Broke or balanced – that’s the choice

Democrats spent beyond their means, and now they expect a bailout —- from the taxpayers. That’s what this debate is all about: it’s about holding Washington accountable for a change. It’s about drawing a line in the sand and saying, “No, the taxpayers will not bail out politicians.” It’s about refusing to subsidize the Democrats’ irresponsible spending habits another day. Democrats have shown through their reckless spending over the past two years that they’re not all that concerned about our fiscal future. They shouldn’t expect to be rewarded for it.

The entire Democrat approach to this debate has been astonishing, really. I mean, here we are in the midst of two national crises: 14 million unemployed and more than $14 trillion in debt. Chronic unemployment, and record deficits and debt. And what are the Democrats proposing? Higher taxes and more spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis, they want to slam already struggling businesses with a massive tax hike. In the middle of a debt crisis, they want to borrow and spend more money as a solution to the problem.

This isn’t a negotiation. It’s parody. In a discussion about reducing the debt they want to increase spending. In the middle of a jobs crisis they want to raise taxes —- even as they claim to support job creation.

Well, which is it?

Yesterday, the President went to a manufacturing plant to tout jobs. Yet even as he was speaking, his administration was looking to saddle manufacturing companies including the one he was visiting with billions of dollars in new taxes. According to a letter from a group of trade associations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, this particular tax would be “devastating” to manufacturers.   

The President himself said as recently as six months ago that keeping taxes where they are enables businesses to hire more workers. In other words, that raising taxes leads to fewer jobs. So he can call for tax hikes. But he can’t call for tax hikes and job creation. It’s one or the other. But they want to have it both ways. The Democrats’ spending spree has brought us to the brink of an economic calamity. And now they’re telling taxpayers they won’t do anything to prevent it unless the taxpayers hand over more money in the form of tax hikes.

And they have the nerve to call their critics immoral. Well, I want to know what you call spending trillions more than you have and then expecting others to pick up the tab.

I mean, who proposes tax hikes as a solution to a jobs crisis? Who proposes more spending as a solution to a debt crisis? And who really thinks that if we raise the debt limit now without enacting serious spending cuts and meaningful reforms first it will lead to greater fiscal discipline later?

There’s an important principle at stake in this debate. It’s not about the rich versus the poor. It’s not about an election. It’s about whether Washington will ever be held accountable for its mistakes. That’s why Republicans refuse to let the taxpayers take the hit when it comes to reducing the debt.

And that’s why all 47 Republicans in the Senate support a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The debate we’ve been having here over the past few days shows more than ever why we need a Balanced Budget Amendment in Congress. A Balanced Budget Amendment would require that lawmakers stop spending money we don’t have. And when we come back from the July 4th break we will fight for an opportunity to vote for it.

Broke or balanced. That’s the choice.

The American people should know where their senators stand on this issue of accountability. Senators can talk all day long about the importance of balancing the books and living within our means. A vote in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment will show that they mean it. A vote against it will show that they don’t.

Look: no one denies that both parties are guilty of spending beyond our means. But this White House has taken wasteful spending to new heights. And its allies in Congress are all too quick to defend it. The last time the Senate voted on a Balanced Budget Amendment the government’s annual deficit was about $100 billion, the national debt was about $5.5 trillion, and it failed by a single vote. Today, the annual deficit is $1.6 trillion and the national debt is $14.5 trillion.

The President and his party need to be held accountable. The fiscal mess they’ve helped create calls for rehab. That’s what the Balanced Budget Amendment would provide — a spending straightjacket. No more blank checks. If Democrats won’t pass a budget of their own, it’s time Americans impose a budget on them. Americans aren’t about to let Democrats use another crisis as an excuse to expand the size of government. If ever there was a time for Washington to pass through a crisis and come out smaller on the other side it’s now.

Republicans are totally united in this effort. All we need is 20 Democrats to join us.

Washington should be forced to make the kind of difficult choices the rest of the country has to make. Lawmakers should have to make the case for a spending increase before they approve it. Never again can they just spend away and then demand in the teeth of a crisis that taxpayers cough up the money.

It’s time to put the American people back at the helm of our ship of state. And if that’s what this vote achieves, then this debate we’re having this summer will have been well worth it. If Washington is forced to finally reform its ways, then one day we’ll all look back and say the American people won this debate. And we’ll say that the Balanced Budget Amendment was just the thing we needed to get our house in order.

Broke or balanced. That’s the choice before us.

So I look forward to this vote. The American people clearly want it. Let’s hold Washington accountable. And let’s begin to restore power to the people who sent us here not to do our own will, but to carry out theirs. That’s the principle at stake here. It’s about the kind of government we want to have. A government of the people, or a government above the people. That’s the choice. Much depends on the outcome.