Congressman Cantor issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare is a crushing blow to patients throughout the country. Obamacare has failed to keep the President’s basic promise of allowing those who like their health care to keep it, while increasing costs and reducing access to quality care for patients. In this tough economy, jobs and economic growth are on the minds of most Americans, but Obamacare has increased uncertainty for small businessmen and women and forced them to put their hiring decisions on hold.

“During the week of July 9th, the House will once again repeal Obamacare, clearing the way for patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice. We support an approach that offers simpler, more affordable and more accessible health care that allows people to keep the health care that they like.

“The Court’s decision brings into focus the choice the American people have about the direction of our country. The President and his party believe in massive government intrusions that increase costs and take decisions away from patients. In contrast, Republicans believe in patient-centered, affordable care where health care decisions are made by patients, their families and their doctors, not by the federal government.”

Click here to view the entire Supreme Court decision.

Across the rotunda, sen. Harry Reid, a 71-year-old Democrat, is grumbling about Rep. Eric Cantor, the House majority leader. The previous evening, Cantor, a boyish Virginia Republican, flustered President Obama during debt-limit negotiations at the White House. Reid repays this horror with a tongue-lashing, calling Cantor “childish” from the floor.

Cantor, relaxing in his Capitol office, shrugs when he hears about Reid’s remark. Days before, he reminds me, Reid had taken him aside and thanked him for his blunt answers during the high-stakes talks. Now, in the late-July heat, Reid has apparently forgotten, tagging Cantor as the Beltway’s bête noire.

For Democrats, casting Cantor as this decade’s Newt Gingrich – a right-wing threat to reasonableness – became a favorite pastime in the midst of the debt-ceiling debate.

President Obama, more than most, has found Cantor irritating.

Continue reading “A visit with Rep. Eric Cantor” >>

Our Constitution has endured the passage of time with remarkably few changes, being amended just 27 times in 223 years. Unfortunately, America’s debt limit has not been nearly so stable. Since World War II, Congress has increased the limit on the national debt 69 times. The reasons behind this disparity tell an important story.

Let’s begin with the debt limit. President Reagan once observed that “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” Once created, government programs build constituencies of special interests determined to keep the money flowing, whether or not the program is effective. In our time in Congress, we have placed many such programs on the chopping block, only to see pressure from the spending lobby win the day.

While the federal government has consistently collected revenue of about 18% of U.S. economic output, federal spending has consistently been even higher. The debt resulting from these budget deficits builds up until the debt limit is reached. And rather than fight the spending lobby, politicians have taken the easy route of raising the limit without cutting spending.

Rein in the debt

The relative scarcity of constitutional changes stems from the high hurdles for success. Constitutional amendments require the support of two-thirds of the House and the Senate and then three-fourths of the states. Because of these same requirements, successful amendments tend to stay in place. Only one, Prohibition, has ever been repealed. The moral of this story is clear. Anyone who hopes to rein in the debt and make Washington live within its means should support amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

Always a concern, the national debt has grown into a malignant cancer on our economy. Attacking this cancer at its root means cutting spending. If we do not, the U.S. will face a job-killing debt crisis within just a few years.

Promises, promises

Near-term spending cuts are necessary to alter the course, but they will not be enough without long-term changes. Likewise, promises of cuts 10 years from now mean little without a way to enforce them. The only way to truly guarantee delivery from future politicians is if the Constitution demands it. That’s why the House will vote next Wednesday on a balanced budget amendment that would require supermajorities in both chambers to run a deficit, raise the debt ceiling, raise taxes and spend more than 18% of GDP.

With the balanced budget movement gaining momentum, members of the spending lobby want to argue that Congress and the president already have the ability to control spending. Ability and discipline are not the same. If Washington actually had the discipline to live within its means over the long term, every American citizen would not owe $46,000 toward the national debt.

Today, this massive borrowing is taking a toll on our economy. As businesses defend against the higher taxes, inflation and borrowing costs likely to follow from the coming debt crisis, they take fewer risks and create fewer jobs. By cutting spending and balancing the budget, we can alleviate such fears and put the private sector back on offense.

The importance of the upcoming votes cannot be overstated. House and Senate passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment will make reckless borrowing a thing of the past and will ensure that our children enjoy futures full of opportunity. Let Democrats and Republicans join together to do the right thing and make a real difference for the future.