S.C. Congressmen Stand Firm
Senate kills House bill to extend credit line, as Palmetto State representatives in both houses oppose plan.
A bill designed to appease Republicans in the U.S. House and avert a debt crisis passed Friday evening after Speaker John Boehner spent the better part of 24 hours twisting arms in his own party.
A revised bill, which includes a balanced budget amendment, passed 218-210, was tabled Friday night in the U.S. Senate, which is working on its own plan. Follow the national coverage from our friends at the Huffington Post here.
While Boehner convinced enough members of his own Republican Party to support the House bill, 22 GOP Congressmen voted against it, including all five GOP South Carolina representatives. Rep. James Clyburn, the state's lone Democratic congressman, also voted against the bill.
In the Senate, both Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint voted against the House bill and with the majority.
See how they voted in the House.
At the end of the day, Rep. Joe Wilson's press secretary Neal Patel told Patch, Wilson didn't think that Boehner's bill was "worthy."
While several press reports indicated Boehner and the House GOP leadership was leaning on Wilson and other S.C. congressmen Thursday night, Patel said, "I don't think it was much different from any regular vote. I think the press made it out to be a little bigger than it was."
Patel said Wilson is not dead-set on not raising the debt ceiling, but with Washington media reports and conventional wisdom indicating that the passed Boehner bill will be dead on arrival in the Senate, Wilson will merely wait to see what the Senate counters with before the Aug. 2 default date.
"We'd have to see what those conditions are and I don't know if he would be for or against a [debt ceiling raise] until we know what those conditions are," Patel said. "Until we see the details and we can study the plan, I can't speculate one way or the other."
On Facebook, and in letters and phone calls, Patel said that Wilson's office has gotten direction for and against the debt ceiling raise from citizens across the nation on how to proceed on the issue. As fas as constituents were concerned, however, Patel said the majority seemed to indicate they wanted Wilson to maintain a hard line.
"People were saying, 'stick to your guns,'" Patel said, referring to correspondence from constituents extending from Hilton Head Island to Lexington and Aiken.
Graham praised Boehner for his efforts to end the debt ceiling stalemate and “bring about reform and save the country from default.”
But in the end Graham could not vote for the bill, he said, because: “I fear it does not provide adequate spending reductions in the near-term. I also have little hope that yet another joint committee of Congress will bring about real change, but will be seen as yet another attempt to avoid the hard choices.”
DeMint, while praising the improvements to the House bill could not vote for it either, coming out against the proposed 12-member “Super Congress” and the fact that the bill would not prioritize a balanced budget amendment.
Here is DeMint’s full statement:
“Our nation is on the edge of a fiscal cliff as the President’s failed spending policies have left us with a tattered economy and over $14 trillion in debt. I care deeply for the people of this country and our future prosperity, and believe that if we don’t tackle this debt crisis immediately that we may be unable to stop our slide into economic disaster. While I appreciate the improvements made to the House debt plan, I cannot vote for any increase in the debt limit that does not first send a strong balanced budget amendment to the states that forces Washington to stop spending more than it takes in. And I do not support passing along the responsibilities of 535 members of Congress to a fast-track 12-member commission with the power to raise taxes without extended debate and amendment. Principled conservatives may disagree on this matter, and I respect their opinion, but I believe America cannot wait any longer before we get serious about balancing the budget.”
Here's what all of the South Carolina's Republican House members had to say this evening about voting against their party leadership:
"Washington is broken and we need to stop its out-of-control spending. Due to the inaction of both Democrats in the Senate and the current Administration, our nation’s debt ceiling is now at a critical juncture. This past November, Americans made it clear they expect their elected leaders to make meaningful fiscal reforms today so as to not burden future generations with crushing deficits and debts tomorrow. Holding Washington accountable for its spending is the solution I support." -- said District 2 Rep. Joe Wilson, whose district extends from Lexington and the Midlands down to Hilton Head Island.
"This week I’ve heard from hundreds of constituents who oppose raising the debt ceiling without first adopting significant spending reforms. I apologize to my constituents for being unable to convince more lawmakers to join the cause of demanding permanent spending reform. Even though I’ve only been in Congress for seven months, I can already tell you that Washington will never voluntarily make significant cuts to spending. -- Rep. Jeff Duncan, who represents the far Upstate and District 3.
"There has been a lot of talk in Washington in the last several weeks about a ‘deal.’ But our country doesn’t need a ‘deal.’ It needs a solution. A solution to our spending addiction. A solution to our debts and deficits. And a solution to the business-as-usual approach that brought us to the deplorable condition in which we find ourselves today. I voted against the bill today because I believe that it will not accomplish those things." -- said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, who represents the Pee Dee District 5. See his full statement here.
"The Budget Control Act simply does not take the sufficient action needed to secure our nation’s financial future and earn my support. It does not cut enough spending in the short-term, and I need to see the bill mandate a Balanced Budget Amendment immediately. There is no easy answer to the problems we are facing, especially when trying to make hard decisions while up against a deadline. Republican leadership continues to try and move forward while the President and Senate sit idly by and refuse to share an actual plan of their own." -- Rep. Tim Scott, who represents District 1 along the coast.
"Speaker John Boehner has done a remarkable job navigating this dire fiscal situation essentially by himself. This is the third plan to come out of the House of Representatives, which is three more plans than the Senate or White House have produced. And Speaker Boehner is to be commended for adding a balanced budget amendment, which is exactly the kind of systemic change our country desperately needs." -- Rep. Trey Gowdy, who represents the Greenville/Spartanburg-based District 4.
Dr. Galen M. Grant
7:47 pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Vote for spending cuts as well as taxing the rich and business as we should have already been doing. Although the repubs from SC voted with the Democrats on this one, it was for different reasons. SC Republicants appear to be dumb and dumber!!!
Dr. John
8:38 pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
Some important issues that need stated here. The top 25% of income earners pay 86% of all federal taxes. What exactly would be considered fair here in regards to how much each person pays. What we are doing to the producers in this country is criminal. The government is taking thier money at the point of a gun in the name of compassion, whereas if I were to apply the same method to extract money from one of the other posters on this forum, even if it was to help someone truly sick or needy, I would be locked up and rightfully so. The mere suggestion that the rich do not pay enought is absurd. Next, I have never worked for a poor person. I have worked for several rich people, Are the other guests posting on this page suggesting that the presidents budget (0-97 vote in the senate) be our roadmap to economic security. Are they suggesting that perhaps we consider the presidents debt ceiling proposal more carefully ( not one printed page of paper to reveiw). Lastly, should we consider the democratic proposed fiscal year budget ( one has not been proposed and passed in over 800 days when by law it is required every year and the democrats had clear majorities to pass one). Are these the compassionate democrat ideas for debt and spending reform.
daniel phelan
8:10 pm on Friday, July 29, 2011
The Republican leadership is a joke!!
First the Treasury asks Congress to raise the debt limit. Then the Republican House says they won't without cuts to government spending. So the Democrats begin negotiations including cuts to their sacredly held social programs and ask for some quid pro quo. It was a 3-1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. A deal that Republicans should have been drooling over!
Republicans are a bunch of righteous rich people spewing lies about how tax cuts create jobs (which they don't) and that now after years of spending they care about the debt?
I'm tired of Republicans. It was all a nice puppet show. Foolish Republican voters actually think that Republicans are going to repeal the Heath Care Reforms and ban earmarks and bring "freedom" back.
Would you hire a confessed animal hater to run a pet store? No? Then why would you elect politicians who freely admit to despising government?
After the last ten years of watching Republicans one word stands out as defining them perfectly; hypocrite. A vote for a Republican is literally a vote for the absence of leadership.
Hands down, I'm voting for the Democrats for the next decade. Keep on truckin Democrats.
Dr. John
8:28 am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Here are the facts that you over looked in your research, this is the from the Joint Economic Committee of your beloved congress from 1995. The height of the Bubba years.Real GDP grew more in five years under Reagan (23 percent cumulative growth) than it is projected to grow in seven years under Bush/Clinton (21 percent cumulative growth).
After four years, 4 million more jobs were created under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton.
Federal revenues, adjusted for inflation, grew much faster under Reagan (33 percent cumulative growth) than projected under Bush/Clinton (20 percent cumulative growth).
Real per capita disposable income grew more in two years under Reagan than in all four years combined thus far in the Bush/Clinton recovery (8.2 percent versus 7.8 percent).
Median family income grew in all of the first three recovery years under Reagan, compared to three consecutive declines under Bush/Clinton.
In other words, during the economic expansion following Reagan's tax cuts, the economy grew faster, experienced stronger revenue growth, created more jobs, and saw more rapid income growth than the current expansion under the high tax policies of Presidents Bush and Clinton. Nice analogy of the pet store and republicans. That does'nt sound like a compassionate statement to me.Since democrats like you hate rich americans, should we kick the rich out of the country, or would that take away the golden goose. Constitutionally limited government is neccessary.
Mimi
4:08 am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
There needs to be additional statements made. For one thing Warren Buffet pays less taxes than I do and I can assure you I don't make anywhere near what he makes. I would agree that closing loops holes (which should be there in the first place) and ending corporate welfare to raise revenue is necessary. You are wrong with your 86% of the taxes and should further investigate those figures, I think you will find that the middle class pays more than their fair share. How much taxes on Imports? Companies doing business in other countries exploiting the buying power of americans, exploiting the labor of the poor. That said trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and our elder is not only nonsense but it is immortal and goes against the basic principles of americans. You might turn a blind eye while the republican party bleeds the poor and the elders, but that is just evil. Our Military has more waste and pork added that could cut most of the deficit out of it. Why is it that we police the world at our expense? Why is it that we have enough money to take care of infurstruction in afgahnistan, yet ours in is ruins? I believe that both parties can find things to cut, but starting with the poor and our seniors is just wrong. How about ending Medicare Part D (the republicans gift to pharma.) and including prescriptions in their health coverage like everyone else. Why is it that our veterans pay 58% less for prescriptions? I guess I am not as easily bought off.
Dr. John
7:54 am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Wow, where do I start with this. Warren Buffet payed approximately $8.5 million in taxes on approximately $50 million in income. That is about 17% which is the capital gains rate. Warren buffet lives off his investments primarily now. That is why he does not pay the same rate as you. I don't think you whould want your retirement income taxes at 27% either. My wrong figure is from the last report from the IRS, here are other facts that show what the Bush Tax rates did, it decreased the taxes for the lower class ....they are not wrong, don't blame the messenger next time...
•The share of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers will fall from 4.1 percent to 3.6 percent. •The share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers will rise from 32.3 percent to 33.7 percent. I hope that puts the fair share arqument to rest. As far as other countries exploiting the poor, have you considered that these people in other countries do have a choice to not work for these evil american companies. The fact that they do work there illustrates one important point. For whatever reason the rate that they earn working for these companies must be their best option with the most pay, otherwise they would not work there. Entitlement spending and intrest = %60 of the budget, military spending is %20. Entitlement spending will equal almost $2 trillion this year, military will be $680 billion. All income combined would only pay for Mcare, Mcaid, Sos. Security and the interest
Dr. John
7:58 am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Mimi, here is an interesting news article about medicare D, it saved our government money this year
The Philadelphia Inquirer - Philadelphia PA - Updated Jul 28
A new study suggests that Medicare's five-year-old prescription-drug plan is keeping seniors out of hospitals and nursing homes, saving the federal program an estimated $12 billion a year in those costs.
You must have skipped over this article while you were researching the facts of your claims.
Greg Adams
9:30 am on Sunday, August 21, 2011
Mimi PWNED again. Dr John uses pesky FACTS and shoos Mimi away like a pesky fly. Mimi is just here to assult conservatives. Take a look at her posting history.
catlee
7:27 am on Saturday, July 30, 2011
What is wrong with a balanced budget amendment? That is what the Republicans are after. It is the government that is standing in the way of job creation. There is ample evidence that stimulus spending by the government does not encourage job growth. It is time for America to implement an austerity program in every branch of government, including defense. There is room for waste reduction in all sectors of government spending. Before any debt ceiling is raised I want to hear about massive cuts in spending. People who include name calling and mean talking in their comments need to concentrate on productive statements. Our great grandchildren's future is at stake. What America do you want to leave for them? Stop the spending madness.
Michael Brown
1:01 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
First, Dr. John, would you ever consider running for office? You'd have my vote!! Great, informative, factual posts Sir, and thank you! Secondly, I have not been this proud of my representatives in a long time! I have sent e-mails to each of them expressing my gratitude and my respect for their determination and commitment on behalf of their constituents. I am very hopeful that this signals a fundamental change in how we view our government, our neighbors and ourselves! May God Bless America!
Mike
3:56 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Instead of bickering over who pays what tax, do something about the problem with our government. Yes OUR government. We & they forget that they work for us. We should tell them what to do. Want to make an impression...STOP TAKIN' & START WALKIN' !!! Not a million man deal either. I'm talking a hundred million voters march. If you truly want change...action is required. Not talking.
Mimi
4:37 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Dr. John I could find just as many resouces to confirm my statements Hence the problem is that people will search high and low to find something that supports their view. All stories can be rewritten to encourage and different ending doesn't make it true or factual. So carry on with your rewrites of history to accomplish your own out come, but in the end it is just a story rewritten. But here's the best part there are a lot of people in this state willing to buy your version. One of the largest unemployment, government subsidied, worse education system, collasping infrastructure, unhealthy citizens in the nation. To sum it all up sewer of the south.
Dr. John
6:16 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
MImi,
Then why not quote your sources? As you can see, among my sources are the IRS, and the Joint Economic Comm. of congress (which is comprised of Republicans and Democrats from the House and the Senate). If you have more accurate data by all means share. I am sure the IRS and our congress would like to be enlightened with more accurate data.
Mimi
11:40 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
cbo.gov is one you can get factual information from.
Zfact.com is another very interesting site to visit.
Mimi
11:38 pm on Saturday, July 30, 2011
Both conservative (monetarist -- like Milton Friedman) and liberal (Keynesian) economists say that the government needs to stimulate demand in a recession. But the two "supply-side" economist say both are wrong, that we need to give tax cuts to the rich and then the rich will be stimulated to work much harder and they are the ones who are most productive and that will make the economy hum again. Laffer drew his famous "Laffer curve" to try to prove this point (but it is just plain silly). It claims that if the government cuts their tax rate, the rich will make so much more money that they will pay more taxes not less. It also claims that if you cut the tax rate for the bottom 98% of the population this won't happen.
So this was tried under Reagan. Big tax cuts for the rich. And G. W. H. Bush called this "voodoo economics," because only two economists believed it (or at least they often said they did), and because the idea that cutting taxes for the rich would collect more money not less. Of course it never worked, and that's one reason the Supply Siders ran up the debt (even compared to GDP) for 20 out of 20 years, while other Presidents, both Republicans and Democrats did not have this problem
Dr. John
2:35 am on Sunday, July 31, 2011
Sorry Mimi,
CBO estimates cost impact of proposed legislature, but not an evaluation of true future results, the other site is a canadian site?. So in your opinion, what happened that caused our economy to catapult out of the late 70's "stagflation" to the prosperity of the mid eighties.
Dr. John
2:42 am on Sunday, July 31, 2011
Also, by the republican "run up the debt" comment, did you mean the billion dollar a year republican style debt of Bush or the Trillion dollar a year variety under Obama. Did you know that he will be personably responsible for 40% of our debt in his first three yearsin office. The other 60% has accured since the founding of this country
Delores
11:49 am on Sunday, July 31, 2011
Exactly how many times has the debt ceiling been raised? Didn't anyone see this coming while Bush was creating it? When it was raised under Bush's administration did they not consider 2011? I know this is just a paper trail for the Republicans to use as their campaign statergy 2012. I would not be surprised if they do not reach an agreement just to have it on record to reflect President Obama. Bush left the country in a mess and it does take money to get it back to where it needs to be...
Greg Adams
9:37 am on Sunday, August 21, 2011
It doesn't matter, we are here now. You are welcome.
Mimi
6:59 pm on Sunday, July 31, 2011
Dr. John when you can't even get past the very facts that everyone agrees on that Bushy Boy and the republicans created 10 trillion dollars in deficit spending. Instead of taking the surplus Clinton left them and pay off debt they continued to borrow and give away any revenue to just the top 2% mind you. What did that create a struggling middle class and a very very rich. How you can blog with any validity that Bushy boy spen billions is just plain silly. When you actually grasp some facts and can debate with truth instead of talking points...you might be a worthy debater, but at the moment you are just silly.
Dr. John
9:27 pm on Sunday, July 31, 2011
Mimi,
My anology was that bush merely borrowed billions of dollars a year where Obama is borrowing trilions of dollars a year. Here are the facts (they are stuborn things)
President Bush took office with a 5.6 trillion dollar debt at the begining of 2000. After 8 years he left in 2008 with 9.9 trillion dollar debt. That is roughly a 540 billion dollar deficit per year average. Over the first three years of president Obama's term he has taken the deficit from 9.9 trillion dollars to 15.0 trillion dollars. That is nearly a 1.7 trillion dollar per year deficit. By the way, these figures come from whitehouse.gov and are available here
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (look at table 7.1)
Obama is projected to run a total deficit for his first 4 years of 6.7 trillion dollars. Just for pespective, since our countries founding in 1776 through 2008, we accumulated 10 trillion dollars in debt. Obama will add, under his watch, almost another 7 trillion to that in just 4 years. I suggest you reference your sources better.
Delores
2:21 am on Monday, August 1, 2011
Amen!
Greg Adams
9:33 am on Sunday, August 21, 2011
Quote: "...you can't even get past the very facts that everyone agrees..."
Consensus is not fact. Galileo spent the last ten years of his life under house arrest due to "concensus".
Rom 4:17
10:13 am on Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This conversation is moot. I believe by design that our economy will collapse. The President and ,ost in Washiington desire it in order to "fundamentally transform" our nation into their concept of a world governmant participant. Sovereignty is no longer in the liberal lexicon and I believe the days of the Constitutional government that we grew to love and prosper under are over. There are very few leaders left inside the belt way and for the most part most of us have grown "fat and lazy" under the stronghold of government largess. That said, I believe there is no voice willing to stop this collapse because the leaders and the American public are not willing to make the personal sacrifice in position and finacial status to fight the hard fight.
Richard Hayes
1:25 pm on Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Fortunately this is totally wrong and has no factual basis. Our Constitution still reigns, and will always whether Democrat or Republican heads the White House. However your comments about all leaders in Washington not willing to make the personal sacrifice in position and financial status to fight the hard fight does ring true. No additional chapters in "Profile in Courage" are being written in DC or Columbia these days....