Congressman Peter Welch. VTD/Taylor Dobbs
Welch told business leaders that politicians from both sides of the aisle needed to reach a compromise, but that he wouldn’t vote for a budget plan “at any cost.”
Welch’s comments were in line with those made by President Barack Obama at a press conference later in the morning. Vermont’s only congressman said that a balanced approach — raising revenue while cutting spending — was necessary. He said the national leadership should negotiate to find a solution to budget problems. Failure to reach an agreement, Welch said, was not an option.
“[The leadership] can’t inflict that failure on the American people and the American economy and allow us to default for the first time in our history,” said Welch. “We have to pay our bills.”
Welch said that there is “no excuse” for Congress to allow a default, which could occur if lawmakers don’t raise the federal government’s debt ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline. The default, Welch said, could have negative impact on Americans who are in debt.
“If you’re trying to get a mortgage or your mortgage adjusts, you’re going to have higher costs. If you’re on a credit card, higher cost. Student loans, higher cost,” Welch said.
These additional expenses, which would arise from higher interest rates spawned by a default, are avoidable, said Welch.
“We need responsible cuts, and we need responsible and balanced revenues,” Welch said. “If we put everything on the table, we can get to where we need to be.”
Pentagon expenditures, for example, which have been held sacrosanct by Republicans, need to be part of the budget reduction exercise, he said.
Social Security is also a flashpoint of contention in Washington. Sen. Bernie Sanders has said the popular federal retirement program for the elderly shouldn’t be touched. Some Republican lawmakers say there should be cuts to the program to reduce the national deficit.
On Friday, Welch told VPR that he was “willing to take a look at what adjustments we can make to Social security,” but that it shouldn’t be used to support the general fund budget.
At a press conference in the Burlington Airport, Welch announced that he is co-sponsoring legislation which would help to bolster Vermont’s captive insurance industry.
Captive insurance, also known as risk retention, is a practice in which companies insure themselves, reducing insurance costs and increasing internal cash flow.
Welch’s legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. John Campbell, R-Calif., would allow companies to use captive insurance for commercial risk, an addition to the current system, which allows only liability risk to be insured this way.
Welch said the legislation had special importance to Vermont, which has become a haven for such companies. Vermont was No. 1 nationally for the best “regulatory environment” by the Heartland Institute, which released its annual insurance report card in May.
Permalink |
Cong. Welch and the Democrats need to reframe the discussion. They should all be asking how many times have John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in Congress voted to raise the debt ceiling in the past?
For some reason, when George Bush was president, raising the debt ceiling was not an issue. Now, doing so appears to be the end of the world as we know it if one were to listen to presidential candidate, Michelle Bachman.
In a word, these folks are hypocrites and should be called on it. I’m not a big fan of debt, but I am becoming disgusted watching the Republicans as they would rather jockey for power, while ruining our nation, instead of working together to solve our economic crisis; one that they were more than willing to help create.
Permalink |
Well said, Bob. These debt-ceiling problems didn’t just appear overnight. We’re still faced with exactly the same factors that called for debt ceiling increases in the past. So what’s new is the politicization of the debt issue.
Permalink |
Bob
Why resort to being ” disgusted” and then to name calling simply because others may have a different opinion than you?
Permalink |
Welch needs to step aside and let someone else from Vermont do the federal Rep thing. Welch has been part of a trio of abject failures that have spent countless hours making excuses for failure.
Permalink |
The federal government takes in $120B a month in tax revinues. The cost to service our current debt is $20B a month. Basic math tells us there is $100B left each month to pay the remainder of our governments bills. This should be adequate monies for a government that is not out of control. Unfortunately the government spends around $40B more each month and IS out of control. By not raising the debt ceiling, the government is going to have to make choices that the rest of us make on a daily basis. They are going to have to prioritize expeditures. We will then see if they have their priorities in line with those of the American people. If they decide not to pay seniors their Social Security or Medicare or if they decide to not pay our military families, we will know that their priorities do not include the American people. If they choose to continue to waste our monies on trivial things because they think they can, they need to be thrown out of office and their “government credit cards” cancelled in 2012.
Permalink |
Not one nickel of the Federal deficit is attributable to Social Security. The only “fix” needed to keep it solvent far into the future is to eliminate the cap on taxable earnings. Social Security is far more than an income supplement for the elderly. Much like public education it is a force for social stability and a program that eliminates the need for massive general fund welfare spending. Tea partiers aside, we aren’t going to let the elderly starve in the woods, are we?
If we accept that Social Security and Medicare are social programs that benefit the whole of society then it follows that all of society should contribute to both programs meaningfully. If Willy Wage-Earner has to contribute a noticeable chunk of his paycheck over his working lifetime to fund his access to Social Security and Medicare in his senior years then Richie Rich should make a similar sacrifice. There should be no cap on taxable earnings for either program. Remember, Mr. Rich still has sizable capital gains income which is untaxed by either program. Given the growing wealth disparity in our country that is a benefit that Mr. Wage-Earner will likely never have access to.
easteng Inc.
Permalink |
Long ago in 2006 then Senator Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling to $8.96 trillion or 64.2% of GDP. He said then:
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem.”
Today the debt ceiling stands at $14.29 Trillion and more than 92% of GDP because Republicans, Democrats and Independents failed to respect the essential value of a balanced budget. Both “guns and butter” were bought in excess of on-going revenues and funded by IOU’s to American bond holders, the Chinese, the Social Security System, among many others. Now, as President Obama said yesterday, it’s time to “eat our peas!”
Hopefully a balanced approach of spending cuts and some revenues, especially those of a tax credit nature, can be used to close the deficit gap. It seems to me that Republicans of a truly fair and open market persuasion can not oppose the elimination of tax credits that tilt the economic playing field in one direction or the other. Both oil depletion allowances and subsidies for ethanol and other alternatives, for example, should be extinguished as part of the overall budget solution.
However, I cannot castigate Tea Party Republicans who find it near impossible to vote for the expansion of the debt ceiling. Many of these folks ran for Congress on the explicit platform that more debt is harmful to America, as the President noted 5 years ago. Asking them to breach their commitment and promises to voters relative to increasing the debt ceiling is akin to asking a Congressperson who ran on a pro-choice platform to vote for constraints on a woman’s right to choose.
It’s clear that President Obama has understood the debt ceiling problem since at least 2006. Many moderates and independents voted for Obama in part because of his presentation on fiscal constraint. The fact that now the country’s back-is-to-the-wall is a problem that has been long foreseeable and could have been avoided, but chastising those who promised to go to Washington to turn this tide (and among these I don’t include the current House Speaker) and are now doing just what they promised seems to me an unrealistic expectation. In the end, it may be the obstinacy of these true believers who will cause the solution that gets our fiscal house back in balance.
Permalink |
You are dead wrong, Mr Pelham, when you spuriously and falsely claim ‘Republicans, Democrats and Independents failed to respect the essential value of a balanced budget’. We essentially had a balanced budget when Clinton (Democratic dontcha’ know) left the White House about 6 years after a Democratic led federal legislature voted in a series of tax increases.
This current financial debacle we find ourselves in is a result of Republican initiatives and Republican bullying that a professional DC Democratic Surrender Machine (including Sanders) was too weak kneed to stand up against.
Permalink |
Rama…During 3/4′s of the Clinton years the Congress was controlled by Republicans. So, if that period is an important point of reference for you, it seems you are bound to give credit for the relatively good work then to both parties.
My starting point of reference was 2006, during which the the national debt grew to it’s now dangerous proportions. During this period both the R’s and D’s, with the helping hand of Sanders and Lieberman, at various times had control of the presidency and congress. Given this history, it’s accurate to say that R’s, D’s and I’s have not balanced the budget appropriately since 2006. Putting aside your name calling above, your last paragraph essentially says the very same thing.
Permalink |
No, Tom, we are most definitely NOT saying the same thing.
I’m saying that Democratic led policies took us to a balanced budget – and Republican led policies have trashed our budget.
And let us not forget that that 3/4 Clinton time spent with a Republican congress came AFTER the tax increases that received virtually no Republican political support. So all those Republican initiatives got to use as a basis that very same tax increase policy they so despise.
There is a history involved, but you, Tom, are simply ignoring it so you can cherry pick your arguments to specifically meet your immediate needs. That is a most dangerous way to lead a nation much less live a life.
Permalink |
Many Congressional Republicans criticize Obama-Care despite the fact that they voted for debt-generating Medicare Part D law (Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act) on November 22, 2003.
Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) each voted for H.R. 1 (Medicare Part D) in 2003. This bill was in part written with the help of pharmaceutical lobbyists in the Congressional offices. The Medicare Part D bill prohibits the federal government from negotiating bulk purchase of prescription drugs in the same way that the Veteran’s Administration does to control costs. This bill has proven to be unsustainable, and has contributed to the federal debt.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll669.xml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Prescription_Drug,_Improvement,_and_Modernization_Act
Anyone who watches C-SPAN will remember the controversy surrounding this vote, as then-Speaker Tom Delay held the vote open through the wee hours of the morning in order to twist enough arms.
Three of the 25 Republican Reps that voted against Medicare Part D are Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Arizona), Ron Paul (R-TX) and Rep. Nick Smith (R-Michigan). Rep. Nick Smith, from my home state (I am proud to say) resisted Delay’s threats and bribes.
Rep. Jeff Flake, is also known for voting against the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, and caught heat from his party leaders.
With the exception of Ron Paul, WHY are the Republicans running Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann, et al for President, when they should be running someone like Jeff Flake?
Jeff Flake has been very consistent on being fiscally conservative. On the other hand, John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan have proven themselves to be quite the hypocrites.
Jeff Flake was WAY ahead of the so-called Tea Party Republican freshman.
Why didn’t John Boehner yell “HELL NO” back on November 22, 2003?
Why didn’t the Vermont Republicans who voted against H.202 this year (except Sen. Mullin) speak up back in 2003 when their party brethren were voting for such a debt-producing healthcare bill?????