From Stark
U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett, has staked out a position on the debt reduction plans now being thrashed out by the bipartisan “supercommittee.” Larsen says he agrees that the nation would benefit from a big deficit cut, but he fears that Republican proposals would harm Medicare and Social Security and the people who rely on them, while making it harder for the US to invest in the future.
Larsen sent out a press release outlining his position after he voted against a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That amendment was defeated in the House. Here’s CNN’s report.
Here is Larsen’s press release:
WASHINGTON—Rep. Rick Larsen, WA-02, today voted against a Republican balanced budget amendment that could require steep cuts to Medicare and Social Security.
“I voted against the amendment because it would balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens,” Larsen said. “I am a strong supporter of restoring fiscal discipline through responsible means. I recently sent a letter to the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction calling on them to ‘go big’ by presenting a bold plan that would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion. (Stark note: Larsen is one of 100 members of Congress from both parties who signed this letter.)
“The latest proposal to amend the Constitution that Republicans put to a vote today would have disproportionately targeted Medicare and Social Security, while allowing corporations and the highest earners to benefit from massive tax cuts. It would have also barred the federal government from taking on debt to invest in the future of our economy—from infrastructure improvement, to clean energy to education. Without this sort of investment, our economy will not be able to grow and provide the jobs that Americans need.
“Former Washington Governor Daniel Evans recently called the balanced budget amendment ‘an impractical idea’ for which the consequences ‘could be disastrous.’ (Links to Evans’ op-ed piece in Seattle Times.)
“Independent analysts argue that the balanced budget requirement, if applied to the current fiscal year, would require cuts totaling $1.5 trillion, resulting in the loss of 15 million jobs. That would double the unemployment rate from 9 to 18 percent.
“The path to real deficit reduction and a balanced budget requires sacrifices from all Americans. From reducing spending, like cutting agriculture subsidies and accelerating the drawdown in Afghanistan, to increasing revenue by closing tax loopholes for massively profitable companies and restoring tax rates on the highest earners, we can achieve our aims through shared sacrifice and bipartisan compromise.
“While some in Washington, D.C. want to slash entitlement spending, we must protect the benefits that our seniors have earned. Medicare must remain a guaranteed benefit and not converted to a voucher system. Social Security’s long-term solvency can be ensured if we lift the cap on earnings subject to the Social Security tax.”
“We can achieve major deficit reduction without shredding the social safety net, but we will only do so if we set partisan gimmicks like this balanced budget amendment aside and work together on these sensible solutions.”
End Rick Larsen press release
”partisan gimmicks like this balanced budget amendment’
Partisan gimmick?
Are you kidding me?
If I ran my household like the government is run, I’d be in jail.
It amazes me that we continue to elect this moron.
In high school shop class, they cross-trained us for a while in home economics, while the girls took shop. The highlight was baking snickerdoodles.
If it failed in the house, that means there are Republicans who voted against it. Dozens in fact.
So there must be something unworthy about this version.
Correction 4 Republicans voted against it. I forgot it required a supermajority, otherwise it would have required dozens of R’s to vote nay for it to fail.
Inslee voted yes for it, as part of 25 Dems who voted yes.
Ron Paul did not vote on it.
This version of the balanced budget amendment would prevent the country from any military spending, even in defense of an attack, if we didn’t have the money first. We cannot put those kind of restrictions on ourselves.
I like poping the cap on social security . I have recommended this since 2004.
Accelerating the drawdown in Afghanistan will save money.
g,h. Ferooequinologist is correct,
Meet your Secretary of the Treasury, that’s Turbo Tax Tim if I recall correctly, love that ATF deal in Mexico too!
Abraham Alfonse Albert Gallatin’s mastery of public finance, an ability rare among members of the Jeffersonian party, led to his automatic choice as Secretary of the Treasury, despite Federalist attacks that he was a “foreigner” with a French accent. He was secretary from 1801 to May 1813 under presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the longest tenure of this office in American history.
I disagree with a balanced budget amendment because of the restrictions it imposes. It is up to our LEADERS to forge an appropriate solution to our debt crisis (and, yes, it is a crisis. We are rapidly heading to the situation of Greece, Italt, et.al.). Instead of some toothless “Supercommittee” argueing this problem, our President (either our current one or our soon to be Republican one) should demand that the GOP submit a list of their proposed spending reductions that will reduce our current deficit by $1T and do the same of the Dems for proposed tax increases. Every nonpartisan review of our deficit has determined that getting to a balanced budget will require some of both. Then if Congress cannot deliver an adequate deficit reducing budget, he should have the GOP select the most acceptable tax increase proposals and have the Dems select an equal amount of spending cuts from the lists provided. There should be a schedule for eliminating the deficit in the next ten years (it’s impossible to do it all at once, just look at the results of the European austerity programs). Once we have eliminated the defict, we can work on reducing the national debt. The current law only requires we reduce the deficit by $1.2T over the next ten years. At our current rate of $1T deficit per year that will increase our debt from the current $15T to a whopping $23.8T! If we reduce the defict by about 20% per year (to nothing in ten years), we will have close to $20T in debt by the time we have eliminated the deficit. Even if we can afford to reduce that debt by $200B per year, that would take another 100 years to completely eliminate that $20T debt. Why can our Congressman not see the insanity of our current situation and do something about it?