House passes "Cut, Cap, and Balance Act" H R 2560

Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:

With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, I believe he is wrong on this issue, as does Dr. Rand Paul.

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I disagree with Ron Paul on this matter. I will provide you with a point-by-point response to Ron Paul's statement as soon as possible.

According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul Issues Statement on House Cut, Cap, and Balance Act

"This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts”

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – Today, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement outlining his opposition to the House version of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act. See statement below.


“While I applaud the spirit of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act (CCB) and appreciate how it has shaped the debate to include a permanent solution to our deficit crisis, I could not support the legislation as it was presented today.

“Though I broke with many of my friends in Congress by voting against the House CCB plan, I was the first Presidential Candidate to sign the Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, as I believed in its call for ‘substantial’ spending cuts, hard caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment.


“These difficult times require that presidential candidates be willing to lead on this issue by standing against runaway spending and promoting real changes to ensure future prosperity.


“If elected President, I will veto any spending bill that contributes to an unbalanced budget, and I will balance the budget in the first year of my term. I will also fight for and sign an iron clad Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution.


“I have never voted to raise the federal debt limit, and I have no doubt that we face financial collapse and ruin if we continue to grow our debt. We need to make major spending cuts now, in this budget, and we can no longer afford to allow more deficit spending based on promises of future cuts.

“The CCB act would add $2.4 trillion of new debt to our gargantuan $14.4 trillion debt. CCB would also only cut $111 billion from this year’s budget, allowing a deficit of nearly $1.5 trillion. This is far from the Pledge’s call for ‘substantial’ cuts. And, CCB locks us into current levels of overseas welfare, which will continue to endanger America’s security by forcing us to subsidize other wealthy nations.

“For decades, politicians have promised future restraint in exchange for hikes in the debt limit. Each time, it’s said that if we act immediately to avoid a crisis, we will give the matter proper debate at the next vote. But, time and again, politicians reveal themselves to be untrustworthy. Promises of cuts remain unfulfilled, and we soon find ourselves once more in a crisis that we are told can only be addressed by upholding the status quo yet again.

“Many of my friends have made the case that, despite this bill’s shortcomings, CCB should be supported in order to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. CCB, unfortunately, does not guarantee a Balanced Budget Amendment will ever pass. It would still have to be ratified by the States, a process that could take years and perhaps even fail.

“If we want a Balanced Budget Amendment to be the silver bullet against Big Government that many hope it will be, it must be iron clad. The CCB Balanced Budget Amendment removed the two-thirds threshold requirement to exceed spending caps, which would be too easy for politicians to violate.


“Though I voted against today’s House version of Cut, Cap, and Balance, I continue to support the Pledge’s goals, and I remain committed to working on behalf of the American people to drastically reduce spending and implement fundamental changes that will reform government and restore our nation’s prosperity.”
 
Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.
 
Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:





According to Amash, the bill only cuts $82 billion in fiscal year 2012 from fiscal year 2011 levels. That doesn't sound like a significant cut to me.

Hmm.. sorry Justin, but I stand with Ron on this.
 
Rand claimed that this BBA would bring a balanced budget in 7 years.

Size of government/GDP wouldn't be capped at 20% until 2021 (which is a ridiculous proposal in and of itself)

So either the economy is going to grow at 10+% for seven plus years, or taxes would have to be raised.

What a loser of a proposal, I can't believe Rand is actually pushing this crap.

And he thinks Ron is wrong on this? What a failure.

This is why people were pissed at Rand during the campaign: I and many others cannot and will not stand for being squishy and engaging in Washington bullshit politics.
 
Last edited:
Can't really get up in arms about this for either side. I don't feel as if Amash or Rand Paul are selling out- I think they just see it as a piece of legislation that could potentially get passed and make meaningful cuts. Also, I feel as though a BBA might actually stand a chance of passing given GOP control of legislatures.
 
Guy who has fought government spending and expansion of the state for over 30 years, day after day after day, opposes a pathetic piece of DC speak legislation.

Guys who just got in the game criticize him and claim to be right.

Yeah, I know which side I'm on.

Sounds like somebody got to the new guys and they bought it.
 
I heard talk about the senate getting rid of the "alternative minimum income tax." This is great news. The AMI is for those rich people who can use credits and deductions to offset most if not all of their income tax. If we get rid of it hopefully people can pay no income tax. I assume they're going to get rid of "loopholes" aka "credits and deductions".

I also heard they want to increase income tax revenue while lowering tax rates. I assume this means increase it on the wealthy but decrease on the lower levels where the "average" level tax rate would be lowered.

Some good things that I would support. Not raising taxes of course but getting rid of the ami would be great imo.
 
I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.
 
I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.
 
I agree with Ron on this, but I'm not going to criticize Rand for supporting a proposal that contains spending caps and a balanced budget amendment.

I forget who I was listening to on Mises.org, but anyway, if I remember correctly he said something like this:

A spending cap in proportion to GDP doesn't amount to much because the GDP can rise dramatically with inflation. So this just leads to more inflation and a country paying off their debts easier by debasing the currency.

That definitely isn't anywhere near a quote, but is the basic interpretation I got from it.

I guess the counter argument to this is if the Balanced Budget Amendment actually passed through the states and became an amendment, then there wouldn't be a deficit. But, with their dropping the super majority vote off the amendment to raise it and have an unbalanced budget it doesn't amount to much in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone tell me or show me where to find:

1. WHAT spending is being cut? Amounts and programs
2. What taxes are changing?
 
Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.

The problem I have with this bill is that the level of spending cuts don't satisfy the requirement of the balanced budget amendment. If the BBA was actually passed and sent to the states to ratify, it would likely take about five years for the amendment to be ratified. That means that Congress would have 5 years to balance the budget. But if Congress only cuts 80 billion a year from a budget that has a deficit of 1.6 trillion, it will take at least 20 years to balance the budget. In order to satisfy the requirements of the BBA, Congress would need to cut at least 300 billion per year. So I disagree with Rand on this one, but I still think he's done a great job overall.
 
Perhaps looking at the graph I provided and realizing that:

1. This proposal is an inherent admission that several years of unbalanced budgets are on its way, and some of those opposed to deficits will be mollified with this phony proposal

and

2. Budgets will continue to be unbalanced until taxes are raised to meet the 20% of GDP cap placed on spending

will change your mind on not criticizing Rand for this.

Rand Paul proposed a 5 year balanced budget without raising taxes. If Republicans can rally around this Cut Cap Balance why do you assume that his budget has no chance.
 
Justin Amash's responses to comments on Facebook:

With all due respect to Dr. Ron Paul, I believe he is wrong on this issue, as does Dr. Rand Paul.

Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and I disagree with Ron Paul on this matter. I will provide you with a point-by-point response to Ron Paul's statement as soon as possible.

Ron Paul did not support the House bill because it raised the debt ceiling.

As he has stated before, he NEVER voted for the spending in the first place, so why should he compromise and vote to raise the debt ceiling?
 
http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski271.html

It seems like they take us all for fools, but as usual it is the genuflecting Congress and the emperor who are fooling themselves. While the United States as a functional value has been calmly downgraded (again!) to a C-minus and Americans rapidly seek alternative home bases, passports, ways of making a living off payroll and out of sight, conservatives recall the "glory days" of 1994 and 1995, and as the strutting feather-headed duo of Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte proclaim, it might have been so different, if only.

The crux of the Cantor-Goodlatte position is that, in March 1995, if only the Congress had sent a federal balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification, all of their congressional overspending, their lack of personal and institutional principle, their paucity of restraint, their blatant inability to comprehend basic economics, their obsession for power over the less worthy, their obscene vote selling and incessant influence whoring – all of these sins would have been washed away, instantly and permanently.

The whole debate is moot, because it has been demonstrated from the beginning that Congress has never met a law that it couldn’t ignore, modify, or break, starting with the original Constitution.
 
Back
Top