“This has been a tough vote for me. I spent a lot of time weighing the pros and cons, but at the end of the day I'm supporting the tax package because the most important short-term issue our country faces is the economy. Allowing these income tax rates to expire would be devastating to our fragile economy,” said Corker. “And while this legislation is important for stabilizing the economy and creating certainty for businesses and our citizens, over the long-term nothing is more important than acting quickly to get spending under control and reduce our deficit.

“To that end, Senator McCaskill and I have offered an amendment to cap federal spending as a percentage of GDP, a move that would instill fiscal discipline and smaller government while incentivizing lawmakers to pass pro-growth policies. This bipartisan amendment won’t be debated or voted on today, but hopefully it and other efforts will lay down a marker and build momentum in the new Congress for tangible, meaningful action to get government spending under control prior to a vote on the debt ceiling.”

In 2009 the federal government spent $1.4 trillion more than it took in, borrowing nearly 40 cents of every dollar. By 2030, on the current trajectory, U.S. debt will reach 146 percent of GDP, far exceeding what economists of every persuasion deem as sustainable. Over the past 40 years, federal spending has averaged 20.6 percent of GDP, and revenue has averaged 18 percent. Today, spending is 23.8 percent of GDP, and revenue is 14.9 percent of GDP.

The Corker-McCaskill amendment would limit all federal spending to a percentage of GDP. Specifically, the amendment would:

- Eliminate the “off-budget” distinction for certain programs, allowing for a complete and accurate assessment of federal outlays and future obligations, and

- Put in place a 10-year glide path to bring spending down to the historical average, 20.6 percent of GDP.

Should Congress violate the binding cap, the House and Senate would have 45 days to offset the increase in spending. Failure to offset the spending increase would trigger corresponding, simultaneous cuts throughout the federal budget. In an emergency, as defined in the statute and determined by a two-thirds vote in both bodies, Congress could authorize – and be held accountable by voting for – spending in excess of the cap for that year.

The Corker-McCaskill amendment is cosponsored by Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), George LeMieux (R-Fla.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

“We face many challenges as a country, but after four years in Washington and a lifetime in business, I believe unsustainable spending habits and fiscal insolvency pose the greatest threat to our economic stability, freedom, way of life and future as a nation,” said Corker. “We are in real danger of becoming the first generation of Americans to leave our country in worse shape than we found it. The time to act is now.” 

Top Stories

Senator Jim DeMint: Why I Oppose the Tax Deal

From Senator Jim DeMint: Why I Oppose the Tax Deal

Many of you have contacted me about the bipartisan tax deal reached between President Obama and Republican leaders. I've carefully reviewed the legislation and I wanted to explain to you why I cannot support it.

First, I do not want to see anyone's taxes go up and I have been fighting for years to permanently extend all the tax rates. I disagree with the President that we cannot afford to extend these rates for everyone. It's the people's money and we should not raise taxes on hardworking American families.

But this bill does much more than simply extend tax rates.

For starters, it includes approximately $200 billion in new deficit spending and stimulus gimmicks. That's a lot of money that will have to be borrowed from China and repaid by our children and grandchildren. If we're going to increase spending on new programs, we must reduce other spending to pay for it.

The bill also only extends rates for two years. We don't have a temporary economy so we shouldn't have temporary tax rates. Individuals and businesses make decisions looking at the long-term and we're not going to create jobs without giving people certainty as to what their taxes will be in future.

The bill also fails to extend all of the tax rates. It actually increases the death tax from its current rate of zero percent all the way up to 35 percent. One economic study shows that this tax increase alone will kill over 800,000 jobs over the next ten years.

Finally, the bill now includes dozens of earmarks for special interests, including ethanol subsidies, tax breaks for film and television producers, give aways for Puerto Rican rum manufacturers, favors for auto racing track owners, and a hand out for businesses in American Samoa.


The President called Republicans "hostage takers" this week but he should be pointing his figure squarely at himself. We've known for years that these tax rates were going to expire but he did nothing about it until the last minute. Now Americans are being told they have to accept hundreds of billions in new spending and stimulus gimmicks, an increase the death tax, and a bunch of unnecessary earmarks or their taxes will go up.

I'm not going to be bullied into voting for things that will hurt our country because politicians in Washington ignored the problem until it was a crisis.

Many of you fought hard to elect new leaders to the Senate this year with the expectation that they would fight deficit spending, tax hikes, and backroom deals. I take that commitment very seriously and I'm prepared to vote against this bill even if I'm the only one in the Senate to do so.

I appreciate the efforts made by my party's leaders to negotiate this deal but I believe Americans deserve much better. This deal should be rejected and then fixed. We can easily extend these tax rates without increasing spending once the new crop of Republican senators, including Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Johnson, are sworn in. The President has already conceded that taxes cannot go up and we'll have more Republicans in Congress in a few weeks to fight for a better deal.

Thank you for supporting the principles of freedom and for your continued encouragement. I will continue to do my very best to be your voice in the United States Senate.

My Comment
I am with Senator DeMint. This bill should not pass. It is time for Republicans to stand firm on cutting spending. This is old fashioned vote buying and deal making. The deficit is going to bankrupt this nation if we do not get serious about cutting spending and growing the economy.

Top Stories

Higher Taxes Won't Reduce the Deficit

An article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal explains why higher taxes will not reduce the deficit. The draft proposal of the President's Commission on the Deficit calls for various tax increases along with spending cuts to produce a balanced budget and to began the process of reducing the deficit. If the deficit is not reduced, simply paying interest on the debt will eat up a greater and greater share of tax revenues and the GDP. We are headed the way of Greece. Almost everyone agrees we must do something.

However, raising taxes may be worse than doing nothing. Raising taxes will likely make the deficit worse; not better. History has shown time and time again that every time taxes are raised so is spending and borrowing.

The article says that, "the only era in modern times that the budget has been in balance was in the late 1990s, when Republicans were in control of Congress. Taxes were not raised, and the capital gains tax rate was cut in 1997. The growth rate of federal spending was dramatically reduced from 1995-99, and the economy roared."

We need to cut spending and grow the economy. To grow the economy we need to cut taxes, especially the capital gains taxes and the corporate income tax.  Raising taxes curtails economic growth and feeds the beast. Raising taxes should be a nonstarter for Republicans.

Top Stories