All Politics are Local
Paul Opposes Both Debt Deals
Dismissing both plans as insufficient, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., quickly released a statement opposing the dueling debt ceiling deals being proposed by House Republicans and Senate Democrats on Monday. The proposed deals being discussed today by House Republican and Senate Democrat Leaders do not make cuts to our debt. They do not solve our debt problems. They do not balance the budget, ever,” says Paul.
Speaker John Boehner, R-Oh., unveiled his caucuses two-step plan to raise the debt ceiling, conceding it is imperfect while challenging President Barack Obama not to veto the plan.
The Boehner plan calls for a short-term solution by raising the debt $1 trillion coupled with $1.2 trillion in budget cuts. It then calls for a second round of reduction talks that would take place in 2012.
But the White House has rejected that plan and endorsed another the deal being touted by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nv., which would reduce the deficit by $2.7 trillion, without touching entitlement programs or tax increases.
For Kentucky’s junior Senator and Tea Party darling, both plans stink.
From Paul’s office:
“Proponents of the most recent debt ‘deal’ in the House are saying it will cut $1 trillion over 10 years now, with promises of $2 trillion more cuts from a ‘commission;’ Senate Democrats are proposing $2.7 trillion in largely smoke and mirrors. These plans ‘cut’ from a baseline that, under current law, will add $10 trillion in new debt over 10 years. So in reality these ‘deals’ add at least $7 trillion to the national debt with no end in sight.
“These are not serious proposals, and they will not solve our fiscal problems. The plan proposed today by the House leaders does not meet the core standards of the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge. The Tea Party is willing to negotiate with the President over the specific spending cuts and spending caps, but any proposal must include a balanced budget amendment to ensure we solve our debt problem once and for all.
“The debate needs to be about real spending cuts – not simply reductions in proposed increases. This ‘deal’ talks of cuts, but these ‘cuts’ are from a baseline that plans to spend over $45 trillion over the next 10 years. It is important that the public understand that the ‘deal’ involves allowing spending and debt to increase every year over the next 10 years. I cannot and will not support any deal that does not have as its end goal a balanced budget. Promises and commissions will not satisfy that goal.”