FACTCHECK - THE PRESIDENT OBAMA 07/25/2011 SPEECH - THE DEBT CRISIS

Current Status: Published/No Action (12)

Change Status:

Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:06 PM

Discuss:

FACTCHECK

The text of President Obama’s 07/25/2011 speech was found here and is also quoted and responded to:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/address-president-nation

“THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.”

True. I think there is no debate over this; that whatever happens with the debt everyone will be effected.

“For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.”

In the 915 days (as of July 21, 2011) of President Obama’s Presidency and the Democratic Congress have indebted this country 3.7 Trillion Dollars or 4,061,210,815 dollars per day. [1]

Some of this indebtedness was the 800+ billion dollar stimulus bill that supposedly created some 3 million jobs. These jobs however were just a mathematical projection by the CBO. [2]

Lets not forget the 1.7 Trillion dollar “health care reform” called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka ObamaCare. This of course was figured without Social Security and the Postal Service. [3]

Bush, over 8 year, or 2922 days indebted the nation about 4.8 Trillion dollars or $1,676,625,705 per day [4] Some would agrue on a per capita basis Bush tops Obama. This may be very true yet a per capita rate is calculated based on per 1000 people at the current population. In 2010 the Census was completed and the Country rose in population which skew the per capita calculation in Obama’s favor because the population of the United States rose unlike the pervious census had a lower population count for Bush. Naturally, Obama’s per capita rate would be lower since the there is more groups of 1000 people to divide by. Thus the apples to apples time in office for Obama and Bush comparison was used rather than the per capital calculation.

Obama has a 142% higher daily spending rate than Bush. [5]

“As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.”

Obama has had on average unemployment rate of 16.3%.

Bush had an average unemployment rate of 10.5%. [6]

WHY? WHY the high unemployment since 2009 to present? Obviously the Stimulus did not work because it did not create nor save 3 million jobs since that number was a fictional model out of the CBO. So WHY?

THIS IS WHY: 64% of Small Businesses are AFRAID to make new hires and 12% plan to cut jobs. This was according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Why? They are afraid of the new regulations [e.g. Obamacare] and tax policies of the president. This is notwithstanding the Democratic controlled Senate has not ratified several trade treaties because some countries just don’t do the collective bargaining aka UNION thing. Why? Obama has not formally submitted the treaties to Congress. [7] So, what has suffered you and me, and the economy. The President has not mentioned any of this has he?

Also, if memory serves even Ron Emanuel, President Obama’s former Chief of staff way back when the health care law was passed mentioned businesses are scared.

“Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.”

First, there is plenty of money to pay if the debt limit debate continues after August 01, 2011…and Social Security Checks, Veteran Benefits, Medicare and Medicaid will be provided. Remember Social Security through running a deficit has about 2.5 trillion dollars in bonds. [8]

Inflation has occurred because of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury’s quantitative easing. In short, the Federal Reserve is buying our own debt instruments (treasury bonds) and THIS CAUSES INFLATION. [9] In short, there is to much money in the supply… Maybe some of you who are reading this have experienced this INFLATION? Blame Bush? No Blame the Obama Administration (the Treasury Secretary) and the Federal Reserve.

“Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches. The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions. This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.”

In a CNN Poll no less 66% (Question #23)of the people polled supported the Republican CUT, CAP, BALANCE legislation that has been already been passed by the House of Representatives. [10] This proposal would cut about 5/6 Trillion dollars, and would not have an effect Social Security and other entitlement programs. The legislation would also put to the States for ratification a balanced budget amendment. [11] In the same CNN poll (Question #25) when people were asked would they favor a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget 74% of the people FAVORED this approach. [12] However, the Democratic Senate has tabled the legislation (will not even consider debating it nor can anyone vote on it). [13] Lately, Harry Reid (D-Las Vegas) has proposed a plan that would trim the debt by some 3 trillion without raising taxes, but would only raise the debt ceiling till 2012 when we would be back to this debate again. Moody’s and Standards and Poor’s rating companies warned the U.S. a band-aid wouldn’t suffice. [14]

“This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.”

With President Obama nor the Democrats in either house in Congress actually putting a plan for a vote and with the clear disagreements by and between Obama, Harry Reid, and John Boehner the “Balanced Approach” DOES NOT have bipartisan support.

“The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.”

In President Obama’s own words the “Balanced Approach” DOES NOT have bipartisan support (….The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach…[as does Harry Ried now disagree with the President [14] ].

“So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done.”

This is mostly true. The numbers have been between 3 to 6 trillion give or take a trillion. (Oddly enough these numbers almost mirror the amount of debt the President and the Democrats while in full power of the Congress, have run up in the last 915 days.)

“ Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.”

If WE THE PEOPLE do not understand why are you bothering asking us or speaking to us? We understand and can do math.

“How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for? “

That secretary per see will be paying in or around a net effective income tax rate of 3% or NO income taxes whatsoever. While the “rich” pay in upwards to of 11%, 25%, and higher net effective tax rate. The net effective tax rate is after all tax deduction and all tax credits. This is not withstanding the “rich” are surcharged 35% atop of their tax bracket rate. [15]

President Obama’s statement here is just FALSE.

“That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research. “

The Stimulus was suppose to do this, and it FAILED. As previously indicated and proved the regular joe actually do not pay income taxes or pay less than the “rich” [15]

“And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate. “

Reagan cut taxes since he faced high unemployment and high inflation. Obama is proposing to raise taxes in his “balanced” approached while there is inflation and high unemployment. Reagan eliminated some deductions yet lowered income tax rates. The top rate of 70% went to 50% and then the top rate of 50% was lowered to 28% by way of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. [16] President Obama wishes to do the opposite in that he wishes to raise the tax rates on those making 200/250k per year.

THUS, the quotations are taken out of reality of the situation and DOES NOT coincide with what Reagan was doing. Unemployment fell under Reagan. The highest unemployment under Reagan was 10.8% in 1982 and the lowest was 5.4% in 1989 [17]

“Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. “

True but we learn and have learned pretty quick…

“Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills. “

Two wrongs do not make a right. Which is a logical fallacy if anyone wants to believe that.

“Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach. “

When WE THE PEOPLE find ourselves in a pinch we have to cut spending only because we have a certain amount of income and that’s it. It should not be any different for the Government. This is in fact the cut only approach…then again WE THE PEOPLE cannot just print more money. This contention by President is a Fallacy.

“If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses. “

As previously stated THERE IS MONEY for the mandated benefits. [8]

“For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.”

True, Moody’s .. Standards and Poor’s have indicated a possible downgrade of the U.S.’s credit rating. However, Obama’s spending rate is 142% above that of Bush [5] and President Obama’s proposed budgets have been projected to have a $1.6 Trillion dollar budget deficit.-the largest since World War ][ [18]

“So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem. First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road. “

It is true putting a six month band-aid on things will be insufficient.

“But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way. “

UNTRUE. The wealthiest Americans already pay their fair share for they pay above the middle class and are surcharged. [15]

UNTRUE. The CUT, CAP, BALANCE Act exempts Social Security, Medicare, Veterans Benefits and Services , Net Interest, function….. [11]

“This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare. “

True. This is why many people are opposing Obama and Obama’s Job Approval Ratings as the time of this write up are sinking like a boulder in a lake.

“Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months. “

Harry Reid’s Plan lasts only to 2012. [14]

Thus UNTRUE.

What does do is takes this issue off the table for your re-election bid-kinda.

“I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.”

How is it equal or fair for those who get surcharged 35% on top of their rate and already pay more than the middle class [15] -fair or equal? It isn’t.

These things are what scared business not to hire people. [7]

“Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?"

FALSE- the wealthiest Americans pay more.... [15]

“They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be. “

What should offend EVERYONE is a President of the United State who is just so factually and ever so blatantly wrong that most of that President’s assertions can be contradicted by taking a little time to do some research. There is no reason in my mind thus far why anyone should trust anything that comes out of President Obama’s mouth. WHY? As you read the above his comments that he asserts are to the most part FALSE.

“The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.”

This entire speech as been not about solving the looming debt crisis but to speak to your uniformed base and to DIVIDE people by and between classes (e.g. Class Warfare).

“America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

FALSE. America has been about taking a STAND.. let me say this again…

AMERICA IS ABOUT TAKING A STAND.

“History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union. “

LINCOLN TOOK A STAND.

REAGAN TOOK A STAND

“That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation. “

Exactly, come together, to take a stand, which the Tea Party peoples have. Like I have. Like many other people have in the aforementioned polling that goes against YOU, Mr. President.

“Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”

WE are going to need all the help we can get.

REFERENCES:

[1]

President Obama assumed office in January 20, 2009

The number of days in office for President Obama as of July 07/24/2011 is:

915 days in office.

The national debt was when Obama assumed Office:

10,626,877,048,913.08

As of July 21, 2011

The national debt is:

14,342,884,944,996.28

SOURCE:

United States Treasury

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Difference:

(14,342,884,944,996.28 - 10,626,877,048,913.08) =

3,716,007,896,083.20

3,716,007,896,083 / 915 = 4,061,210,815 Per day

[2]

"A new White House report says last year's $862 billion stimulus law has now "saved or created" between 2.5 million and 3.6 million jobs."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/14/politics/main6677228.shtml

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) based its estimates of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) on information from a variety of sources: macro econometric forecasting models, general-equilibrium models, and direct extrapolations past data."

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10682/11-30-ARRA.pdf

[3]

Just 940 Billion? NO.

Senate Bill = 940 Billion

Reconciliation Bill = 794 Billion

1.7 TRILLION DOLLARS _not— 940 Billion

…save 138 Billion…

1734 - 138 = - 1.5 TRILLION in --RED INK—(deficit).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35928063/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

"Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its

release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its

consistency with the previous draft…..Approximately $85 billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action."

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/hr4872.pdf

[4]

President Bush assumed office in January 20, 2001 and left office January 20, 2009

The number of days in office for President Bush is:

2922 days in office.

The national debt was when Bush assumed office:

5,727,776,738,304.64

The national debt when Bush left office:

10,626,877,048,913.08

SOURCE:

United States Treasury

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Difference:

(10,626,877,048,913.08 - 5,727,776,738,304.64)

4,899,100,310,609

4,899,100,310,609 / 2922 = 1,676,625,705 Per day

[5]

Obama: $4,061,210,815 Per day

Bush: $1,676,625,705 Per day

Obama has a 142% higher daily spending rate than Bush.

http://www.percent-change.com/index.php?y1=1676625705&y2=4061210815

[6]

Bush Unemployment v. Obama Unemployment

2004-

Annual Unemployment Rate: 9.6

2005-

Annual Unemployment Rate: 8.9

2006-

Annual Unemployment Rate: 8.2

2007-

Annual Unemployment Rate: 8.3

2008-

Jan: 9.9

Feb: 9.5

Mar: 9.3

Apr: 8.9

May: 9.4

Jun: 10.3

Jul: 10.8

Aug: 10.7

Sep: 10.6

Oct: 11.1

Nov: 12.2

Dec: 13.5

Annual: 10.5

The above you could say is Bush...who topped out at 10.5%

OBAMA:

2009-

Annual Unemployment Rate: 16.2

2010

Annual Unemployment Rate: 16.7

2011-

Jan: 17.3

Feb: 16.7

Mar: 16.2

Apr: 15.5

May: 15.8%

Jun: 16.2%

Jul: TBA

Aug: TBA

Sep: TBA

Oct: TBA

Nov: TBA

Dec: TBA

Annual: TBA

AVERAGE AS OF NOW (Jun): 16.3%

Source:

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab15.htm

**(I clicked all the boxes)**

Bush - 10.5%

Obama - 16.3%

[7]

‎"The biggest obstacles to job growth are uncertainty about the economy, uncertainty about the policies and regulations being pushed in Washington, and a lack of sales, according to the survey...."

"Mr. Donohue said Congress could boost the jobs environment immediately by passing three pending trade deals with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. Lawmakers also need to raise the debt ceiling, before the nation defaults on its loans, among other things, he said. Approving the three trade deals quickly would save 380,000 American jobs and create thousands more. “Immediate jobs are at stake,” Mr. Donohue warned. But the pacts, which were originally negotiated by the Bush administration, have long been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fight over the rules to implement the agreements.

Republicans want all three agreements approved immediately, but Democrats have raised questions about Colombia’s record on labor unions. Mr. Obama has yet to formally submit the treaties to Congress as negotiations continue."

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/11/survey-finds-small-businesses-not-ready-to-hire/

[8]

‎"However, according to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel).

Specifically, according to the Daily Treasury Statements, as of the close of business on May 16, the federal government had taken in $1.333454 trillion in tax revenues since the beginning of fiscal 2011. By the close of business on July 7, tax revenues for fiscal 2011 had grown to $1.629630 trillion. Therefore, between May 16 and July 7 the federal government took in a total of $296.176 billion in new tax revenue."........

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/official-treasury-reports-coffers-full-e

“PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) -- The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration.”

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/14/social-check.html

[9]

“The increase in the money supply thus stimulates the economy. Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to pocket the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio..”

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-quantitative-easing-2010-8

“Investopedia explains Quantitative Easing

Central banks tend to use quantitative easing when interest rates have already been lowered to near 0% levels and have failed to produce the desired effect. The major risk of quantitative easing is that although more money is floating around, there is still a fixed amount of goods for sale. This will eventually lead to higher prices or inflation.”

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp

[10]

‎66% Favor-33% Oppose Cut-Cap-Balance.

"CNN Poll: Two-Thirds of Americans Support ‘Cut, Cap and Balance’ Plan"... CNN #23 "In another proposal, Congress would raise the debt ceiling only if a balanced budget amendment were passed by both houses of Congress and substantial spending cuts and caps on future spending were approved.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/21/cnn-poll-two-thirds-of-americans-support-cut-cap-and-balance-plan/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf

[11]

Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of 2011

Bill Summary & Status

112th Congress (2011 - 2012)

H.R.2560

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2560:

SEC. 317. CERTAIN DIRECT SPENDING LIMITS.

`(a) In General- It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that includes any provision that would cause total direct spending, except as excluded in subsection (b), to exceed the limits specified in subsection (c).

`(b) Exempt From Direct Spending Limits- Direct spending for the following functions is exempt from the limits specified in subsection (c):

`(1) Social Security, function 650.

`(2) Medicare, function 570.

`(3) Veterans Benefits and Services, function 700.

`(4) Net Interest, function 900.

`(c) Limits on Other Direct Spending- The total combined outlays for all direct spending not exempted in subsection (b) for fiscal year 2012 shall not exceed $680,730,000,000.'.

SEC. 320. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

`It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that would cause the most recently reported current GDP outlay limits set forth in section 319 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to be exceeded.'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 315 the following new items:

`Sec. 316. Discretionary spending limits.

`Sec. 317. Certain direct spending limits.

`Sec. 318. Enforcement of discretionary and direct spending caps.

`Sec. 319. Enforcing GDP outlay limits.

`Sec. 320. Enforcement procedures.'.

….

SEC. 301. REQUIREMENT THAT A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT BE SUBMITTED TO STATES.

(a) In General- The Secretary of the Treasury shall not exercise the additional borrowing authority provided under subsection (b) until the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res. 1 in the form reported on June 23, 2011, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced on March 31, 2011, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced on April 7, 2011, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, that contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires that tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification.

(b) Amendment to Title 31- Effective on the date the Archivist of the United States transmits to the States H.J. Res 1 in the form reported, S.J. Res. 10 in the form introduced, or H.J. Res. 56 in the form introduced, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, or a similar amendment if it requires that total outlays not exceed total receipts, contains a spending limitation as a percentage of GDP, and requires tax increases be approved by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress for their ratification, section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting $16,700,000,000,000.

[12]

CNN Poll

25. Would you favor or oppose a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget?

July 18-20

2011

Favor 74%

Oppose 24%

No opinion 1%

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/21/rel11b.pdf

[13]

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate is moving to cast away House Republicans' budget-cutting plan Friday, clearing the way for increasingly urgent talks over raising the nation's debt limit. President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner searched once more for an ambitious $4 trillion grand bargain, but officials said wide differences remained….”

http://my.news.yahoo.com/amid-debt-talks-house-budget-plan-faces-senate-071918522.html

“WASHINGTON The Senate on Friday blocked a House Republican bill to require Congress to slash spending and pass a balanced-budget amendment before raising the nation's borrowing powers. The vote left unresolved, with just days to go, the urgent issue of how to lift the debt limit to avoid a U.S. government default. The 51-46 Senate vote against the tea party-backed measure - which had been expected in the Democratic-run chamber - came shortly after House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters he and President Barack Obama had not reached a separate agreement to resolve the debt crisis.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/07/21/2110743/boehner-house-will-compromise.html

[14]

“Senate Democratic boss Harry Reid proposed slashing $2.7 trillion in spending and raising the debt ceiling through 2012 to avoid a market meltdown…..The offer "meets Republicans' two major criteria: It will include enough spending cuts to meet or exceed the amount of a debt ceiling raise through the end of 2012, and it will not include revenues [NEW TAXES]," Reid said in a statement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/07/24/2011-07-24_john_boehner_gop_prepared_to_move_on_their_own_to_unveil_debt_ceiling_plan_sunda.html

[15]

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0

"Taking into account both taxes and tax credits, the average household in this group paid a total income tax rate of just 3 percent. A good number of people, in fact, paid no net income taxes..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Incomes over 200k are pay the TAX RATE AND THEY PAY A SURCHARGE of 35%. SEE page 98 of the 2010 Tax Tables at:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf

[16]

“The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[1] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Reform_Act_of_1986

truthIS-HAD