Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is over House Republicans and their debt ceiling games. Announcing new legislation on Wednesday to withhold Congressional pay if the debt ceiling is not raised, Boxer said the House Republicans have a deadbeat agenda, “They are losers. Their strategy is a losing strategy and they are doing it all over again. Earth to John Boehner: The deficit has already been cut in half.”
As Republicans threaten to once again demand cuts in exchange for paying off their own spending (aka, refusing to raise the debt ceiling), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) introduced legislation on Wednesday to withhold pay for members of Congress if they don’t raise the debt ceiling.
The “Pay Your Bills or Lose Your Pay Act of 2013″ legislation would prevent Members of Congress from being paid should they fail to raise the debt ceiling and the government defaults on its bills. Congressional pay would be put into an escrow account until the end of the session, much like the Republican ‘No Budget, No Pay’ law.
Boxer explained in a news conference Wednesday that we should pay for the spending already authorized by Congress, aka our debts, and that using the debt ceiling as a hostage part of House Republicans’ ‘deadbeat agenda’.
“It’s a deadbeat agenda,” she said, pointing out that Republicans cost taxpayers $18.9 billion over 10 years with their 2011 politicking with the debt ceiling. (She is correct, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.)”They are losers. Their strategy is a losing strategy and they are doing it all over again. Earth to John Boehner: The deficit has already been cut in half.”
“President Obama is clear he is not going to allow hostage taking over the debt ceiling… The bottom line is we shouldn’t be holding the debt ceiling hostage.”
Senator Boxer is also correct about the deficit being cut in half. On May 14, the nonpartisan CBO updated its analysis of the deficit, saying that if current law holds, it will be less than half as large as 2009:
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment