President Obama Joins the Debate

Floor Speech

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday, President Obama outlined what he is describing as a ``responsible'' approach to our Nation's fiscal problems. And my initial response to that characterization is that, with all due respect,the American people are not inclined to take advice on fiscal responsibility from an administration whose unprecedented borrowing and spending has done so much to create the mess we are in.

After 2 years of adding trillions to the debt and ignoring our Nation's looming fiscal nightmare, the President may be right in thinking that the politically expedient thing to do is point the finger at others. But the truly responsible thing would be to admit that his own 2-year experiment in big government has been a disaster for the economy and itself a major driver of our debt; and that his inaction on the latter is the primary reason others have been forced to step forward and offer meaningful solutions of their own.

That is what most people already believe anyway. So the President's attempt to stake out the high ground in this debate was, I suspect, hard for many Americans to swallow.

Despite the President's imaginative account of how we arrived at the situation we are in, the American people are well past the point of believing that Washington will be able to make good on all its promises if only we let the President and Democrats in Congress raise taxes.

Americans know that we face a fiscal crisis not because we tax too little but because we spend too much. They do not support the reckless Washington spending that has left us with record deficits and debt, and they will not support raising taxes to preserve an unsustainable status quo. Besides, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have already rejected the kind of tax hike on small business that President Obama endorsed again yesterday. So it was counterproductive of him to revive it.

As for entitlements, the President rightly acknowledged that before we know it, the government will spend every dime it takes in just to cover the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the interest on our debt. What he did not say is that the health care bill he signed last year takes more than half a trillion dollars out of Medicare to pay for an entirely new entitlement that could be just as unsustainable as Medicare itself; and which forces nearly 20 million more Americans into a Medicaid Program which, as currently arranged, is bankrupting our States.

So the President can claim to be a great defender of the social safety net. He may claim to stand for a nobler vision of America than those who disagree with him. But the facts speak for themselves. And when it comes to preserving the social safety net, the President's proposals simply do not address the things that have caused our most cherished entitlement programs to be unsustainable in the first place.

Instead, the President would simply tinker around the edges and leave the hard work for others, passing the buck to future Presidents. And that just won't cut it anymore.

Americans are paying attention. They know the fiscal problems we face will not be solved by continuing the job-destroying policies that got us here. What is more, the centerpiece of the President's proposal, tax hike on top earners, may sound appealing to those whose primary goal in this debate is to protect big government. But looking at the most recent data, the Wall Street Journal points out this morning that even if we were to lay claim to every taxable dollar of every single American who earns more than $100,000 a year, we still wouldn't raise enough to cover the $1.6 trillion deficit the President's budget gives us this year.

The best way to bring down the debt and to create the climate that will lead to good private-sector jobs and prosperity is not to repeat the policies of the past but to change them. And that means cutting Washington spending, not squeezing family budgets even more.

Throughout the day today, Senators will have an opportunity to debate a down payment on those cuts for the rest of the current fiscal year. So I invite them to come to the floor to discuss that proposal. After that, we will move onto an even more far-reaching debate not about billions but about trillions. That is the debate that will show Americans exactly where their elected representatives stand on facing up to the fiscal challenges we face. Republicans look forward to that debate.

That brings me to a final point.

Yesterday, the President said that the debate we have been having in Washington about the size and scope of government is not about numbers on a page. It is about the kind of country we believe in. But he left out an important point. And that is, that there are a great many people in Washington and beyond who agree with him, but who also believe in their core that the approach he has taken over the past 2 years represents the greatest single threat to the very future he envisions. America will not continue to be the great Nation it is unless we are able to keep our promises to the current and future generations, and stop spending money we do not have. But the greatest obstacle to that future is not the everyday American who wants Washington to balance its checkbook, or those who look at where the President's policies have gotten us and map out a different path to the future than he would. The greatest obstacle we face is the crushing burden of our debt, as the President now admits.

Unfortunately, the plan he outlined yesterday does not seriously address it. Americans know the stakes in this debate. They know the reason we are in this situation. It is time the President and Democrats in Congress acknowledge it as well. The debate has shifted. And while the President does not seem to see that yet, we will not solve our problems until he stops campaigning and joins us in a serious, bipartisan effort to change not only his tone but his direction. That is how we will ensure that the future that he--and we--envision and want actually comes about. That is the only chance we have.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Source