Cantor: Stimulus Spending Unacceptable
By Adrianna McGinley
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said no to more stimulus spending at his weekly news briefing Monday.
Contributing to the overall sentiment of ‘no more of the same’ emanating from both sides of the aisle, Cantor said no form of stimulus spending will be accepted.
“Anything that is akin to the stimulus bill I think is not going to be acceptable to the American people. Most folks understand that the promises made around the stimulus program were not kept.”
Cantor pointed out several points on which he does agree with the president, including the need to focus on small businesses when presenting jobs legislation.
“The fact is, we don’t have the money, and we got to prioritize and right now is about getting people back to work. Right now we want to focus on small businesses and the private sector because focusing on the stimulus and the public sector has not gotten us anywhere.”
Cantor also expressed worry over the “pay fors” that will not be included in the bill that the president is expected to present this week.
“I sure hope that the president is not suggesting that we pay for his proposals with a massive tax increase at the end of 2012 on job creators that we’re actually counting on to reduce unemployment.”
On the doubt regarding whether or not Congress will be willing to work across party lines to pass jobs legislation, Cantor said, “I think all of us are here to try and do right by the people that elect us and what’s right for this country.” He added, “when there is potential for areas of agreement, we’re going to work towards accomplishing that.”
He criticized President Obama, however, for taking an “all or nothing” approach.
“I do not think that the president’s all or nothing approach is something that is constructive. We have good ideas, he’s got some ideas that we think are good, we can bring these together, but let’s not allow the things in his bill that we disagree with to get in the way of producing some results.”
Rep. Tim Scott (R-SC), also present at the briefing, said, “those of us who come from strong defense districts still believe that if we’re going to have the opportunity to engage the president, we have to do so with everything on that table to improve our spending,” when the two were presented with questions regarding possible cuts to national defense.
Bipartisan Panel Outlines Five Steps To Reform Earmarks
By Kyle LaFleur— Talk Radio News Service
Former Congressman James Walsh (R-NY) joined a bipartisan coalition of lobbyists and NGO members in Washington Wednesday morning to discuss the “Next Steps for Earmark Reform.” Though the seven panel members held a variety of opinions regarding the future of earmarks, they did agree on five reform principles Congress should consider.
“I have worked with lots of individuals and organizations over the years, this is probably one of the most unique groups I have worked with and it’s really been enjoyable and its great to see Americans of all stripes, views and philosophies coming together to help resolve some of the issues we have before us,” said Walsh.
The five principles would limit earmark beneficiary campaign contributions to $5,000, bar legislative staff from participating in fundraising events, create a new data base of all congressional earmarks, call for the random auditing of earmarks and require that members certify that earmark recipients are qualified to handle the projects they receive money for.
“The lists is probably more inclusive than some would like and less inclusive then others would like but it’s the sort of compromise all of us would like to see and we think the American people would like to see Congress work out,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
The coalition’s anncounment comes exactly one week after House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginai called for an end to all earmarks.
In a Politico op-ed, Cantor said “there is no question that earmarks – rightly or wrongly – have become the poster child for Washington’s wasteful spending binges. They have been linked to corruption and scandal, and serve as a fuel line for the culture of spending that has dominated Washington far too long. These reasons alone would justify completely eliminating earmarks, but the basis for my position doesn’t end there. The old adage that he who can’t be trusted to reform the “small” problems can’t be trusted to reform the “large” ones applies as much to government as to individuals. Both Republicans and Democrats have an enormous task before us if we are going to get America’s fiscal house in order.”