I was disappointed to learn that earlier today Democrats in the Senate turned their backs on the American people by rejecting the Cut, Cap and Balance Act of 2011. In a recent CNN poll, 66 percent of the American public support the Cut, Cap and Balance agenda which 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.”
As I have publicly said before, I will only vote for legislation that contains real spending cuts and does not raise taxes. My colleagues in the House and I will continue to pressure leadership and the President against any type of tax increase. It is time for President Obama and Democrats in Washington to realize the federal government does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.
You can’t have a small government while engaging in wars throughout the globe. You can’t blame just the Democrats for the deep whole we have dug ourselves. GW spent money like a drunken sailor with a credit card. It is no longer politically possible to come anywhere near balancing the budget. Any fiscally responsible action that is politically possible will require tax increases and spending cuts.
Wouldn’t it help if you helped reform entitlement spending? Why not co-sponsor H.R. 2109 for your constituents here in your electoral district of Harris County? It’s the “Savings Account for Every American Act” bill that would finally allow us to make our social security contributions to private accounts instead of the increasingly bankrupt social security federal government Ponzi Scheme that Obama basically just admitted has nothing left in it from prior contributors. Just as our elected officials don’t have to depend on the government-run social security program, why should those of us who pay your salaries still have to? The unfunded liabilities continue to accumulate, as http://www.USDebtClock.org documents.
We don’t allow private sector Ponzi schemes to exist, as Bernie Madoff can confirm from prison. So isn’t it time to curtail the hypocrisy involved with the federal government’s nevertheless running social security by letting us save for our own retirements, using the efficiency and accountability of the competitive private sector to help with our futures? If even that solution is supposedly insufficiently reliable, why not let us opt out of social security altogether? Indeed I prefer to be able to opt-out of social security because I believe I could accomplish far more with my savings if I could invest them as I see fit (and I’d accept the risk in case I achieve disappointing results). Still, my finally being allowed to make such contributions into a private savings account as H.R. 2109 would allow is a step in the right direction. So why aren’t you sponsoring it, Congressman Culberson? Too afraid to risk annoying retired constituents just to free us taxation slaves who actually contribute to Houston’s economy beyond ways involving merely spending other people’s money?
Those who lazily claim to be “entitled” to their relatively exorbitant social security benefits did little if anything to keep any contributions that they might have made sufficiently guarded from congressional fiscal irresponsibility. How is it not slavery to force current taxpayers to keep cleaning up after them by paying into a program that even they couldn’t protect before the proverbial horse was stolen from the barn? Current recipients sat by idly, but why should that become my responsibility when I couldn’t even vote while they let their elected officials squander what little (if anything) that they contributed? This exposé documents how little most of them actually contributed, too:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=195217
What stops seniors from getting a job, as sites such as http://www.RetiredBrains.com facilitate for older people? If retirees still claim that they can’t be productive members of society despite how it’s easier than ever thanks to telecommunications breakthroughs, how are such lethargy and parasitism something worth subsidizing with my own involuntarily extracted earnings which could instead be used to create jobs for those who remain viable as potential contributors to society?
The social security status quo is already unfair to younger people… Social security involves a transfer of wealth from the young to the old or relatively unproductive. Worse still, there has been talk of “solutions” such as means-testing social security benefits, while also raising the retirement age even further. Such “solutions” are likely inevitable, but are unsatisfactory and fall way short of what we’re promised when coercively forced to pay into the government social security fund in order to finance present retirees’ living off of our sweat, hard work and innovativeness. Might you still remember where such a political philosophy got the U.S.S.R. two decades ago?
As your constituent, I notice that you’re not co-sponsoring H.R. 2109. Why is that, Congressman Culberson? Why should we vote for a slave driver or passive “good German” in the future? Stress causes cancer and heart disease, and my having to subsidize the unproductive when I need that money adversely affects my health. So what is your position specifically regarding H.R. 2109, por favor? Please don’t waste our time merely with some “I want to fortify social security and I thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding that important cause” “reply”. Your job is to make challenging decisions, as http://www.USDebtClock.org warrants. For your potential competitors, the choice is easy. How about for you?
If your votes only affected the people that voted for you, I could understand why you are voting they way you do. However,the votes that you cast effect ALL the people of your district AND all the citizens of our nation. I feel that our nation is being hijacked a minority. I do not think that “might makes right”; neither do I think that a dedicated minority has all the knowledge and wisdom. It seems to me that NO ONE GROUP has THE ONE BEST ANSWER!
From http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/government/the-left-baits-a-trap-for-us/?eiid=&rmid=2011_07_22_PLA
… If a requirement gets added to the U.S. Constitution that Congress must pass a balanced budget, one horrible alternative seems frighteningly clear to me: We will be forced to raise taxes to comply with the law.
I can see the editorials in The New York Times and The Washington Post. The editorial writers won’t be so juvenile as to gloat; but I wager they will smirk a bit. Because they will know that we have fallen into a trap that they baited for us.
Yes, I think a balanced budget amendment could be dangerous. But I’m against it for a second and more basic reason: We don’t need it.
Thanks to the foresight of our Founding Fathers, the solution is already in the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, Section 7 of that marvelous document requires that all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives.
If the House doesn’t approve it, the President can’t spend it. Period.
Does Congress really want to reduce spending? The answer is obvious: Don’t authorize the expenditure. Want to force the Department of Education (or any other Federal agency) to spend less? Don’t vote them more money. Want to force the Transportation Security Administration to stop groping old ladies and young children? Cut off its funds. …