Paul Ryan on the need to control spending and create jobs VIDEO TEXT

Mika Brzezinski: Joining us now from Capitol Hill Paul, Republican Congressman from Wisconsin and Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Representative Paul Ryan, who we like very much.

Joe Scarborough: He has made tough choices. You cannot say Paul Ryan has not shown courage.

Mika Brzezinski: He has shown courage.

Congressman Ryan: The feeling is mutual.

Mika Brzezinski: Paul, are there no tax modifications that you could sell to your base for the sake of your ultimate goal and the country—and that is to save trillions of dollars and avoid a default?

Congressman Ryan: Mika, take a look at our budget, and I think you've read our budget, we've proposed a deal. We say, let's go after all these loopholes to lower tax rates to clean up our tax code.

Look GE made a lot of money, but paid no taxes. UPS, another big company, paid a 34 percent tax rate while their competitors overseas paid something like 24 percent. Something's wrong with our tax system. It's making us uncompetitive. The Republican budget says, clear out all these loopholes, to lower rates, to provide for economic growth. We do agree with loophole closing. We don't want to make it a situation where it's used not to cut spending or to take pressure off spending cuts, but to fix our tax code to grow the economy.

You've got to deal with spending; that's the big issue Mika. Putting taxes aside, if we don't start getting spending under control, we will have a debt crisis. We see what happens with those things by looking at what's going on in Europe. We don't want those kinds of problems here. Spending is the problem and that's what we want to keep focused on.

Mika Brzezinski: Okay, that sounds reasonable.

Joe Scarborough: Very reasonable.

Mika Brzezinski: Now what about some of those tax loopholes being closed and other modifications to the tax code to raise money to put against the debt? Would that be okay?

Congressman Ryan: Well that's what I was just talking about. See the thing is, we believe tax reform is a critical ingredient to economic growth and job creation and we don't want to have deficit increasing tax reform. We don't want to do tax reform that raises the deficit, and so in order to do tax reform without increasing the deficit you need to use these loophole closers to finance tax reform because that's critical for job creation. That means we've got to focus on the spending side of the ledger to deal with cutting spending and getting the deficit down.

You see the ingredient we subscribe to, meaning the economic doctrine, is economic growth and spending controls. Those are the two things you want to get this fiscal situation under control because with economic growth people go from collecting unemployment to working and paying taxes, revenues go up, and you cut spending to get spending down. That's what we're trying to do.

Mika Brzezinski: I know you haven't seen a budget, so I don't want to hear there's no budget, they haven't put one on the table. Try another answer without using those words. Does it appear that from what the President is saying that he is willing to give on some major issues that are very challenging when it comes to his base and that deal with some of the things that you're talking about?

Congressman Ryan: I think you're talking about the "grand bargain" or such as it existed. And he did put some Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid issues on the table. The numbers that we're thrown around, I'm not so sure they added quite up. I think it was more of a, two dollars for spending cuts for one dollar of tax increase, closer to one-to-one perhaps, but it never got to three-to-one as far as I understand it.

We never saw a paper from the White House on this by the way. But the point is, the kinds of things they were talking about in entitlements were not their structural reforms that actually fix these problems and make them permanently solvent and that get our debt under control. They do take money from those programs and they buy you temporary relief. They would buy you a few years. They weren't the kinds of structural reforms that actually save Medicare, make Medicaid solvent, prevent the bankruptcy of Social Security. They weren't the real structural reforms. They were kind of the nickel-and-dime stuff that saves money, but don't fix the problem.

Joe Scarborough: Paul, as you know I've been a big fan of yours, not because of what you've done when the Democrats were in power, but because of what you've done when the Republicans were in power. In fact you'll remember I wrote about you I think in about 2003 or 2004 in a book, and you've always made the tough decisions. You've always faced the reality of this crisis, which gets worse by the year.

But you do understand because of the district that you come from—a swing district that the Democrats usually win in Presidential elections—you've got a Democratic President, you've got a Democratic Senate, and if you're going to get a compromise that works. I'd love to get to a $4 trillion number—you may not be able to get rid of some of the loopholes while lowering the rates.

Is it a possibility—we're not asking you to negotiate here—is it in the realm of possibility that in exchange for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security cuts that some of the Republican Conference in the House would say 'okay listen, we don't like it, but we're realistic. We' will get rid of the loopholes and keep the rates where they are—don't raise them, but we're not going to be able to lower them'. Is that a possible compromise?

Congressman Ryan: I don't see it happening Joe, only because the kinds of entitlement reforms that were offered were not real, fundamental entitlement reforms. Some of them were fairly structural; most of them were cutting providers and cutting benefits here and there. They weren't the kinds of structural reforms that actually fix our problem, like we proposed in our budget.

We want to permanently save Medicare and make it solvent, we want to put Medicaid on a sustainable footing so we pay off its unfunded liabilities—we have about $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities. We want to put in place a plan that pretty much takes care of that, so we can calm down the credit markets and never have a debt crisis.

The kinds of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts and reforms that the President was being willing to offer are not the kinds of things that would have ultimately prevented a debt crisis. If we're in the area of talking about what's necessary to actually permanently fix these problems, preempt a debt crisis, and get this economy going then, yeah I want to negotiate on that. But those were not the kinds of reforms that we were being presented with.

All I saw coming from this "grand bargain," from my own personal perspective, were tax increases ultimately that would have hurt job creation and the economy, and not the kinds of structural reforms that would have fixed this problem and prevented a debt crisis. It would have bought us a couple of years, but it wouldn't have saved a generation.

John Heilemann: Congressman just to be clear, the reason you guys never saw paper on that stuff from the President was because you guys shut off conversation before there was a chance.

Congressman Ryan: I wasn't in the room. I wasn't a part of this conversation so I can't tell you.

John Heilemann: But your Conference made it clear when the President said that part of the "grand bargain" from his point of view had to be the repealing of the Bush tax cuts for upper income earners after 2012 and into 2013. That was just a no-go for you guys. That was the issue that made it impossible to have any other conversations on this.

Congressman Ryan: Yes, because here's why: I'm not sure who asked me that question, but we don't think raising tax rates in 2013 is helping the economy today. Not only is the actual rate going to 39.6 percent, when you take all the other stuff that were in Obamacare and everything else, the effective top marginal tax rate goes to 44.8 percent.

Here's the problem: 54 percent of workers in America get their jobs from these kinds of businesses that file as individuals, subchapter S corporations, partnerships. One-in-four people in America get their jobs from an S corporation. We are raising their top tax rate to 44.8 percent in 2013.

Their competitors aren't taxed like that. In Wisconsin we compete against Canadians, they're getting taxed at 16 percent. We're going to raise the taxes on our businesses, on the job creators to almost 45 percent? You throw the Wisconsin income tax rate on top of that and we're taxing them more than 50 percent.

We see it as a job killer and more importantly, yeah these taxes hit in 2013, they are going to hurt jobs today because businesses look forward—they're forward looking—and when they see this massive tax increase coming, they're not going to hire today, and so we think it's a job killer.

John Heilemann: I understand all of that Congressman, but the bottom-line is that because any kind of a substantial bargain is now off the table, the likeliest outcome we're now looking at is something like the McConnell plan, where we're going to have a debt-ceiling increase with no big changes. The changes that are being proposed, although they don't go as far as you would like to go, they're still much bigger than what we're going to get now—which is nothing—and at the end of 2012 the Bush tax cuts are going to expire anyway, and that's an argument that you guys may lose politically.

Don't you think it's kind of a mistake to not have gotten what you could get now, rather than ending up where we're going to end up where you guys could get a lot less. It just doesn't seem like politically this was a smart play from the Republican point of view.

Congressman Ryan: Well I'm not looking at what's good politics, I'm looking at what's good policy, and I really believe its bad policy to stack a bunch of tax increases. By the way, these tax increases are hurting jobs today, but this debt is hurting jobs today, and I don't think we're going to get nothing out of this debt limit agreement. We wouldn't do that.

We need to get spending cuts and I think we're going to get a down payment on spending cuts. I think we're going to get spending cuts on debt and we're going to help get the debt down. Now will our spending cuts be as high as we're asking for? Probably not, and if that's the case, then the debt limit won't be increased as much as the President wants it to be, and then we're going to have to figure out what to do on the rest of it because we will have another episode to deal with before these 18 months are out.

Mika Brzezinski: You know as this has been covered over the last couple of days, I think the optics, some would say, the Republicans look a little difficult. And that may not be the case, because you made a point about the reforms that you feel are being put on the table on the side of the President not being the right ones—not really saving, not really having the effect. If they were more appropriate, would then some sort of tax increases be on the table?

Congressman Ryan: I'm not going to get into all these hypothetical's Mika – I don't see the purpose of it. I don't think it's worthwhile to negotiate to media on such things.

Here's the problem Mika: put taxes aside, put the whole tax increase issue aside, we still have to cut a lot of spending, much more than what's being talked about right now, and the President is just unwilling to go anywhere close to the kinds of spending cuts that we're going to have to have if we want to avert a debt crisis.

Look, $4 trillion I don't believe is going to do it. I really don't think it's going to cut it. The President is proposing we spend $46 trillion over the next ten years. With the debt limit increase we're saying let's spend $43.5 trillion. That's not asking a lot over a ten-year period. It will be a small down-payment on what will be necessary to prevent a debt crisis, and the President won't even do that. What we have here is a lack of leadership from the White House on what we know is mathematically is necessary to fix this problem, and that is scary to me.

Joe Scarborough: Alright, Congressman Paul Ryan, thank you so much for being with us.

Mika Brzezinski: Nice to see you. Good luck with everything.

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan Washington, DC Office. 1233 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3031 Fax: (202) 225-3393

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: Morning Joe: MSNBC

Ronald Reagan Address to the Nation on the Fiscal Year 1983 Federal Budget

April 29, 1982 Good evening: My fellow Americans, you know the most important goal that all of us share tonight is economic recovery -- to see our factories reopening their gates, to see the unemployed return to their jobs, and every American enjoy the fruits of prosperity. To get our economy moving again, it's imperative that we enact a Federal budget that will bring down deficits and bring down interest rates.

I had hoped that when I addressed you tonight, it would be to give you the details of a bipartisan agreement on a budget and revenue plan for 1983. As you know, yesterday marked the end of a long series of discussions to help reach such an agreement. They ended, despite our best efforts to achieve a fair compromise. But before I discuss these talks and our plans for the future, let me give the background that led up to them.

In our budget proposal, we had continued the process we started last year of trying to get control of runaway government spending. Deficits over the last few decades have been literally built into the Federal structure. The rate of increase in spending was 17 percent when we took office. There's no way that government can pay for increases at that rate without gigantic tax increases each year or borrowing and adding to the national debt.

Now, this latter course has been followed for so many years that we now have a trillion-dollar debt. To give you some idea of how much a trillion is, if we started paying off the debt at a billion dollars a year, it would take a thousand years to wipe it out.

Now, if I may, let me take you back a little. In 1977, when the previous administration took office, inflation was 4.8 percent. It rose steadily, and in 1979 and '80 we had 2 years of back-to-back double-digit inflation. Unemployment started to increase, and by 1980 we were in a recession with nearly 8 million unemployed, inflation at 12.4 percent, and interest rates at 21\1/2\ percent. As those interest rates continued, home construction and automobiles were hard hit, because few could afford to take out a mortgage or buy a car on time. Unemployment continued to increase.

The 1981 budget was already in place when our administration began, and while we managed to effect several billions of dollars savings during the balance of the fiscal year, there was nothing we could do but set our sights on the 1982 budget, which would be our first. We had to reduce the built-in rate of increase. At the same time, we had to reduce the share of the people's earnings the government was taking in taxes.

Now, this may sound strange in view of the increased spending, and it was contrary to the philosophy of the Democratic leadership. But high taxes, destroying incentive, had contributed to reduced productivity and a reduction in savings, which left us without the capital we needed for industrial expansion. And because government always finds a need for whatever money it gets, the cost of government continued to go up.

Between 1976 and 1981, Federal tax revenues increased by $300 billion. Deficits ran $318 billion. There was no way we could get the rate of spending down to where it should be in one year. But our economic recovery program did manage to reduce the rate of increase in spending to nearly half of what it had been. We also proposed a 3-year program of tax rate reduction for individuals and for business. You helped us get both the reductions in spending and the tax reductions by letting your elected representatives know you wanted them.

During the debate on our economic program, we stated many times that there would have to be a second installment of budget reductions in 1983. That built-in, automatic spending increase I spoke of would otherwise give us a budget of $827 billion in '83, $918 billion in 1984, and more than a trillion in 1985.

What is our situation now, and how well have we done with our economic recovery program? Well, we're still in a recession, and unemployment has continued to go up, particularly in those areas affected by the troubles of the automobile and construction industries. Farmers, too, are hurt by the high interest rates. They borrow to plant and pay back at harvest, but that doesn't work when interest rates remain at too high a level. It is true, however, that those rates are down about a fifth from that high of 21\1/2\ percent. But they must come down some more, and they have every reason to, because that 12.4-percent inflation rate we inherited has been running at only 3.2 percent for the last 6 months. And last month, for the first time in 17 years, it dropped below zero. Prices actually went down.

Now, with all of this in mind, we introduced a budget for 1983 of $758 billion, lower than the built-in spending by a considerable amount. Still, it represented an increase over the '82 budget of 332 -- pardon me, $32 billion. Nevertheless, there were outraged screams of protest, and you were led to believe that we were actually proposing less spending than the present level. There's been an insistent drumbeat, aided by special-interest groups charging that our budget would deprive the needy, the handicapped, and the elderly of the necessities of life. I'm sure many of these people were sincere, well intentioned, but also misinformed.

Our original budget proposal would have funded 95 million meals a day for the needy, provided medical care for 47 million Americans, subsidized housing for about 10 million people. In addition, there would be 7 million loans and grants for college students, of which there are 11 million full-time. Social security, which was $122 billion in 1980, will be $188 billion in 1983.

But the drumbeat was too loud. Many in Congress criticized that budget and demanded that we send up a new one. Well, we worked many months with the Cabinet on the one we submitted and believed it could fulfill government's responsibility to those who, through no fault of their own, had to depend on their fellow citizens for help. Besides, I felt that some workable alternative to ours should have been suggested by our critics so we could begin arriving at a consensus.

As the talk grew of stalemate, I asked my Chief of Staff, Jim Baker, to contact the congressional leadership of both Houses and see if some means couldn't be agreed upon in which the matter could be discussed, with the idea of finding an area of agreement. A bipartisan arrangement was made whereby the Senate had five representatives, the House of Representatives had seven, and the administration had five.

This group, which began to be called the ``Gang of 17,'' held its first meeting on April 1st, and its 13th and last the day before yesterday, April 27th. The rule they followed was that nothing was binding on Speaker O'Neill, Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker, or myself. They would simply see if they could find enough agreement that actual negotiations seemed possible and practical. I, in turn, had told our representatives the areas I felt were nonnegotiable. They were that any changes in defense spending must not interfere with or delay our rebuilding of national security, and that spending must be significantly reduced, and that our tax reductions, adopted last year, must be preserved.

I received regular progress reports and was greatly encouraged. The Gang of 17 worked long, hard hours and deliberated in good faith. What they were doing couldn't really be called negotiation. That would come later. Speaker O'Neill referred to it once as ``dialoguery.''

Well, the projected deficits for the next 3 years continued to increase as the lower inflation rate reduced estimated revenues. Continued unemployment, which costs government about $25 billion for every added one percentage point, took its toll. And the persistent high interest rates added to the cost of government borrowing.

While I don't believe in the accuracy of long-range projections, we're required to acknowledge them in our budgeting. They stand at $182 billion for 1983, $216 billion in '84, and $233 billion in 1985 if we do nothing about reducing spending. Not only must those deficits be reduced, they must show a decline over the next 3 years, not an increase. Our goal must be a balanced budget. And our budget would have set us on that road. But, apparently, there was no meeting of the minds.

There's no question but that a difference in philosophy exists. While the Democratic leadership lamented about the deficit facing us, committees in the House of Representatives, controlled by them, were recommending increases above and beyond our proposed budget of more than $50 billion in higher spending. Apparently the philosophical difference between us is that they want more and more spending and more and more taxes. I believe we should have less spending, less taxes, and more prosperity.

There hasn't been too much opportunity in the last 40 years to see what our philosophy can do. But we know what theirs can do: the longest sustained inflation in history, the highest interest rates in a hundred years, eight recessions since World War II, and a trillion-dollar debt.

The day before yesterday, Jim Baker told me the group had decided they could come no closer to agreement than they were, and there would be no more meetings. So I called Speaker O'Neill and suggested we meet to take up where the Gang of 17 had left off. That meeting took place for more than 3 hours yesterday.

The worksheets of the committee showed that on our side our nondefense spending cuts had been reduced to about 60 percent of what we had originally proposed. There were some areas such as estimated savings from improved management practices which had been accepted. On the Democratic side they'd expressed a willingness to accept some cuts which they thought were a concession on their part inasmuch as they hadn't wanted any budget reductions except in defense.

On revenues we had originally proposed about $13 billion for next year, most of which could be obtained through changes in tax regulations. Some regulations have been regulated or interpreted in such a way as to provide tax advantages which were never intended. The group was discussing a figure of $25 billion, which meant actually increasing some taxes or passing new ones. Now, that figure would not have required eliminating or reducing the tax cuts in our economic recovery program. Still the $25 billion figure was almost double our original proposal.

In yesterday afternoon's meeting on Capitol Hill, Speaker O'Neill, Senator Howard Baker, myself, and five of the Gang of 17 participated. As I say, the figures on which the group had found some agreement were far from those we'd proposed in February. But I decided against trying to start the negotiations on the basis of that original budget. The most essential thing is to send a message to the money market that we, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree on reducing the deficit and continuing to hold down inflation. Actually the Gang of 17 had come very close in their deliberations, and I was encouraged to believe that we could arrive at a settlement.

Our original cuts totaled $101 billion. They -- [referring to a chart] -- I can't make a big enough mark to show you -- but they were rejected, believe me. Our own representatives from the Congress proposed compromising at $60 billion. Their counterparts from the Democratic side of the aisle proposed 35. In our meeting yesterday, which went on for more than 3 hours, our compromise of $60 billion was rejected -- now my pen is working. And then I swallowed hard and volunteered to split the difference between our 60 and their 35 and settle for 48, and that was rejected. The meeting was over.

Now on this chart the red line is where we go in the next 3 years with regard to deficits if there is no compromise. It'll reach a deficit of $233 billion in 1985 alone, and as you can see, the line is still going up. And so will interest rates. The blue line is where we go if we settle on a reasonable compromise -- steadily down to a deficit by 1985 of only $44 billion. And you can see that a balanced budget is not far distant. And this blue line will, I'm convinced, start interest rates down from the moment there is agreement on the compromise.

It is essential that we have a prompt resolution of this budget debate. It is, of course, up to the Congress to act now. But I'll do everything I can to help in getting a prompt settlement. If American workers can show the statesmanship they've shown in redrawing their contracts to restrain their own wages to help in this time of recession, surely we in Washington can show some statesmanship, too.

I'm convinced we're in the trough, as it's called, of this recession and that we'll begin to see recovery in the second half of the year. There will be political pressure from some to turn on the printing presses and flood us with paper money. Well, that's been done before, and the answer is always the same -- a flush feeling for about 5 minutes, then more inflation leading toward a plunge into an even worse recession.

There is another road that leads to permanent recovery. It begins with a responsible budget now. In the coming days, I will do everything I can to help the Congress achieve this vital goal. And you can help, too, by letting your representatives know that you think this is no time for "politics as usual"; that you, too, want an end to runaway taxes, spending, government debt, and high interest rates.

Tomorrow I will meet with Republican members of the Gang of 17 to forge the beginnings of an acceptable budget initiative. On Monday I will meet with the full Republican leadership and with members of the Senate and House Budget Committees. I will also consult with responsible members of the Democratic Party in the Congress to make this a truly bipartisan effort in the national interest.

But our efforts must not stop there. Once we've achieved a balanced budget -- and we will -- I want to ensure that we keep it for many long years after I've left office. And there's only one way to do that. So, tonight I am asking the Congress to pass as soon as possible a constitutional amendment to require balanced Federal budgets.

This amendment will, of course, have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States. But I'm confident that the grassroots support for a balanced budget amendment is out there and will carry the day against the special interests. Most Americans understand the need for a balanced budget, and most Americans have seen how difficult it is for the Congress to withstand the pressures for more spending. This amendment will force government to stay within the limit of its revenues. Government will have to do what each of us does with our own family budgets -- spend no more than we can afford.

Only a constitutional amendment will do the job. We've tried the carrot, and it failed. With the stick of a balanced budget amendment, we can stop government squandering, overtaxing ways, and save our economy.

Time and again the American people -- you -- have worked wonders that have astounded the world. We've done it in war and peace, in good times and bad, because we're a people who care and who know how to pull together -- family by family, community by community, coast to coast -- to change things for the better. The success story of America is neighbor helping neighbor. So, tonight I ask for your help, your voice, at this turning point.

So often in history great causes have been won or lost at the last moment, because one side or the other lacked that last reserve of character and stamina, of faith and fortitude, to see the way through to success. Make your voice heard. Let your representatives know that you support the kind of fair, effective approach I have outlined for you tonight. Let them know you stand behind our recovery program. You did it once, you can do it again.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Note: The President spoke at 8 p.m. from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television.

TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: www.reagan.utexas.edu

Cut, Cap, & BALANCE - A Complete Picture VIDEO

Join the Conversation: #CutCapBalance

Congress's past failure to produce balanced budgets is a major cause of today's fiscal crisis. It is time that Congress accepts a limit on its runaway spending, and joins the 49 states which govern with a balanced budget requirement. A balanced budget amendment that fundamentally reforms the way Washington budgets and spends must include protections against federal tax increases and a cap on federal spending to GDP.

TEXT and VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanStudyComm

Randy Neugebauer statement regarding his amendment (H.R. 2219) B-1 bomber VIDEO

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) issued the following statement today regarding his amendment (H.R. 2219) to the Defense Appropriations bill:

“Last night, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that prevents any funds in the bill from being used to retire any B-1 bombers this year, so that we can make cuts to the bomber fleet comprehensively rather than piecemeal.

I am grateful for the support of my House colleagues in approving this amendment, especially Reps. Thornberry, Conaway and Noem. Congresswoman Noem and I have been able to attract substantial support for this amendment because we have a very strong policy argument behind it. Currently, two-thirds of the bomber fleet is under review as a result of the new START Treaty limitations on nuclear delivery vehicles. At this time, we do not know what those cuts will look like, and there is no way to predict their impact on the capabilities of the overall bomber fleet. With just 162 aircraft, the bombers are a mere 3 percent of the Air Force’s manned aircraft fleet. After seeing the retirement of over 700 bombers during the last several decades, it is in the best interests of our national security to make the right decisions with this scarce asset.

While the passage of this amendment is a first step in a long and complicated legislative process, I am hopeful my colleagues in the Senate will share my belief that no B-1’s should be retired during this time of war against our enemies."

TEXT CREDIT: Congressman Randy Neugebauer Washington, D.C. 1424 Longworth HOB Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-4005 Fax: (202) 225-9615

VIDEO CREDIT: RandyNeugebauer

Eric Cantor: We Must Get Our Fiscal House In Order Without Raising Taxes VIDEO

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today called on President Obama to release the details of his “grand plan” that he proposed for a debt limit increase:

“Today we will continue meetings at the White House to try to find consensus surrounding the debt limit. Though none of the plans being discussed right now could garner the 218 votes needed for House passage, we have found areas of agreement. I am glad the President has finally agreed that Medicare as we know it will be bankrupt within 10 years unless we do something about it, and I am glad he has agreed that we need to address our debt crisis now. As we move forward in this debate, I would ask that we work in earnest on these areas of commonality instead of demanding that areas of agreement are tied to items of fundamental disagreement like raising taxes. The President refuses to compromise on the repeal of ObamaCare, and House Republicans refuse to raise taxes, so both have been ruled out. Further, the simple reality is that tax increases cannot pass the House, and the constant demand for them makes coalescing around any increase in the debt limit less likely.

"Currently, there is not a single debt limit proposal that can pass the House of Representatives, but I believe the path forward is to focus on what we can agree upon, and though it doesn’t go as far as our budget, House Republicans can likely agree with the general spending cuts and entitlement changes in the ‘big deal’ proposed by the President. That isn’t everything that we want, as the President’s proposal appears to be around $3 trillion in spending cuts, compared to the reforms and the more than $6 trillion in cuts House Republicans supported in the Ryan budget. I also believe that the President should release the basic framework and details of his spending cuts so that both Republicans and Democrats can make well informed decisions about something of this magnitude. To date, we have not seen the details of his plan and we must be able to – the stakes are too high for anything less."

TEXT CREDIT: Eric Cantor Majority Leader Office of the Majority Leader H-329, The Capitol House of Representatives P: 202.225.4000

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: EricCantor

Paul Ryan The Future of Medicare: An Examination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board VIDEO TEXT

Rep. Paul Ryan delivered his opening statement at the House Budget Committee hearing on "Medicare's Future: An Examination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board."

Chairman Paul Ryan: Opening Remarks, As Prepared for Delivery.

Thank you to all for taking part in today’s hearing on the future of Medicare. For years, politicians in both political parties have not been honest with the American people about Medicare.

The facts are clear:

Health care costs are skyrocketing, growing at 8% a year. Medicare spending is on pace to double over the next decade, exhausting its remaining funds.

10,000 baby boomers are retiring every day, as fewer workers are left paying into the program.

Life expectancy was at 70 when Medicare was created, and is at 79 today.

Nonpartisan experts – including the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare’s own trustees – repeatedly warn of the looming insolvency of this critical program.

Rather than advancing solutions to address these facts, too many politicians in Washington have offered nothing but empty promises and false attacks. We deserve better.

Due in large part to this committee’s efforts, I believe that the debate is shifting to better reflect Medicare’s inescapable math. President Obama was exactly right when he stated yesterday: “If you look at the numbers, Medicare in particular will run out of money, and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up. It's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing.”

Senator Joe Lieberman, who has worked in a bipartisan manner to offer ideas of his own, put it well when he recently stated: “We can only save Medicare if we change it.” The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine the changes to Medicare made by the President’s health care law. Specifically, we will seek to better understand the Independent Payment Advisory Board’s role in achieving the hundreds of billions of dollars of savings called for by the President. While I imagine we’ll hear about the many different expansions of government buried in the 2,700-page law, today’s hearing is focused is on page 1000, Section 3403.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board – or IPAB – is a new executive branch agency created by the President’s healthcare law. The law empowers this board of 15 unelected officials with the authority to reduce Medicare spending. Unless overturned by a supermajority in Congress, the recommended cuts dictated by this board will become law.

Bipartisan concerns have been raised with several aspects of this board. While the proponents claim that beneficiaries will be held harmless from the board’s decisions, how can IPAB impose sharp cuts to providers without any adverse impact on their patients?

Given their unprecedented new power over Medicare, to whom are these 15 bureaucrats accountable? There are bipartisan concerns on this question. Democrats, including members of this committee, have raised concerns with Congress turning its responsibilities over to this board.

Seniors are also seeking clarity on the President’s recent efforts to expand this board’s power over Medicare. In an April speech, the President called for IPAB to enforce further restrictions in Medicare’s growth rate – down to GDP + 0.5%. The health-care law is already driving Medicare’s reimbursement rates well below the artificially low Medicaid rates. According to Medicare’s Chief Actuary Richard Foster, the health care law will pay doctors less than half of what their services cost at the end of the decade, and down to 33% in the decades ahead. Foster warns that these cuts are driving Medicare providers out of business and resulting in harsh disruptions in quality and access for seniors.

Yet the President’s ‘framework’ calls upon IPAB to slash reimbursements even further. It remains incumbent upon the Administration to specify how this board will squeeze hundreds of billions of additional dollars from Medicare over the next decade, as the President has proposed.

I want to thank Secretary Sebelius for testifying today to help address these concerns. There is no question that we have differences on how to address Medicare’s unsustainable future, but I appreciate your commitment to clarifying this debate for policymakers and for the American people.

I also want to thank our second panel of distinguished health care experts who will further discuss the merits of IPAB. We look forward to testimony from former CBO Director Doug Holtz-Eakin, Grace-Marie Turner of the Galen Institute, and Dr. Judith Feder of the Urban Institute.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for their contributions to the debate, and to all for joining in today’s discussion. With that, I yield to Ranking Member Van Hollen for his opening statement.

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan: Washington, DC Office 1233 Longworth House Office Bldg Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-3031 Fax: (202) 225-3393

VIDEO CREDIT: HouseBudgetCommittee

John Boehner Has Been Clear: Real Spending Cuts & Reforms, No Tax Hikes VIDEO

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) made the following remarks at a press conference with Republicans today regarding the White House request for an increase in the debt limit:

My message to the White House over the last several months has been real simple: the spending cuts have to be larger than the increase in the debt ceiling. Secondly, there are no tax increases on the table. And thirdly, we have to have real controls in place to make sure this never happens again. Real controls like a Balanced Budget Amendment.

“But the fact is that House Republicans have a plan. We passed our budget back in the spring, outlined our priorities. Where is the president’s plan? When’s he going to lay his cards on the table? This debt limit increase is his problem and I think it’s time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table – something that the Congress can pass.”

# # # # #

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: JohnBoehner

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact: H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit VIDEO TEXT

Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit: FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the status of the President’s request to increase the debt limit:

“For more than two years now, Republicans in Washington have stood united in the belief that America would never recover from the economic crisis that struck our nation three years ago, so long as some in Washington persisted in the mistaken belief that government had the cure.

“For most clear-eyed observers, that view has found its clearest vindication in the daily drumbeat of news about lost jobs, shuttered businesses, and slumping home values; and in the stories that each of us hears from our constituents about the economic hardships that they continue to face.

“If anyone was still looking for proof that the President’s economic policies have been a failure, they don’t have to look any further than the morning papers or their constituent mail.

“Indeed, the more the administration insisted on spending and debt as the solution to our problems, the worse those problems became, and the more Americans demanded that the status quo in Washington had to change. But the administration was slow to get the message.

“After an election that any honest observer saw as a repudiation of its policies, the White House continued to cling to its playbook. As concerns about our debt and deficits grew, the President presented a budget so unequal to the task that not a single Democrat voted for it, not one. And as the nation inched closer to a potential default, the President focused his attention elsewhere.

“Meanwhile, Republicans were offering detailed solutions to the approaching crisis. We offered detailed budgets of our own. We offered to work out a compromise that lowered the debt and protected entitlements from bankruptcy. And here’s what we got in return: silence.

“And that’s where the debate over the debt limit came in. If Democrats would not agree on their own to do something about their addiction to spending and debt, then we’d refuse to enable it.

“If they wanted our votes to increase the debt limit, then they would have to do something to restrain the size and scope of government first.

“For awhile there, there weren’t many takers. Democrats from the President on down insisted that we simply raise the debt limit and endorse the status quo on spending without any reforms.

“That changed a couple months ago when the President agreed to delegate bipartisan debt reduction talks to the Vice President. Then, a couple weeks ago, the President broke his own silence on the debt ceiling debate and got personally involved himself.

“Incredibly, for those of us who had been calling for action on this issue day in and day out for about two years, the President tried to put the burden on us. With the nation edging closer to the debt limit deadline, the President retreated behind the poll-tested rhetoric of class warfare.

“At a moment when we needed leadership the most, we got the least. The financial security of the nation was being gambled on the President's wager that he could convince people our problems would be solved if we just all agreed to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street.

“In my view, that was the saddest commentary on the status of the leadership at the White House.

“And I’m proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along.

“We stood our ground. We know that what Americans need right now is for government to make job creation easier, not harder. And we said so. At a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, we refused to support a tax hike. We supported jobs and economic growth instead.

“When Democrats saw that we wouldn’t budge, they proposed one last offer to craft a deal.

“They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years.

“We all saw how it worked. The Administration carefully leaked to the media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along with trillions of dollars in spending cuts.

“The lack of detail concealed the fact that the savings they were supposedly willing to support was at best smoke and mirrors. The hope here was that the budget gimmicks and deferred decision-making they actually supported would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening.

“But the practical effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We've seen this kind of thing before. It’s just this kind of sleight of hand governing that’s put our nation more than $14 trillion in debt. And I will not associate myself with it. I refuse to join in an effort to fool the American people.

“Republicans have told the President we're not interested in business as usual in Washington. We mean it. We will not be party to something that claims to save trillions but leaves it to future generations to pick up the tab, and to future Congresses to reverse it with a simple vote.

“We will not pretend that a bad deal is a good one. Which brings me to a larger point.

“The suggestion has been made that this debate has hinged on the question of whether or not the two parties could find a solution to our economic problems without raising taxes.

“Wrong.

“We could have done that without breaking a sweat.

“The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate as a unique opportunity to impose the type of tax hikes they want so badly but couldn’t pass even in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year.

“So let’s not be fooled by a false choice.

“This was not, in the end, a debate about whether taxes needed to be raised.

“It was a debate about the kind of government we want. This was a debate between those who believe that Washington doesn’t have enough money to spend, and those, like me, who believe that Washington has become too big, too expensive, and too burdensome already.

“If you think that the federal government isn’t big enough, then the only responsible thing to do is to support higher taxes. For those who are honest about that, I appreciate their candor.

“But for those of us who don’t think the federal government should be in charge of banks, the auto industry, the housing business, the student loan business, health care, and regulating everything else under the sun, we’re not about to further enable that model of government by shaking down the American people for more money at a time when they can least afford it.

“That’s what this debate is about. It’s about saying Washington has gotten too big, and that if it can’t afford its commitments, then it needs to find a way to cut back on them. But don’t demand that the American people pay more so Washington can make its bad habits permanent.

“I read an article yesterday that said two out of every five dollars Americans spend right now comes from the federal government. Is this really the model we want?

“Mr. President, I have a lot of meetings with constituents and I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone say, `The problem with Washington is that they don’t have enough money to spend.’

“It was my hope that the two parties could reach a meaningful, bipartisan agreement. And I have to say, I was initially encouraged by the prospect of the bipartisan discussions led by the Vice President. Although I disagree with him on most issues, Vice President Biden is a man I've come to respect as a straight shooting negotiator. We found common ground last December to prevent a tax hike on the American people, and my hope was we could find a solution again.

“Sadly, these discussions started with shared goal of reducing the debt but quickly regressed to public a sideshow in which the price of admission became an insistence that we raise taxes on job creators and on millions of American families who do not have yachts or corporate jets.

“At a time when jobs are few and far between, that's not a price the American people can afford.

“So Republicans searched in good faith for common ground. But the goal posts just kept moving.

“We trudged on, hoping the administration would at some point realize that the crisis we face demands a clear change in direction, a departure from the government-driven policies of the past two years. But our hopes for a grand bargain eventually ran into the bitter reality that this Administration is just not interested in a meaningful and lasting solution to our mounting debt.

“It’s too committed to big government.

“We showed a willingness to sacrifice all along, even as we made it crystal clear from the outset that tax increases would not be a part of any agreement.

“It was their commitment to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain.

“It was their determination to freeze the policies of the past two years in place, permanently.

“The American people don’t want that, and Republicans won’t be seduced into enabling it.

“An ideological commitment to big government has outweighed the White House’s commitment to find a meaningful compromise that does not damage our fragile economy in the process.

“Rather than find a way to bring government back to the people, the Administration has committed itself to protecting the size and scope of government at the cost of job creation, economic growth, and America’s status in the global economy.

“The tragedy is that we all know what’s necessary to solve the economic crises we face.

“The answer is to cut spending.

“It’s no secret how to solve our entitlement crisis either. Any one of the people involved in these discussions could write it out on the back of an envelope.

“But it’s also no secret that Democrats would rather demagogue any solution Republicans propose in next year’s election than join us in seriously reforming them, despite what some Democrats started to say once it became clear that Republicans wouldn’t agree to a plan that raises taxes.

“We all saw the news stories yesterday about how senior Democrats have been worried that reforming Medicare now would make it harder for them to campaign against Republicans later. Evidently, they’d rather save their own jobs than save these programs from insolvency.

“I truly believed we could get this done.

“I truly believed, perhaps naively, that this Administration would see the necessity of preserving Social Security and Medicare for future generations.

“In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of demagogueing a solution proved its undoing.

“Or perhaps it was just the ideological commitment to preserving the size of government by the most stridently liberal members of the other side.

“Whatever the reasons, it’s a tragic missed opportunity for the country.

“I hope the economists are wrong, and that our economy will continue to grow over the next year and a half to buy us time to tackle the problems we face. But after years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable.

“This was not an easy decision for me.

“From my first day as Republican Leader in the Senate, I have called on Presidents from both parties to work with Congress on real solutions to the problems we face. And for more than two years I have had conversations with the Administration about working together to accomplish something big for the country. On each occasion, I've been met initially with encouraging words that gradually give way to moving goal posts.

“In the end, they have always expressed a fundamental unwillingness to engage in a meaningful effort to reduce spending as means to rein in the debt.

“Despite our stagnant economy, and the dire warnings of economic and security experts that we cannot sustain our mounting debt or unfunded liabilities, this President has proven that he will do almost anything to protect the size and scope of Washington, D.C's burgeoning bureaucracy.

“Including to threaten the economic security of every American by backing us up to the edge of default.

“I have heard some on the other side of the aisle suggest that Republicans have put us in this position by refusing to accept what they call a balanced approach.

“My response is that if the American people have learned one thing over the past few years, it’s that they need to bring their decoder rings to any debate in Washington these days.

“When Democrats say investment, they mean government spending.

“When they say revenue, they mean higher taxes.

“And when they say shared sacrifice, they mean they want you to take the hit, not Washington.

“It starts with the so-called rich, with the owners of the corporate jets, but pretty soon it hits the family flying in coach. Eventually everyone gets fleeced.

“Well, Americans have had enough. They think it’s time Washington shares in the sacrifice.

“Republicans invited Democrats into these discussions about finding a solution to our problems, and while we approached them with clear, unwavering principles, we also brought an open mind.

“The record reflects that.

“I won’t betray the confidence of those who were willing to negotiate with us, but there can be no question by anyone involved in those discussions that Republicans were willing to make tough choices.

“Where do we go from here?

“Well, I was one of those who had long hoped we could do something big for the country. But in my view the President has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I hoped to do good; but I refuse to do harm.

“So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people — which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn’t default on its obligations.

“And to continue to press the administration to rein in Washington.

“Not to freeze it in place.

“That’s why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our deficits and debt in a way that puts the short and long-term health of our economy ahead of his personal vision of government.

“That’s what the American people want. That’s what Republicans will continue to insist on.

“Nothing less will solve the crises we face. Nothing less will do.”

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell Washington Office 317 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: RepublicanLeader

John Boehner “Where Are the Jobs?” Statement on June Unemployment Report .

WASHINGTON, DC (Jul 8) House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) today released the following statement regarding the latest unemployment figures released by the U.S. Department of Labor:

“The American people are still asking the question: where are the jobs? Today’s report is more evidence that the misguided ‘stimulus’ spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country. Legislation that raises taxes on small business job creators, fails to cut spending by a larger amount than a debt limit hike, or fails to restrain future spending will only make things worse – and won’t pass the House. Republicans are focused on jobs, and are ready to stop Washington from spending money it doesn’t have and make serious changes to the way we spend taxpayer dollars. We hope our Democratic counterparts will join us and seize this opportunity to do something big for our economy and our future, and help get Americans back to work.”

NOTE: Read the statement signed by more than 150 economists that says, “An increase in the national debt limit that is not accompanied by significant spending cuts and budget reforms would harm private-sector job growth…” And learn more about the Republican blueprint for job creation at Jobs.GOP.Gov.

# # # # #

The House stood with the American people and rejected the Obama Administration’s plan to raise the debt limit without spending cuts – a plan that would hurt our economy and destroy more jobs. Today Speaker Boehner released a statement signed by more than 150 economists who argue that – to help address our job-crushing, spending-driven debt crisis – budget reforms and spending cuts should be larger than any increase in the debt limit. Read it here:

Economists: Spending Cuts Should Be Larger Than Any Debt Limit Hike

TEXT and EMBED CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

Cathy McMorris Weekly Republican Address TEXT PODCAST VIDEO 07/09/11

Washington (Jul 8) With the American people still asking ‘where are the jobs?,’ Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) uses the Weekly Republican Address to talk about President Obama’s broken ‘stimulus’ promises and highlight jobs bills passed by the House that have stalled in the Democratic-led Senate. These jobs bills are part of Republicans’ Plan for America’s Job Creators, which is designed to remove government barriers to private-sector job growth – the kind of growth the ‘stimulus’ promised but failed to deliver. Rep. McMorris Rodgers is vice chair of the House Republican Conference. Following is the full text of the address.

Podcast of the address: Download MP3 for PODCAST || FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT BELOW. || Download Video MPEG Video || MP4 Video

“Hello, I’m Cathy McMorris Rodgers, I have the privilege of representing Washington’s Fifth Congressional District, and I serve as vice chair of the House Republican Conference.

“‘Where are the jobs?’

“It’s the only question worth asking after yesterday’s unemployment report. Our economy is actually creating fewer jobs month-to-month right now. More than 14 million people are out of work. They’ve been unemployed, on average, for 40 weeks, a new record.

“The Obama Administration promised its ‘stimulus’ would keep unemployment below eight percent. Two and a half years later, the unemployment rate is more than nine percent and still rising. That’s unacceptable. America can do better.

“By and large, it’s uncertainty that’s holding our economy back, whether it’s uncertainty about our overwhelming debt, uncertainty about energy prices, or uncertainty about all the burdensome mandates coming down from Washington. Small business owners are pleading for government to just get out of the way.

“The Republican majority in the House has been listening. We’re focused on implementing our Plan for America’s Job Creators, which is designed to remove government barriers to private sector job growth – the kind of growth the ‘stimulus’ promised but failed to deliver. You can check out the details of our plan for yourself at Jobs.GOP.gov.

As a part of this blueprint, we’ve passed legislation to stop policies that drive up gas prices and expand domestic energy production to help lower costs and create jobs.

We’ve voted to modernize the patent system to help America’s innovators level the playing field.

And we’ve approved a budget that pays down our debt over time and makes Washington live within its means.

“Unfortunately, the Democrat-led Senate hasn’t considered any of these jobs bills. Not a single one. In fact, it’s been more than 800 days since the Senate last passed a budget.

“President Obama has said he’s open to job creation ideas from anyone in any party. If that’s the case, he should encourage Democrats in the Senate to take up the jobs bills the House has passed.

“From the look of things, the Democrats who run Washington don’t have a jobs plan; they have a spending agenda. They’re proposing a rehash of what’s already been tried: more spending, more taxes, and bigger government. These are the Washington-knows-best policies that steered us towards a dead end.

“If we’ve learned anything, it’s that we cannot spend, tax, or borrow our way to prosperity. To create jobs and set our country on a sound fiscal course, we must stop spending money we don’t have.

“That’s why Republicans have maintained there can be no increase in the national debt limit unless it is accompanied by serious spending cuts and reforms. To be truly serious, these cuts should exceed the amount by which President Obama wants the debt limit increased. And there can be no job-crushing tax hikes on families and small businesses.

“Washington Democrats disagree. They say that to reduce our out-of-control debt, the American people should sacrifice in the form of higher taxes. That’s where they’re wrong. The American people have already sacrificed in lost jobs, more debt, and chronic uncertainty. It’s time for Washington to do the sacrificing.

“Last month, more than 150 economists echoed this viewpoint. ‘We will not succeed in balancing the federal budget and overcoming the challenges of our debt,’ they wrote, ‘until we succeed in committing ourselves to government policies that allow our economy to grow.’ Tax hikes won’t help our economy grow – they would just make matters worse.

“If we do this right, we can reduce uncertainty in the short-term and pay down our debt over the long-term. That’s what our job creators need and that’s what our children deserve.

“Mr. President, Americans are asking you, ‘where are the jobs?’ We invite you to change course and work with us to empower, not burden, our nation’s small businesses, families, and entrepreneurs. We can do this if we work together.

“Again, you can learn more about the Republicans’ jobs plan at Jobs.GOP.gov. Thank you for listening.”

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: HouseConference

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

AUDIO / VIDEO FILES CREDIT: The House Republican Conference - Digital Communications visual.media@mail.house.gov 202-225-5439

Tim Pawlenty's Statement on Jobs Report 07/08/11

"President Obama is out of answers and running out of time. His policies are not creating the necessary jobs and he has no plan to do anything about it. We will have continued anemic growth and disappointing job creation so long as Barack Obama is president. I will turn around the economy as president by setting bold growth goals and implementing specific proposals to achieve them."

TEXT CREDIT: Pawlenty for President PO Box 385340 Bloomington, MN 55438

IMAGE CREDIT: Copyright All rights reserved by Tim Pawlenty's Photos

Michele Bachmann first TV ad in Iowa: "Waterloo" VIDEO

Republican Presidential Candidate Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann talks about her Iowa roots and her efforts to fight wasteful spending in Washington.

TEXT VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: teambachmann

Michele Bachmann statement on Today's unemployment report

Today's unemployment report is another stark reminder of the failure of President Obama's economic policies. The President promised if we passed the massive stimulus package that unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent, we are now at 9.2 percent. Unfortunately, millions of Americans are suffering today as a result of the president's broken promise and his policy of attempting to create jobs through massive government spending that has added over 35 percent to our national debt.

"Amidst this economic freefall, it should not be lost that the architect of the President's failed economic policies, Timothy Geithner, will head for the door after he attempts to cement the President's legacy of massive spending and debt by raising the debt limit another $2.4 trillion dollars. We can only hope that the President will be right behind him after the next election.

"The President promised 'shovel-ready' projects that would create jobs, but now the President says 'shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected.' Mr. President, it's time to take the shovel out of your hand and stop digging. ATM's aren't responsible for our high unemployment rate; your administration's threat of higher taxes, massive government spending, and overregulation are."

TEXT CREDIT: Bachmann for President P.O. Box 251310 | Woodbury, MN 55125 info@michelebachmann.com

IMAGE CREDIT: teambachmann

House Republicans Cut, Cap, and Balance VIDEO

103 House Republicans sent a letter to House Republican leadership calling for a solution that could resolve the current debt limit impasse and prevent the bigger, Greece-like debt crisis just over the horizon: Cut, Cap, and Balance.

1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.

2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.

3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.

With each passing day our nation’s fiscal health gets worse, leaving our children and grandchildren falling further into debt. Democrats seem to have given up, proposing even more borrowing in response to our massive debt addiction. With the problem growing larger every day, we must move quickly and unite behind a plan to cut spending and get our budget into balance.

TEXT CREDIT: Republican Study Committee (RSC)

VIDEO CREDIT: RepublicanStudyComm

RNC Launches New Television Ad ‘Change Direction’ TEXT VIDEO

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee (RNC) released a new television ad, ‘Change Direction,’ in a national cable buy that highlights President Obama’s failed economic policies and the disastrous course he has set for America’s economy. The ad marks the beginning of a month-long economic messaging campaign that will reach into battleground states and test new digital marketing strategies.

“The RNC intends to challenge Barack Obama in every state on his failed economic leadership right up until Election Day,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus. “Whether it’s the Administration telling companies where and how to do business, calling for massive tax increases on job creators, or recklessly spending money we don’t have, President Obama’s policies have made the economy worse. Even now, with 9.1 percent unemployment and a debt that’s on track to exceed the size of our economy, President Obama and Washington Democrats have made raising taxes and more ‘stimulus’ spending their top priority for the summer. Republicans have already changed the conversation in Washington, but with the President unwilling to remove the country from its unsustainable course, it’s time to change direction.”

TEXT CREDIT: Republican National Committee 310 First Street, SE Washington, DC 20003 info@gop.com p 202.863.8500 | f 202.863.8820

VIDEO CREDIT: rnc

Eric Cantor Remarks On Cantor-Hoyer Resolution On Middle East Peace VIDEO TEXT

Madam Speaker, we call today on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to renounce the path they have set in planning to announce statehood in the upcoming United Nations session.

By threatening to side step the principles of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is beginning to dismantle the framework of future peace process agreements.

We have seen the death and destruction that Hamas perpetrated against both Israeli civilians and the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. Yet Hamas refuses to accept responsibility for its actions or reign in terrorists called to strike at the heart of the Israeli people.

Today, we ask and call upon the Palestinian Authority return to the negotiating table and join the Israelis in direct discussions to end this conflict. Furthermore, we call on the leadership of the Palestinian Authority to renounce the violence Hamas condones and teaches to its followers.

This resolution, Madam Speaker, directs the Palestinian Authority to be responsible actors on the world stage and to return to negotiations.

For far too long, the Palestinian Authority has not acted on behalf of its people. Corruption has caused many to discredit its legitimacy. The people of the region deserve an honest broker that accepts and respects the state of Israel.

Israel has stood by America in its fight against extremist ideology. Madam Speaker, we stand by Israel as our most valued ally in a region in need of more who respect freedom of speech and the free assembly of people, a region that must follow the example set by Israel in its work and promotion of human progress.

It is time for the Palestinian Authority to accept a peaceful solution to this conflict and teach their children that violence is never the answer to their problems. The Palestinian Authority must understand that peace is only achievable when they are willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel to exist as a Jewish a state. And, they must understand that the solution to this conflict will only come through direct negotiations with the Israelis and not by circumventing the peace process through international parliamentary gimmickry.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) Floor Remarks July 6, 2011

TEXT CREDIT: Eric Cantor Majority Leader Office of the Majority Leader H-329, The Capitol House of Representatives P: 202.225.4000

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: EricCantor

John Boehner Applauds Alaska’s Jobs-Focused Energy Policy

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is joined by, left to right, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), and Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA) at a press conference to announce the American Energy Initiative. March 10, 2011

WASHINGTON, DC - House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today applauding Alaska Governor Sean Parnell and Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan for their commitment to expanding American energy production and creating thousands of new jobs: “While the Obama Administration continues to block and delay new American energy production, the state of Alaska is taking the lead and showing what a sensible, jobs-focused energy policy looks like. When he tapped our national security stockpile, President Obama admitted that America needs to increase its supply of energy – but it is leaders in Alaska who are really taking action.

“The Democrats running Washington need to step up and work with Republicans to unlock American energy production that would create jobs and help lower gas prices. The House has passed several American Energy Initiative bills that would end the Administration’s de facto moratorium, eliminate needless permit delays, and stop policies that drive up prices. With millions out of work and small businesses struggling, Washington needs to follow Alaska’s lead and remove barriers that are holding back energy production and hurting job growth.”

TEXT CREDIT: Speaker of the House John Boehner Contact: H-232 The Capitol Washington, DC 20515 P (202) 225-0600 F (202) 225-5117

IMAGE CREDIT: SpeakerBoehner

Michael C. Burgess Statement on Independence Day

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX-26) released the following statement in recognition of Independence Day. “On July 4th, 235 years ago, our Founding Fathers adopted the Declaration of Independence. This document marked a historic step in our country’s founding, and established “freedom” as a core principle of this great nation. “As we spend time with our families and loved ones this weekend to celebrate Independence Day, I hope each of us takes a moment to reflect and remember the sacrifices that have been made, and are still being made every day, by the brave men and women who are fighting for our freedoms. May God continue to bless America.”

###

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess : 26th District Of Texas: WASHINGTON, DC OFFICE 2241 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 P: (202) 225-7772 F: (202) 225-2919


IMAGE CREDIT: This United States Congress image is in the public domain. This may be because it is an official Congressional portrait, because it was taken by an official employee of the Congress, or because it has been released into the public domain and posted on the official websites of a member of Congress. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

Marco Rubio Criticizes President's Rhetoric, Lack Of Leadership VIDEO TEXT TRANSCRIPT

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio spoke on the floor of the Senate today to address the most critical issue facing our nation, Washington’s out-of-control spending and our nation’s massive debt. Senator Rubio also commented on President Obama’s press conference yesterday, during which his rhetoric failed to address these serious issues and stoked the flames of class warfare.

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

Senator Rubio: “Thank you, Senator Johnson.

I too yesterday watched the President's lecture on television. Watched it again this morning just to make sure I was well informed before I came here. My reaction is twofold.

One is I'm disappointed, and the other is I'm alarmed.

First, I'm disappointed because America does not have a tradition of class warfare. It’s never been part of our nation. In fact, one of the things that distinguishes us from the world is that Americans have never believed that you somehow have to take money away from somebody else in order to be better off.

On the contrary, we've always looked to advance the cause of everyone in the belief that we can all be prosperous and in the hopes of growing our economy that way. That's the American tradition and that serves our nation well.

Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that from the speech yesterday, a rhetoric that, quite frankly, was deeply disappointing.

The idea that if we raise taxes, as the President said, on millionaires and billionaires, raise taxes on oil companies, raise taxes on owners of private jets, that that somehow is going to make a difference in America’s debt in terms of having a real impact, is not only misleading, I think, quite frankly, it's disappointing.

It's class warfare, and it’s the kind of language that you would expect from the leader of a third world country, not the President of the United States.

But I'm also alarmed and worried about the speech because I think from it you can only take two things. Either the president doesn't truly understand the nature of the problem that we face, or he's decided that this is a political issue, not a policy one.

I say he perhaps doesn't understand the nature of the case because, for example, he mentioned the corporate jet tax six different times, and yet the impact it would have is so insignificant that the White House to this very moment has not even been able to give an estimate about what it means in a dollar figure.

Going further, by the way, it’s important to note that that exact tax provision was part of the President's now-infamous ‘stimulus’ plan that passed in February of 2009.

The bigger problem, though, is maybe the President fundamentally doesn't understand how jobs are created. Politicians don't create jobs. U.S. Senators don't create jobs.

Senator Johnson pointed out jobs are created by everyday people from all walks of life that start a business or expand an existing one. And our job here in government is to make it easier for them to do that, not harder. And threatening to raise taxes, threatening to wage class warfare does not accomplish that purpose.

Here's what I would suggest to the President: I would suggest that we have done this before as a people of America, things like a simpler tax code. People around here are in favor of tax reform. A simpler tax code, a manageable and sane regulatory environment, and of course a government that doesn't spend money it doesn't have. These things have worked before, and they will work again. And I urge the President to lead us in that direction.”

TEXT CREDIT: U.S. Senator for Florida, Marco Rubio: Washington, DC 317 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-3041

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: SenatorMarcoRubio

Rand Paul, ‘Where is the President’ During This Time of Crisis VIDEO TEXT TRANSCRIPT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, Sen. Rand Paul joined several of his Republican colleagues on the floor to speak in a colloquy in which they voiced their support for addressing the current debt crisis immediately and providing solutions, such as a series of spending cuts and caps and attaching balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Sen. Paul and his Republican colleagues spent their time on the floor today also questioning President Obama's dedication to the issue, as he participated in campaign events instead of working with Congress to address our nation's debt crisis.

FULL TEXT TRANSCRIPT:

I come down to the floor today in support of this movement. This movement is that we should be talking about what America says we should be talking about, the debt.

Now, yesterday the President went on national television and chastised Congress. He said to Congress, and I quote, "Members of Congress need to cancel things."

Well, you know what? I agree. I'm here today, though, Mr. President. Where are you?

My understanding is the President is campaigning, has a fund-raiser in Philadelphia tonight. I don't believe he's here tackling the nation's problems today.

Well he could send us the Vice President, but I don't think the Vice President is either here. Also, I think he's in Las Vegas campaigning tonight.

So the thing is it is a two-way street, if he's going to go on national television and chastise us not for doing work, we're here saying, we want to be working on the nation's problems. We're here saying the nation's debt is a problem. His administration has said the number-one national security threat we face is the debt.

Where is the president? Campaigning.

We're here, Mr. President. And we will have an offer. We don't want to raise the debt-ceiling. We don't want more debt. But you know what, as Republicans, for the good of the country, we're willing to raise the debt, but only - and I repeat, only if we have significant budgetary reform.

We have to balance the budget by law, force Congress to do it, by changing the constitution. It's the only way it will ever change.

There is pathology here. The pathology is that we do not have a spine. We are spineless and cannot do what it takes to cut the spending, and only we will get there if we change the constitution.

So, Mr. President, we are here. We are here. We welcome to you come back to town in between fund-raisers and talk about how we would fix this. But we would fix this by saying, "yes, we will raise the debt ceiling, contingent upon a balanced budget amendment to the constitution."

75 percent of the public is in favor of saying you have to balance your budget. Let's come back and discuss what I commend Senator Johnson for leading this fight.

I think this is just the beginning. But I don't plan on saying we should go to any other subject until we've addressed the debt ceiling. ###

VIDEO and IMAGE CREDIT: SenatorRandPaul

TEXT CREDIT: Rand Paul | United States Senator Washington, DC 208 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC, 20510 Phone: 202-224-4343

Dan Coats Weekly Republican Address VIDEO 07/02/11

7/2/11 - Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN) Delivers Weekly GOP Address On July 4th And Our Fiscal Crisis

In the Weekly Republican Address, Indiana Senator Dan Coats discusses Independence Day, America's fiscal crisis, and Indiana's example

Sen. Coats begins, "Two hundred and thirty-five years ago this July 4th, our Founding Fathers risked their lives and signed a document announcing the birth of America. Their brave declaration of freedom changed the course of history and revolutionized the world. Our Founding Fathers severed the chains of tyranny to provide a land of opportunity for future generations. They left it to their children and grandchildren to protect this gift.

"This generational responsibility is the story of America. Today, we must ask ourselves: Will we continue this tradition? Will we leave behind a more prosperous country for our children? When I retired from the Senate 12 years ago, I felt confident that my children and grandchildren would have the opportunity to pursue the American Dream: a quality education, home ownership, and a good paying job to support a family. But over the past few years, I saw that dream become ever tougher for Americans to reach. I returned to the Senate for one reason: I refused to stand on the sidelines. I refused to be part of the first generation to leave behind a country in worse shape than the one we inherited."

Discussing the debt crisis, Sen. Coats says, "The American people understand the urgency of our fiscal crisis. They want their elected officials to stop spending money we don't have, and to enact policies that will grow our economy and get Americans back to work. Unfortunately, the President's economic plan of spending and borrowing has failed. . . . The President and Democrats in Congress must recognize that their game plan is not working. It's time to acknowledge that more government and higher taxes is not the answer to our problem. It's time for bold action and a new plan to address our current crisis."

Sen. Coats suggests, "For inspiration, they should look outside Washington, and there is no better playbook for getting us on the right track than the one used in Indiana. The Hoosier way is quite simple -- we work hard and we live within our means. In Indiana, we understand that you cannot spend more money than you take in. When our state fell off course, a leader stepped up with solutions to steer it straight, and the people of Indiana responded. Governor Mitch Daniels, like the President, inherited a weak economy. In 2005, Indiana faced a $200 million deficit and had failed to balance the budget for seven years. And while other states increased spending and raised taxes, Indiana reduced spending, cut taxes and paid down its debts. Thanks to our governor's leadership and the resolve of Hoosiers, our state is now the most attractive place to do business in the Midwest."

Sen. Coats continues, "The Hoosier model is a necessary first step to repairing our country's finances. And this week, every Senate Republican took that step by committing to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Speaker of the House has committed to bringing the Balanced Budget Amendment to a vote later this month, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to fighting for a vote in the Senate as well. Broke or balanced, that's the choice before us."

VIDEO TEXT and IMAGE CREDIT: gopweeklyaddress