Johnson will vote against debt limit bill
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Tim Johnson, R-Urbana, said Monday he would vote against the debt ceiling bill that the House was scheduled to consider Monday evening.
"The legislation falls far short of making the fundamental structural reforms and the fundamental spending reductions necessary to get our nation working again," Johnson said. "Our legislative leaders call it compromise, but only in Washington where money isn't real can it be deemed acceptable to add $2.4 trillion this year to the current $14.3 trillion in debt in exchange for a promise of $2 trillion in cuts over the next decade."
Johnson said House Speaker John Boehner "is to be commended for changing the course of debate so that we are all now focused on the need to rein in spending and provide certainty to our financial markets. Would that we had had this focus before the stimulus package, bailouts and health care changes, and perhaps we wouldn't be facing a debt-ceiling limit."
The six-term congressman said that "Washington's spendthrift habits are the reason 87 Republicans were swept into the House in 2010. That frustration has not changed. I also find it regrettable that under this new plan, Congress won't be able to revisit the debt ceiling until 2013.
"We have accumulated $3.5 trillion in new debt under President Obama. Under the Budget Control Act, we're still spending more than we did last year. And nothing in this bill prevents the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction from reporting legislation to increase taxes. I hope the American people are watching. I fear this kind of compromise will only maintain the status quo."
Johnson had said weeks ago that he expected to vote against any bill that raised the debt ceiling.
"I believe that that debt alone and the consequences of it will potentially strangle our economy," Johnson said. "When you talk about a doomsday scenario and you talk about borrowing 43 cents of every dollar that you spend and the effect of that debt and our credit rating as a result, and the potential it has on our social infrastructure, I don't think it's a good policy."
He acknowledged at the time that in his first years in Congress, in 2002, 2003 and 2004, he voted for increases in the debt limit.
Since then, on seven separate occasions, he has voted against it, Johnson said.
MoreMore'"I believe that that debt alone and the consequences of it will potentially strangle our economy," Johnson said.'
Actually, with interest rates being what they are, debt service is extremely cheap right now. It's too bad that Tim Johnson doesn't understand that what's strangling our economy is joblessness. But then, his party has done absolutely nothing about that.
When asked by constituents last week if Tim Johnson felt that the last decade of tax cuts, especially for the wealthiest 2%, were working to create jobs, staffer Dennis Graff couldn't answer. That's not surprising -- an answer either way would have been damning for the Republicans.
Jen R seems to want to challenge Rep. Johnson's integrity on this issue. The fact of the matter is that most of our federal government is on a drug. This is called OPM (pronounce opium). Others people money is easy to spend. The upper 2% that she is referencing includes many democrat businessmen. Many corporations are run by democrats. I repeat. Many corporations are run by democrats. It would be time for Americans to once again protest by buying products manufactured in the USA and only them.
Another foolish comment with absolutely no backing to it. It's the spend spend spend mindset that's driven this country to to the financial cliff that it's teetering on. Sorry pal, but the pendulum has swung so far to the left that it has no where to swing but back. See you next November.
You're right. Spend, spend, spend. (You're referring to 2000-2008, right?)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-eff...
I would like to know how Tim Johnson voted every time the debt ceiling was raised during the Dubya era? Why don't you tell us how you voted Johnson? What did you do to create jobs when Dubya and your party were sinking the economy? All of a sudden you have become a Tea Partier? Tim Johnson is lucky he represents a relative rural constituency where everyone knows everyone. He wouldn't survive a single term in any major metropolitan constituency. For all the years he has been in Congress, I would like to know what he has accomplished - at a $175,000 a year plus cadillac benefits, he ought to have something to show for his tenure. As for those of you Yahoos who think he is comptetent, feel free to list his accomplishments - I'm dying to know.
Umm.. he did tell the N-G how he voted in the W years.
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/business/economy/2011-07-08/johnson-opp...
For true conservatives, our biggest accomplishments are beating back silly bills and spending and "government fix" ideas from the left. In other words, saying "no." I think a great accomplishment for a congressman would be to get there and do nothing. Not that Tim Johnson does that. If you knew anything at all about him, you'd know how hard he works for his consituents. You'd know what committees he's on, and how he votes. But you don't know. You'd rather ask random questions on message boards instead of doing actual research. So I gave you an easy article published not too long ago on Johnson's debt ceiling voting history. You go figure out the rest. You go read about how he has opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. You go read how me makes more calls to his constiuents than any other congressman as published by the Wall Street Journal. You go read how he has been a leader in agriculture. You go read about how he votes for what he thinks is right, regardless of the position of the republican leadership. Tim Johnson is not 'lucky' as you put it. Tim Johnson works his tail off for his constiuents.
You may not agree with some of his positions, but anyone who questions his work ethic has no credibility.
"You go read about how he has opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
What? He voted for both of those wars. He might be critical of how they were handled, or he might want to distance himself from them now that they've become unpopular, but people who were really anti-war when it counted know where Tim Johnson stood.
Anybody wanting to catch him off guard to talk to him in person, he likes to walk indoors at Lincoln Square on the weekends. I full well agree his time is well past over. I don't know how he keeps getting re-elected. If you're interested, here's how he voted on everything:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/J000285/votes/
There are two issues here. The first, cutting spending, to reduce the debt is a reasonable argument. The second, cutting spending only, in the belief that it will grow the economy is ignorant.
The compromise calls for $2.4 trillion in spending cuts over ten years. That's 16.6% of GDP, or 1.6% per year. If the Federal Reserve’s 3.0% forecast for continued growth is accurate, economic growth rate is about to fall to 1.4% a year. If their projections are not accurate, then we are going to enter a double-dip recession.
We reached this stage of debt almost entirely due to the tax cuts enacted under Bush, the financing of the wars started under Bush, and the deleveraging occurring due to the financial crisis of 2006-2008.
The Commerce department just released information showing the corporate profits are the highest that they have ever been, at a time when unemployment is 9.2%. We've all read how income inequality is the highest that it has been since prior to the Great Depression. Spending cuts focusing solely on the middle and lower class will only make it worse. And since I imagine most of you reading this are in one of those groups, why do you continue to support politicians, such as Tim Johnson, who encourage it and benefit from it? I would like to claim that supply-side economics, created on the back of a napkin by a middling economist and a Wall Street Journal reporter, does not work, but it does exactly what it was intended to do. It convinces you to give up your money so that the affluent can have more. In the real world, the rich benefit more from a financial system that can only exist in America; that is why the rich should pay more taxes for that benefit.
It's your choice. I support politicians who are intelligent and protect those in the lower and middle class.
That is profound. Why don't you just give me Johnson's voting record on debt ceiling increases during Dubya's 8 years in the WH? Why don't you give me Johnson's voting record on 2 ridiculous wars that have cost tens of thousands of lives, billions if not trillions of Dollars and accomplished nothing? That way, some of us can have an "intelligent" discussion with the facts in front of us - rather than just taking meaningless, insightless, cheap shots. If Illinois is indeed the "laughing stock" (only God knows whose) here are several Red states around this country and unless you are moving to AZ or AL, you don't even have to prove you are a citizen of the US to live a peaceful life. Adios amigo.
What is it with Illinois politicians being so incredibly irresponsible with debt?
Obama voted against the 2006 debt limit increase. Yeah, he wanted default for the US as far back as 2006. Now Tim Johnson is joining Obama in his work to destroy our economy. What a bunch of incompetents!
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.