Sen. Perdue: Budget Deal Is A Surrender

U.S. Sen. David Perdue (R-GA), a member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued a statement today in regards to the “the backroom deal Congressional leaders made with President Obama to abandon the Republican budget plan, suspend the debt ceiling, and use budget gimmicks to spend more taxpayer money”:

“This bad backroom deal puts unsustainable spending on autopilot and lets Washington politicians simply delay tough decisions for two more years. Congress should be working with a sense of urgency to solve our nation’s debt crisis right now. America can’t afford to wait for a more convenient time for elected leaders to do their job.

Not only does this deal increase the debt from $18 trillion to $20 trillion, but it also violates the responsible budget principles I have been fighting for every day. In typical Washington fashion, the insiders get to spend today in exchange for empty promises of savings tomorrow. Why would we trust a system that has proven to be untrustworthy?

Earlier this year, Republicans passed a budget that cut President Obama’s proposed spending by $7 trillion over the next decade and finally balanced, but this deal completely abandons that effort. Our long-term plan was traded for short-term gimmicks, trust fund raids, and even more spending. This deal isn’t compromise; it’s surrender.”

16 comments

  1. Scott65 says:

    I’m still trying to figure out how such a mental lightweight was successful in business having no idea how our monetary system or our economy actually works. Well, one could say he wasn’t too entirely successful with the businesses he was in charge of. The federal budget is not like a family budget which is not like a state budget. The feds print money…we cant. Why cant Perdue grasp that last statement?

  2. Andrew C. Pope says:

    No, Senator, this deal is the dictionary definition of compromise. The Republican budget you mentioned was never getting off the ground with the Obama administration. With this, the GOP gets some of the things it wants, the White House gets some of the things it wants, and the country doesn’t have to spend the next two years dealing with debt limit brinksmanship and talks of government shutdown.

    • blakeage80 says:

      I think in order for this to be a compromise, both side have principles from which to compromise. Either the Republican Party has lost their principles or are doing such a poor job at articulating them that no one can tell what they are. Even in his statement, Perdue mentions a principle that he is fighting for. Does the party share those principles? Is it really a party anymore or is it a collection of reps that sit together?

  3. northside101 says:

    I get the feeling that when Washington talks “cuts”, they mean a reduction in the rate of growth. “We were going to spend 10 percent more on ABC, but we have ‘cut” that to a 5 percent increase.” Washington math, as one might say….anyone know (under this agreement) what next year’s budget would be compared to last year’s? And has there been any recent fiscal year when federal spending actually declined?

    • benevolus says:

      FWIW, if the population goes up, and the GDP goes up, spending would likely have to go up too just to maintain status quo.

    • Jon Richards says:

      Benevolus is correct about spending going up with a larger population. This is especially true with social security and medicare, because there are about 10,000 boomers hitting 65 every day of the year.

      Instead, just look at discretionary spending; the stuff that actually gets voted on each year. That figure is lower in the 2016 budget than it was in 2011 and 2012, although I don’t have the actual numbers in front of me., but it’s in the several hundred billions of actual dollars.

      • John Konop says:

        Jon,

        91 percent of the budget is entitlements, military and interest on debt, and the fastest growing part is entitlements. As I have posted many times, if you are not talking about the above you cannot have a rational conversation about the budget issues. You are correct! Sad we cannot have a real conversation from either party.

          • John Konop says:

            Yes, SS is an entitlement, but it can be fixed with minor tweeks. The major problem is Medicare, which needs real reforms as I have proposed many times like VA drug pricing, allowing people to buy drugs overseas on the Internet, elimanting the numerous elective deal of the day advertised on TV paid by tax payers, living wills…….The biggest lie told by politicians is you paid for your Medicare, it is 70 percent paid by tax payers. Once again Huck in the debate last night made the comment about it being paid by tax payers, and nobody corrected him.

            We cannot afford the Neocon policemen of the world foriegn policy.

            • saltycracker says:

              The government will not and cannot adequately administer insurance programs like disability and health. They need to focus regulating the industries and that is a formidable undertaking.

            • Three Jack says:

              “We cannot afford the Neocon policemen of the world foriegn policy.”

              So your position is that we abdicate our constitutional responsibility of defense in order to maintain the ongoing slide to complete socialism? I would argue it should be the other way, “We cannot afford the neoprogressive freeloader assistance programs.”

              Huckabee got it right last night since we are likely to follow your socialistic path. Time to address the four major afflictions that lead to highest MediXXXX expense. And since society is going to be on the hook, might as well establish health and wellness standards that must be followed by those receiving transferred wealth in the form of medical benefits.

              • benevolus says:

                “neoprogressive freeloader assistance programs”. Which are these? SS, which I have been paying into for many years? Or Medicare, which I also have been paying into for many years?

                • Three Jack says:

                  Yes, both.

                  SS – we have all paid into it and we all got punked. At least those of us who aim to use it for it’s original purpose, supplementary retirement. It is now a program filled with ‘disabled’ qualifiers who suck most of the money we forcibly contributed. So yes, it is a forcibly funded neoprogressive freeloader assistance program.

                  Medicare – yes we pay in, but nowhere near enough to cover costs when we reach the age to use it. Again this is government forcing workers into a program that has no economic viability over the long term.

                  • seenbetrdayz says:

                    I think SS needs to be gradually phased out and dismantled.

                    If you’re young like me and think that there will be anything left for you in 50 years, you’re kidding yourself. Either:

                    1) The age requirements will have been increased to such a high threshold that essentially no one collects
                    2) Inflation would diminish the value of your check to the point you’ll have to decide between eggs or milk in the checkout line

                    I certainly at this point don’t count on SS being a factor, supplementary or otherwise, when I reach the age of retirement. Until then, it’s just money I’m donating to keep the illusion going.

                    I really don’t know how you’d phase it out, though. It’s hard enough to keep Congress members committed to a plan on a daily basis. Phasing out a program like S/S would require consecutive Congress’s being committed to the same goal.

              • John Konop says:

                The problem is we cannot afford Medicare without major changes like I proposed for years, and we cannot afford the overreaching, Neocon style military policy that polices the world.

Comments are closed.