Pages

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

Senate Panel Prods NRC to Act on Fukushima Report

Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21 st Century



August 2, 2011
WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today pressed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to aggressively implement task force recommendations on reactor safety in the wake of Japan's nuclear crisis.
"Delay is not an acceptable option," Sanders said at an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing in Washington. "We must do everything in our power to make sure nuclear power plants are safe and that this country never experiences what happened in Japan."
Sanders spoke at a hearing called to look into NRC foot dragging on the recommendations. "I applaud the recommendations made by the task force, but I am disturbed that a majority of the NRC does not want to move forward on all 12 recommendations within three months," Sanders told the commissioners. "I know what delay means in this town, it means nothing is going to happen."
After a March 11 earthquake and tsunami caused meltdowns and radiation leaks at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant, a task force recommended safety improvements for the 104 U.S. commercial reactors. Twenty-three nuclear reactors in the United States, including Vermont Yankee, share the same General Electric design as the reactors at Fukushima.
Sanders also cited an Associated Press investigation that pointed out flaws in safety regulations at U.S. nuclear plants and found a cozy relationship between the NRC and the nuclear power industry it regulates. "Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation's aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them," according to the AP investigation.
At the Senate hearing, Sanders supported NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko's roadmap for action which calls for agency to respond to the task force recommendation within 90 days.
Some commissioners are not supportive of taking action on all 12 safety recommendations made by the task force within three months. Commissioners William Magwood, Kristine Svinicki and William Ostendorff have called for more study of at least some of the recommendations, while Commissioner George Apostolakis supports taking action in 90 days.


Enhancing Reactor Safety

Aug 2, 2011

Senate Committee Environment and Public Works
Commissioners testified on the NRC's 90 day report, which was released in July. It laid out numerous areas for improvement, based on the experience in Japan after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami. American plants need to plan for simultaneous accidents at adjacent reactors, something they have never done.
 


Related Videos

Japan Nuclear Plant Crisis

Senate Committee Mar 16, 2011

Japan Nuclear Plant Crisis and Chernobyl Anniversary

Public Affairs Event Mar 25, 2011

Nuclear Power Safety and Security

Public Affairs Event May 31, 2011

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Safety Review

Senate Committee Jun 16, 2011

Nuclear Power Safety and Security

Public Affairs Event Jul 19, 2011

TAKE IT TO THE LIMIT


COMMENT


by AUGUST 8, 2011

There is the current crop of Ohio Republicans, and then there are those who art in Heaven. A specimen of the former, ultimate destination unknown, is Speaker of the House John Boehner, a perpetrator (and, arguably, a victim) of the terrifying debt-limit arson that his party, on fire with ideological fanaticism, political ruthlessness, and economic heedlessness, decided to spend the summer fanning. Aloft, the Buckeye State’s celestial choir of the G.O.P. departed includes Presidents Grant, Hayes, Garfield, McKinley, Taft, and (assuming he’s been sprung from Purgatory) Harding. Its original member, less famous than the rest but as distinguished as any of them, is Benjamin Franklin Wade.
In 1866, Wade, a nationally prominent Ohio senator, laid down the law on the national debt. He was a principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which, until recently, was known almost exclusively for Section 1, the guarantee of legal due process and equal protection. Lately, though, Section 4 has been getting some ink, especially its first sentence: “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.” The long-standing obscurity of this passage is due partly to the aside about insurrection and rebellion, which makes the whole sentence look like a historical relic and sound like a voice-over from a Ken Burns documentary, and partly to the rarity of the situation it anticipates, which has never before arisen in a serious way. Now that it has, a number of constitutional scholars, including Garrett Epps, of the University of Baltimore, and Jack Balkin, of Yale, have been calling attention to the sudden relevance of Section 4. The immediate worry of its drafters was that Union war veterans and their survivors might get stiffed once legislators from the former Confederate states were readmitted. But Wade and his colleagues took pains to word the clause more broadly. Their larger intention, Balkin wrote recently, was to prevent Congress from “repudiating the federal debt to gain political advantage, to seek political revenge, or to try to disavow previous financial obligations because of changed policy priorities”—a pretty good summary of what Republicans have been up to of late.
The federal budget, its deficit, and the long-term debt that the deficit feeds are all consequences of laws passed by Congress—laws governing the collection and expenditure of funds. The debt-limit statute is a law, too. But if the government can no longer lawfully pay the bills it has already lawfully incurred, the President cannot fulfill his constitutional obligation (Article II, Section 3) to “take Care that the Laws”—all of them—“be faithfully executed.” At that point, some argue, the Fourteenth Amendment should tip the balance. The week before last, Bill Clinton said that, in extremis, he would invoke it “without hesitation” and raise the debt limit himself rather than countenance default. Last week, with the final showdown looming and intimations of catastrophe mounting, prominent congressional Democrats, including Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, the Party’s second- and third-ranking House leaders, urged President Obama to be ready to do just that.
On May 25th, Timothy Geithner, Obama’s Secretary of the Treasury, pointedly read the Fourteenth Amendment’s debt clause aloud to reporters. But the President has steadily backed away. At first, he simply dodged the question. Then, on July 22nd, he said that “my lawyers” are “not persuaded that that is a winning argument.” Finally, last week, his press secretary, Jay Carney, said that “our position” is that “the President does not have the authority to raise the debt ceiling.” It’s “not an option.” (Carney also said that default is not an option, either.)
Of course, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment has always been a long shot, a last refuge. But Obama’s seeming refusal to hold it in reserve (“like the fire axe on the wall,” in Garrett Epps’s words) is emblematic of his all too civilized, all too accommodating negotiating strategy—indeed, of his whole approach to the nation’s larger economic dilemma, the most disappointing aspect of his Presidency. His stimulus package asked for too little and got less. He has allowed deficits and debt to supersede mass unemployment as the emergency of the moment. He has too readily accepted Republican terms of debate, such as likening the country to a household that must “live within its means.” (For even the most prudent householders, living within one’s means can include going into debt, as in taking out a car loan so that one can get to one’s job.) He has done too little to educate the public to the wisdom of post-Herbert Hoover economics: fiscal balance is achieved over time, not in a single year; in flush times a government should run a surplus, but when the economy falters deficits are part of the remedy; when the immediate problem is what it is now—a lack of demand, not a shortage of capital—higher spending is generally more efficacious than lower taxes, especially lower taxes on the rich.
So it’s less surprising than it should be that in the debt-limit negotiations he has met Republican intransigence with an apparent willingness to accede to one Republican demand after another: no tax rises for the comfortable (the only kind that Democrats have dared to suggest); no new revenues at all, even from closing the most egregious loopholes; cuts in spending only, including spending on “entitlements,” the modest (by international standards) programs of social insurance for the old, the poor, and the sick that, through the decades, somehow managed to struggle into existence over the hurdles of America’s structurally divided and, of late, alarmingly dysfunctional political system. With compromises like these, who needs surrender?
But if, in the debt-limit scramble, the President has been a less effective educator and negotiator than many of his supporters wish he would be, his Republican opponents, in thrall to their Tea Party Jacobins, have been reckless and irresponsible beyond imagining. At week’s end, Speaker Boehner thought it necessary to demand that both Houses of Congress pass and send to the states for ratification a so-called balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Though doomed from the start, the amendment in its purest form offers an insight into the dystopian vision of America proffered by one of our two major political parties. The budget would have to be balanced every year, regardless of economic conditions. Annual spending would be permanently capped at eighteen per cent of the prior year’s gross domestic product, a level last achieved in 1956. To exceed the cap—or to levy a new tax, or to raise (though not to cut) an existing one—would take a two-thirds supermajority of the full membership of both Houses of Congress. That’s more than Congress needs to declare war, more than the House needs to impeach a President, more, even, than the Senate needs to end a filibuster. Astonishingly, it’s more than Congress needs to approve amending the Constitution itself, which requires two-thirds only of those present and voting.
The difference between yesterday’s Republicans and today’s is the difference between Wade’s Fourteenth Amendment and Boehner’s proposed Twenty-eighth. Benjamin Wade was called a Radical Republican. In fact, he proudly called himself one, and he had earned the title: far ahead of his time, he was a passionate advocate of women’s suffrage, the rights of labor, and absolute civic equality for black Americans. His Republican successors in Congress call themselves conservatives, but they, most of them, are radicals, too. Just not in a good way. 


Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/08/08/110808taco_talk_hertzberg#ixzz1U03a1fO8

Net Worth Of Households - Whites, Blacks & Hispanics

Uploaded by  on Jul 29, 2011
Pew Research Center released some stunning numbers on the median net worth of households before and after the recession for whites, Hispanics and blacks. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Conservative group sends absentee ballots with late return date



Why Democrats did not Vote for the Budget Control Act


 There were 5 Democrats and one Independent in the Senate that did not vote for the Budget Control Act  Gillibrand (NY), Harkin (IA), Lautenburg (NJ), Menendez (NJ), Merkly (OR), Nelson (NE) and Sanders (VT)

Doyle Votes Against Debt Limit Bill

U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (PA-14) voted against S. 365, legislation to raise the federal debt limit, cut government spending by nearly $1 trillion, and link a future increase in the debt limit to either passage of a balanced budget amendment or the enactment of an additional $1.2 trillion in cuts.  He released the following statement after the bill was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 269 to 161.
I voted against S. 365 because I believe it will kill jobs and choke off economic growth while making life harder for the Americans who are struggling the most.
I believe the federal government’s skyrocketing national debt is a problem the United States must fix – and that it will require substantial sacrifice for us to do so – but I strongly oppose the approach taken in this bill, which I believe to be both counterproductive and unjust.
I recognize that we need to cut spending as part of the solution.  That’s why I voted last week for Senator Reid’s plan to cut $2 trillion in spending over the next ten years.  But the Republican cuts-only approach won’t stop the growth in the national debt, it won’t grow the economy, and it won’t create jobs.  
In fact, spending cuts in the middle of an economic crisis slow the economy down and choke off job growth – as recent economic figures for the second quarter have shown.
Unless we grow the economy, spending cuts won’t get the deficit under control.  That’s why I believe that Congress must enact a more comprehensive approach that includes tax reform along with spending cuts.
The other reason I opposed the debt limit bill was my belief that getting deficits and the debt under control should be accomplished with shared sacrifice, and not by dumping all of the burden on the most vulnerable members of our society. So, for example, this bill doesn’t ask profitable companies and the wealthiest Americans to share the sacrifice through higher taxes.  On the other hand, it makes cuts in student loan programs and eliminates the firewall for defense after only two years.  That’s not my idea of shared sacrifice.
I voted twice to raise the debt – once for a clean debt limit increase with no strings attached, and once for the Reid plan, which would have raised the debt limit and cut $2 trillion in spending.  I am deeply pleased that, in the end, Congress didn’t allow our government to default on its obligations, but I couldn’t support a bill that I believe will do real, substantial damage to our economy, deny essential aid to struggling households, and slow or stop the creation of American jobs.

Miller Statement On Debt Ceiling Vote



Washington, DC – U.S. Rep George Miller (D-CA) released the following statement after voting against the debt ceiling budget deal that passed the House today:
“Regrettably, I cannot support the debt ceiling budget deal in the House today. I say regrettably because neither I nor my Democratic colleagues want to see the United States default on its debts.
“And, of course, there was no reason to ever get this close to default. The default crisis was politically manufactured.
“Congress has been taken over by the right wing of the Republican Party, the Tea Party wing that has a radical agenda to end Medicare, cut Social Security and slash health care for the elderly and the poor. Their goal is not deficit reduction. But deficit reduction is being used as the weapon to cut these critical commitments that are so fundamental to our society.
“They used the debt ceiling to hold the economic well-being of the American people hostage to get their way.
“In the end, they did not get their way, because we have protected Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid – for now. But they have done great damage by holding the economy hostage this long, and they are doing long-term damage by having negotiated this bill today. We were not able to prevent them from extracting draconian cuts to critical services that help our economy.
“This bill will set in place long-term cuts to the economy that will shrink our Gross Domestic Product and raise unemployment. This bill will greatly reduce America’s ability to out-compete the rest of the world. It will greatly diminish our ability to make basic investments in education, in research and innovation, in our economic growth and competitive spirit. This bill will make it more difficult for America to lead.
“All of which means fewer Americans will be working because of this bill.
“But this bill lets the wealthiest people in our country get off scot-free. They will not contribute one dime.
“That is a tragedy of enormous proportions.
“At a time when Americans are struggling to climb out of the recession, conservative and liberal economists alike have said that we need to keep investing in the economy, not pull out.
“This bill was never about deficit reduction. This bill was about pursuing a radical agenda. And as long as the Republicans control Congress, this radical agenda to end Medicare and Social Security and withdraw critical government services that create jobs will remain a threat to the American people.”
August 1, 2011: Markey Statement on Debt Deal
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass,), dean of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation, issued the following statement after voting against S. 365, The Budget Control Act of 2011.


Fulfilling our country’s financial obligations is a fundamental responsibility, and both political parties have met this responsibility by raising the debt ceiling 75 times over the years without attaching conditions. But rather than engaging in a sensible, bipartisan process, the inflexible, ideology-fueled Republican Party and its extreme Tea Party faction has forced the country into a choice that should never have been necessary.

“We are being forced to choose between the first default in our country’s history or trillions in cuts in investments that create jobs and benefit the lives of countless Americans across the country. Instead of these massive, ill-timed and unwise cuts that could send our country into a double-dip recession, we should be creating jobs by increasing our investments in cutting-edge scientific research, supporting clean technology industries that will be the job generators of the 21st century, and promoting small business, the engine that drives our economy.

“We need to reduce our deficit, but it should not be done exclusively through spending cuts; revenue increases also must be on the table. There are billions of dollars in unnecessary subsidies for the most profitable oil and gas companies that we should terminate, and billions in Bush-era tax cuts for the super wealthy that we should repeal. 

“With only deep cuts, this deficit plan could undermine many industries that matter most to Massachusetts, including the health care and high technology sectors. Massachusetts residents would be in jeopardy of suffering severe reductions in the federal programs on which they depend.

Statement of Sen. Bernie Sanders on Why He Will Oppose the Deficit-Reduction Proposal


August 1, 2011
Sen. Bernie Sanders today issued the following statement on why he plans to vote against a deficit-reduction deal proposed by the White House and congressional leaders:
"The wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations who are doing phenomenally well today are not being asked to contribute one penny in shared sacrifice toward deficit reduction.  On the other hand, middle-class and working families who are suffering terribly in the midst of this horrible recession are being asked to shoulder 100 percent of the human cost of lowering our deficit. This is not only grossly unfair, it is bad economic policy.
"This two-part deficit-reduction legislation is complicated, and it is impossible to predict exactly which programs will be cut and by how much because the process requires action by appropriation committees and a new super committee in months to come.
"But it is very clear that there will be devastating cuts to education, infrastructure,  Head Start and child care, LIHEAP, community health centers, environmental protection, affordable housing and many, many other programs. I am also concerned that when we hear that ‘everything is on the table' in terms of what this super committee deals with it will certainly include devastating cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' needs, while protecting the interests of the wealthy and large corporations.
"This country needs deficit reduction, but we need to do it in a way that is fair and which will result in economic growth and job creation.  This proposal does neither and I will oppose it."

Congress' Missed Opportunity

Posted: 8/2/11 02:02 PM ET
It is unfortunate that Congress missed an opportunity today to seriously take on debt reduction with a balanced approach. While I strongly believe America must reduce its debt and rein in federal spending, the proposal we voted on today was not fair, well thought out, or a balanced deal for our fragile economy or the millions of middle class families struggling to make ends meet.

Earlier this week, I supported over $2 trillion in spending cuts without additional revenues, and last December I voted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are blowing a hole in the deficit. I was willing to vote for a real compromise. But the fact is, there is nothing in this deal that will address the significant jobs crisis we are facing. This deal, cut behind closed doors with zero transparency, is an unbalanced approach that cuts deeply into discretionary spending while being overwhelmingly stacked in favor of large corporations who exploit loopholes and the wealthiest among us. It is simply not in the best interests of the middle class and the larger economic recovery so I could not support it.

I have not been in Washington long, but long enough to know it is broken. As I travel across New York, the people I meet are focused entirely on jobs and economic security for their families. Congress should take this charge as its own. I will continue to look for bipartisan ways to reduce the debt in a responsible way and create jobs in this struggling economy. The truth is, today we could have gone further in reducing America's debt with a sensible compromise that both cut discretionary spending and raised revenues. It is unfortunate Congress missed that opportunity.


Merkley: Debt deal is not the right path


Uploaded by  on Aug 2, 2011
Oregon's Senator Jeff Merkley spoke on the floor of the Senate to announce his decision to vote "no" on a debt deal that hurts our economy and puts greater burdens on middle class families.

Why Rebublicans did not vote for the Budget Control Act


19 Republicans in the Senate did not vote for the Bill, they were Ayotte (NH), Chambliss (GA), Coats (IN), Coburn (OK), DeMint *SC), Graham (SC), Grasslry (IA), Hatch (UT), Heller (NV), Inhofe (OK), Johnson (WI), Lee (UT), Moran (ks), Paul (KY), Rubio (FL), Session (AL), Shelby (AL), Toomey (PA), Vitter (LA),


Hensarling Statement on Revised Budget Control Act
of 2011


WASHINGTON – House Republican Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) made the following remarks today on the floor of the House of Representatives prior to the passage of the revised Budget Control Act of 2011. The legislation will avert a credit default without raising job-killing taxes, cut and cap federal spending, and guarantee a vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

“Mr. Speaker, the American people want more jobs and they want less debt. The American people are telling Washington, ‘You’ve got to quit spending money you don’t have. You’ve got to quit borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the Chinese, and then sending the bill to our children and grandchildren.’

“Our crisis today is not the debt ceiling, it is our debt, and it is a spending-driven debt. That is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this bill solves our problem. It doesn’t. It’s a solid first step.  Nobody, nobody on our side of the aisle, wants to increase this debt ceiling. It’s not in our DNA. But we do believe that ultimately, you ought to stay current on your bills, and you’ve got to quit spending money that you don’t have. 

“And in this bill—although the sums are very, very small—when we pass this bill, if the president signs it into law, it will be the first time in my lifetime that for two years in a row we have actually cut discretionary spending in Washington D.C. and made a very slight directional change in the right direction. The numbers are small, the directional change is huge.  

“But more importantly, Mr. Speaker, the seeds of the ultimate solution are planted in this bill and that is the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The American people aren’t looking for a balanced approach, they are looking for a balanced budget, and to have it work it needs to be enshrined in our Constitution. This bill will assure for the first time in fifteen years both the House and the Senate vote on a balanced budget. Those are the seeds of the solution to save this country for the next generation.”

Senator Mike Lee is a No on the Debt Ceiling Deal



Uploaded by  on Aug 1, 2011
Without structural spending reform, Senator Lee positions himself to vote no on the latest debt ceiling deal.


Open Letter: Why I Oppose the Debt Ceiling Compromise

Aug 1, 2011
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Sen. Rand Paul issued an open letter on the subject of the debt ceiling compromise facing the Senate. Below is that letter.
To paraphrase Senator Jim DeMint: When you're speeding toward the edge of a cliff, you don't set the cruise control. You stop the car. The current deal to raise the debt ceiling doesn't stop us from going over the fiscal cliff. At best, it slows us from going over it at 80 mph to going over it at 60 mph.
This plan never balances. The President called for a "balanced approach." But the American people are calling for a balanced budget.
This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt.
The deal that is pending before us now:
  • Adds at least $7 trillion to our debt over the next 10 years. The deal purports to "cut" $2.1 trillion, but the "cut" is from a baseline that adds $10 trillion to the debt. This deal, even if all targets are met and the Super Committee wields its mandate - results in a BEST case scenario of still adding more than $7 trillion more in debt over the next 10 years. That is sickening.
  • Never, ever balances.
  • The Super Committee's mandate is to add $7 trillion in new debt. Let's be clear: $2.1 trillion in reductions off a nearly $10 trillion,10-year debt is still more than $7 trillion in debt. The Super Committee limits the constitutional check of the filibuster by expediting passage of bills with a simple majority. The Super Committee is not precluded from any issue, therefore the filibuster could be rendered most. In addition, the plan harms the possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Since the goal is never to balance, having the BBA as a "trigger" ensures that the committee will simply report its $1.2 trillion deficit reduction plan and never move to a BBA vote.
  • It cuts too slowly. Even if you believe cutting $2.1 trillion out of $10 trillion is a good compromise, surely we can start cutting quickly, say $200 billion-$300 billion per year, right? Wrong. This plan so badly backloads the alleged savings that the cuts are simply meaningless. Why do we believe that the goal of $2.5 trillion over 10 years (that's an average of $250 billion per year) will EVER be met if the first two years cuts are $20 billion and $50 billion. There is simply no path in this bill even to the meager savings they are alleging will take place.
Buried in the details of this bill is the automatic debt limit increase proposed a few weeks ago. The second installment of the debt ceiling increase is initiated by the President automatically and can only be stopped by a two-thirds vote of Congress. This shifts the Constitutional check on borrowing from Congress to the President and makes it easier to raise the debt ceiling. Despite claims to the contrary, none of the triggers in this bill include withholding the second limit increase.
Credit rating agencies have clearly stated the type of so-called cuts envisioned in this plan will result in our AAA bond rating being downgraded. Ironically then, the only way to avoid our debt being downgraded and the resulting economic problems that stem from that is for this bill to fail.
This plan does not solve our problem. Not even close. I cannot abide the destruction of our economy, therefore I vigorously oppose this deal and I urge my colleagues and the American people to do the same.
Sincerely,

Why I voted against the debt deal


The good news out of the debt debate is that Washington is now debating how much we can cut instead of how much we can spend. The American people deserve all the credit for forcing that change. Unfortunately, it’s still all talk in Washington. This deal is a victory for politicians but a defeat for families.
In spite of what politicians on both sides are saying, this agreement does not cut any spending over 10 years. In fact, it increases discretionary spending by $830 billion.
I voted against this agreement because it does nothing to address the real drivers of our debt. It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program. The specter of default or a credit downgrade will still hang over our economy after this deal becomes law.
Politicians on both sides are misleading the country by calling a slowdown in the growth rate of new spending a “cut.” Spending will increase at a time when real cuts are necessary to make us live within our means, repair our economy and preserve our credit rating.
It is true that next year there will be a genuine cut of $7 billion when discretionary spending drops from $1.05 trillion to $1.043 trillion. But with our government borrowing $4.5 billion a day, that $7 billion is enough to fund the government for about 36 hours. And after our day and a half of restraint, spending will increase $830 billion over 10 years.
Supporters say the real savings will come when the joint committee the deal empowers makes recommendations to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion (as we increase the debt limit by the same amount). But the enforcement mechanism designed to force these hard decisions — across-the-board cuts to defense and nondefense programs — will never work. Congress will easily evade these caps. In the Senate, all it will take is 60 votes — the threshold for passing anything. Some have complained about defense cuts, but everyone in Washington knows those cuts can be avoided through supplemental or “emergency” spending bills.
I proudly served on the president’s debt commission and spent months negotiating with senators of both parties in the Gang of Six. But I took a break from the Gang of Sixbecause we were not offering enough savings, especially in entitlements, to heal our economy. And the truth is that the joint committee is likely to be a step backward from the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson commission.
I am the first to admit that, with this plan, the commission process in Washington has become a farce. The plan’s joint committee has been called a “super” committee because it is anything but.
For our country’s sake, I hope I am wrong. Nothing prevents the congressional committee from recommending deficit reduction far in excess of $1.2 trillion. For that to happen, however, both sides will have to sacrifice their sacred cows and embrace real entitlement reform and tax reform.
Experience has taught me that to achieve real savings, there is no substitute for being specific. In Washington, however, wide is the road that leads to pledges, commissions and caps, and narrow is the road that leads to cuts. That’s why I have targeted specific excesses such as the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the ethanol tax earmark. It’s why I recently released a 620-page report, “Back in Black,” that makes hundreds of recommendations and calls for$9 trillion in deficit reduction. Congress could spend a year eliminating no-brainer examples of waste and duplication, such as our government’s policy of directing unemployment benefits to millionaires.
I understand that Congress is not ready to accept $9 trillion in deficit reduction even though changes of that magnitude are necessary to heal our economy. Congressional leaders are probably correct that this is the best deal they could have gotten. The only recourse the people have, then, is to elect lawmakers who will produce better results.
I was among the first members of Congress to call for using the debt-limit debate as leverage to force spending cuts. I’m glad I did. Even though the cuts didn’t materialize, the debate informed the American people of the scope and magnitude of the problem.
The real debt crisis is not a debate that has been imposed on Washington by Tea Party activists. It is a crisis Washington has imposed on the American people through laziness, incompetence, dishonesty and political expediency. Politicians can talk all they want about how they did something to address the problem. But when the flaws of this plan become apparent, another change election will be coming.
The writer is a Republican senator from Oklahoma.