[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4493-S4495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            ECONOMIC POLICY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, for more than 2 years now, 
Republicans in Washington have stood united in the belief that America 
would never recover from the economic crisis that struck our Nation 3 
years ago so long as some in Washington persisted in the mistaken 
belief that government had the cure. For most clear-eyed observers, 
that view has found its clearest vindication in the daily drumbeat of 
news about lost jobs, shuttered businesses, and slumping home values, 
and in the stories each of us hears from our constituents about the 
economic hardships they continue to face. If anyone was still looking 
for proof that the President's economic policies have been a failure, 
they don't have to look any further than the morning papers or their 
constituent mail. Indeed, the more the administration insisted on 
spending and debt as a solution to our problems, the worse those 
problems became and the more Americans demanded the status quo in 
Washington had to change. But the administration was slow to get the 
message.
  After an election that any honest observer saw as a repudiation of 
its policies, the White House continued to cling to its playbook. As 
concerns about debt and deficit grew, the President presented a budget 
so unequal to the task that not a single Democrat voted for it--not 
one. As the Nation inched closer to a potential default, the President 
focused his attention elsewhere.
  Meanwhile, Republicans were offering detailed solutions to the 
approaching crisis. We offered detailed budgets of our own. We offered 
to work out a compromise that lowered the debt and protected 
entitlements from bankruptcy. And here is what we got in return: 
silence.
  That is where the debate over the debt limit came in. If Democrats 
would not agree on their own to do something about their addiction to 
spending and

[[Page S4494]]

debt, then we refused to enable it. If they wanted our votes to 
increase the debt limit, then they would have to do something to 
restrain the size and scope of government first. For a while, there 
weren't many takers. Democrats from the President on down insisted that 
we simply raise the debt ceiling and endorse the status quo on spending 
without any reforms.
  That changed a couple of months ago when the President agreed to 
delegate bipartisan debt-reduction talks to the Vice President. Then, a 
couple of weeks ago, the President broke his own silence on the debt 
ceiling and got personally involved himself. Incredibly, for those of 
us who had been calling for action on this issue day-in and day-out for 
about 2 years, the President tried to put the burden on us. With the 
Nation edging closer to the debt limit deadline, the President 
retreated behind the poll-tested rhetoric of class warfare. At a moment 
when we needed leadership the most, we got it the least. The financial 
security of the Nation was being gambled on the President's wager that 
he could convince people our problems would be solved if we would all 
agree to take it out on the guy in the fancy house down the street. In 
my view, that was the saddest commentary on the status of leadership at 
the White House.
  I am proud of the fact that Republicans refused to play along. We 
stood our ground. We know that what Americans need right now is for the 
government to make job creation easier, not harder, and we said so. At 
a time when 14 million Americans are looking for work, we refused to 
support a tax hike. We supported jobs and economic growth instead. When 
Democrats saw we wouldn't budge, they proposed one last offer to craft 
a deal. They asked us to join them in another Washington effort to pull 
the wool over the eyes of the American people. They offered us the 
opportunity to participate in the kind of deliberate deception of the 
public that has given public service such a bad name in recent years. 
We all saw how it worked. The administration carefully leaked to the 
media, without any details, the idea that it was willing to go along 
with trillions of dollars in spending cuts. The lack of detail 
concealed the fact that the savings they were supposedly willing to 
support were at best smoke and mirrors. The hope here was that the 
budget gimmicks and deferred decisionmaking they actually supported 
would have the appearance of serious belt-tightening, but the practical 
effect would have been at most about a couple of billion dollars in 
cuts up front with empty promises of more to follow. We have seen this 
kind of thing before. It is just the kind of sleight-of-hand governing 
that has put our Nation more than $14 trillion in debt. I will not 
associate myself with it, and I refuse to join in an effort to fool the 
American people.
  Republicans have told the President we are not interested in business 
as usual in Washington, and we actually mean it. We will not be party 
to something that claims to save trillions but leaves future 
generations to pick up the tab and future Congresses to reverse it with 
a simple vote. We will not pretend a bad deal is a good one, which 
brings me to a larger point.
  The suggestion has been made that this debate was hinged on the 
question of whether the two parties could find a solution to our 
economic problems without raising taxes. Wrong. We could have done that 
without breaking a sweat. The truth is, the Democrats saw this debate 
as a unique opportunity to impose the types of tax hikes they want so 
badly but couldn't even pass in a Democrat-controlled Senate last year. 
So let's not be fooled by a false choice. This was not in the end a 
debate about whether taxes needed to be raised; it was a debate about 
the kind of government we want. This was a debate between those who 
believe Washington doesn't have enough money to spend and those, like 
me, who believe Washington has become too big, too expensive, and too 
burdensome already. If one thinks the Federal Government isn't big 
enough, then the only responsible thing to do is to support higher 
taxes. For those who are honest about that, I appreciate their candor. 
But for those of us who don't think the Federal Government should be in 
charge of banks, the auto industry, the housing business, the student 
loans business, health care, and regulating everything else under the 
Sun, we are not about to further enable that model of government by 
shaking down the American people for more money at a time when they can 
least afford it. That is what this debate is about. It is about saying 
Washington has gotten too big, and if it can't afford its commitments, 
then it needs to find a way to cut back on them. But don't demand that 
the American people pay more so Washington can make its bad habits 
permanent. I read an article yesterday that said $2 out of every $5 
Americans spend right now comes from the Federal Government. Is this 
really the model we want?

  I have a lot of meetings with constituents, and I am not sure I have 
ever heard anyone say the problem with Washington is they don't have 
enough money to spend. I don't think I have ever heard that.
  It was my hope the two parties could reach a meaningful, bipartisan 
agreement. I have to say I was initially encouraged by the prospect of 
the bipartisan discussions led by the Vice President. Although I 
disagree with him on most issues, Vice President Biden is a man I have 
come to respect as a straight-shooting negotiator. We found common 
ground last December to prevent a tax hike on the American people, and 
my hope was we could find a solution once again.
  Sadly, these discussions started with the shared goal of reducing the 
debt but quickly regressed to a public sideshow in which the price of 
admission became an insistence that we raise taxes on job creators and 
on millions of American families who don't have yachts or corporate 
jets. At a time when jobs are few and far between, that is not a price 
the American people can afford.
  So Republicans searched in good faith for common ground, but the 
goalposts just kept moving. We trudged on, hoping the administration 
would at some point realize the crisis we face demands a clear change 
in direction, a departure from the government-driven policies of the 
past 2 years. But our hopes for a grand bargain eventually ran into the 
bitter reality that this administration is just not interested in a 
meaningful and lasting solution to our mounting debt. It is simply too 
committed to big government. We showed a willingness to sacrifice all 
along, even as we made it crystal clear from the outset that tax 
increases would not be a part of any agreement. It was their commitment 
to big government that stood in the way of a grand bargain. It was 
their determination to freeze the policies of the past 2 years in 
place, permanently. The American people don't want that, and 
Republicans won't be seduced into enabling it.
  An ideological commitment to big government has outweighed the White 
House's commitment to find a meaningful compromise that does not damage 
our fragile economy in the process. Rather than find a way to bring 
government back to the people, the administration has committed itself 
to protecting the size and scope of government at the cost of job 
creation, economic growth, and America's status in the global economy.
  The tragedy in all of this is that we all know what is necessary to 
solve the economic crisis we face. The answer is to cut spending. The 
answer is to cut spending.
  It is no secret how to solve the entitlement crisis, either. Any one 
of the people involved in these discussions could write it out on the 
back of an envelope. It is also no secret that Democrats would rather 
demagogue any solution Republicans propose in next year's election than 
join us in seriously reforming them, despite what some Democrats 
started to say once it became clear Republicans wouldn't agree to a 
plan that raises taxes.
  We all saw the news stories yesterday about how senior Democrats have 
been worried that reforming Medicare now would make it harder for them 
to campaign against Republicans later. Evidently, they would rather 
save their own jobs than save these programs from insolvency.
  I truly believed we could get this done. I truly believed, perhaps 
naively, that this administration would see the necessity of preserving 
Social Security and Medicare for future generations.
  In the end, it appears that the perceived electoral success of 
demagoguing a solution proved its

[[Page S4495]]

undoing. Or perhaps it was the ideological commitment to preserving the 
size of government by the most stridently liberal Members of the other 
side. Whatever the reasons, Madam President--whatever the reasons--it 
is a tragic missed opportunity for the country.
  I hope the economists are wrong and that our economy will continue to 
grow over the next year and a half to buy us time to tackle the 
problems we face. But after years of discussions and months of 
negotiations, I have little question that as long as this President is 
in the Oval Office a real solution is probably unattainable. This was 
not an easy decision for me.
  From my first day as Republican leader in the Senate, I have called 
on Presidents from both parties to work with Congress on real solutions 
to the problems we face. For more than 2 years I have had conversations 
with the administration about working together to accomplish something 
big for the country. On each occasion, I have been met initially with 
encouraging words that gradually give way to moving the goalposts.
  In the end, they have always expressed a fundamental unwillingness to 
engage in a meaningful effort to reduce spending as a means to rein in 
the debt. Despite our stagnant economy, and the dire warnings of 
economic and security experts that we cannot sustain our mounting debt 
or unfunded liabilities, this President has proven that he will do 
almost anything to protect the size and the scope of Washington, DC's 
burgeoning bureaucracy, including to threaten the economic security of 
every American by backing us up to the edge of default.
  I have heard some on the other side of the aisle suggest that 
Republicans have put us in this position by refusing to accept what 
they call a balanced approach.
  My response is that if the American people have learned one thing 
over the past few years, it is that they need to bring their decoder 
rings to any debate in Washington these days. When Democrats say 
``investment,'' they mean government spending. When they say 
``revenue,'' they mean higher taxes. And when they say ``shared 
sacrifice,'' they mean they want you to take the hit, not Washington. 
It starts with the so-called rich, with the owners of the corporate 
jets, but pretty soon it hits the family flying in coach. Eventually 
everyone gets fleeced.
  Well, Americans have had enough. They think it is time Washington 
shares in the sacrifice. Republicans invited Democrats into these 
discussions about finding a solution to our problems, and while we 
approached them with clear and unwavering principles, we also brought 
an open mind. The record reflects that. I will not betray the 
confidence of those who were willing to negotiate with us, but there 
can be no question by anyone involved in these discussions that 
Republicans were willing to make tough choices.
  So where do we go from here?
  Well, I was one of those who had long hoped we could do something big 
for the country. But in my view the President has presented us with 
three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans 
choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do 
harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will 
of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the 
government does not default on its obligations, and to continue to 
press the administration to rein in Washington, not to freeze it in 
place.
  That is why I will continue to urge the President to rein in our 
deficits and debt in a way that puts the short- and long-term health of 
our economy ahead of his personal vision of government. That is what 
the American people want. That is what Republicans will continue to 
insist on. Nothing less will solve the crises we face. Nothing less 
will do.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________