The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Romney, Pawlenty, and Lindsey Graham (!) Slam Debt Deal

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Romney, Pawlenty, and Lindsey Graham (!) Slam Debt Deal

By W. James Antle, III on 8.1.11 @ 11:20AM

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, came out with a statement against the bipartisan debt deal:

As president, my plan would have produced a budget that was cut, capped and balanced - not one that opens the door to higher taxes and puts defense cuts on the table. President Obama's leadership failure has pushed the economy to the brink at the eleventh hour and 59th minute. While I appreciate the extraordinarily difficult situation President Obama's lack of leadership has placed Republican Members of Congress in, I personally cannot support this deal.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's press aide Alex Conant sent a critical email:

This deal is nothing to celebrate. Only in Washington would the political class think it's a victory when the government narrowly avoids default, agrees to go further into debt, and does little to reform a spending system that cannot be sustained by our children and grandchildren. While no further evidence was needed, this entire debt ceiling fiasco demonstrates that President Obama must be replaced.

And then Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC):

I cannot in good conscience support this deal. Simply stated, it locks us into more debt, bigger government and most devastating of all, a weakened defense infrastructure at a time when we face growing threats.

This agreement adds over $7 trillion in new debt over the next decade and only makes small reductions in future spending. We hardly address the future growth of entitlements, a major contributor of future budgetary problems. Instead of our nation running toward bankruptcy we will be walking toward bankruptcy.

If fully implemented, the consequences to our nation's defense infrastructure would be severe. And these deep cuts would come at a time when threats to our nation are increasing, not declining. What has happened to the Party of Reagan who viewed the primary purpose of the federal government was to provide a strong national defense?

Heritage Action just announced their opposition to the debt ceiling compromise.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

JimH| 8.1.11 @ 11:35AM

Sen Graham stuck his finger out and knows which way the wind is blowing.

David W| 8.1.11 @ 11:44AM

I figure the possible defense cuts are China's requirement to continue funding our debt. We cut defense, then China swarms over Taiwan. Then takes over the Spratley islands, and when N. Korean, out of desparation because it has no food to feed its army, attacks S. Korea, we'll have to sit it out. Way to go Congress and "not so presidential" Obama.

Wayne | 8.1.11 @ 3:09PM

It was interesting to learn that Wilson had required England to cut its Navy in order to get loans from the US. How much did that contribute to World War 2 and hundreds of thousands of deaths of US soldiers?

Robbie| 8.1.11 @ 11:45AM

Poor Tim Pawlenty. He tries and tries and tries, but no one seems to notice anything he says or does.

Intelligent Design| 8.1.11 @ 11:56AM

Mr. Romney, the inventor of Obama Care, has zero credibility. He would make a good running mate for Obama.

Wayne | 8.1.11 @ 3:10PM

And the believer in AGW must have to regain some credibility after even NASA has exposed it as a sham.

Clint| 8.1.11 @ 12:26PM

Dr.Ron Paul,
"This evening Congress is asked to vote for a bill that claims to reduce spending in the future, thereby accepting the fiction that legislation passed today somehow can control Congress in the future. The fate of legislation like Gramm-Rudman-Hollings in 1985 and the 1997 Balanced Budget Act prove the fallacy that laws passed today somehow will restrain congressional spending in the future.

More recently, I would remind my colleagues that the legislation creating the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan contained language requesting congressional action to control Medicare costs when program expenditures reached a certain “trigger.” When this trigger was reached, Congress simply passed legislation delaying the date at which Congress would have to implement the cost controls supposedly mandated by the original bill.

The claim that spending cuts in this bill equal the amount by which it increases the debt ceiling also is mistaken. First, as explained above, it is highly unlikely that Congress will abide by these caps in the future. Second, an immediate $1 trillion increase in borrowing authority does not equal a $1 trillion cut if that cut is phased in over ten years. To pretend otherwise totally ignores the time value of money, not to mention the inevitable erosion of the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar as the Federal Reserve continues desperately to try to breathe life into the stagnating economy via QE 3,4,5,6, etc."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here & Now.

Stand & Fight.

somnolence| 8.1.11 @ 2:39PM

David W. has pinpointed a large part of the problem. Our real fortitude would be to jail Soros and tell China they will no longer direct the motion of our economic wheels. I can already hear reactionaries on this blog saying W.W. III. John Bolton is right to be alarmed on this one.