Congressman's Succinct and Rational Explanation for Voting Against Debt Deal

This act increases the debt limit by between $2.1 and $2.4 trillion, the biggest explosion of debt in American history.  It allows the government to avoid spending reductions for the next two years while squandering our last best hope of averting a sovereign debt crisis. 

I am opposed to this measure for the following reasons:

1.  The purported cuts, even if realized, are far below the $4 trillion deficit reduction that credit rating agencies have warned is necessary to preserve the Triple-A credit rating of the United States Government. 

2.  It blows the lid off the House budget passed in April by more than a half-trillion dollars over ten years.

3.  It makes no significant spending reductions for at least the next two years, essentially freezing spending at an unsustainable level.  While the debt increase occurs this year, deficit reductions are to be spread over many years and could be reversed by future acts of Congress.  

4.  The spending caps are easily circumvented by declaring appropriations to be an emergency, a response to a "major disaster," or necessary for the "Global War on Terror." 

5. The balanced budget amendment provisions are illusory because the amendment is completely undefined.

The above is from Rep. Tom McClintock, the fiscal expert that relatively sane Californians would have picked as their governor instead of that creepy unprincipled musclebound actor when they removed Gray Davis from the office after he spent the state into bankruptcy. Mr. McClintock is a Republican and he represents a largely rural and reasonable area of California -- the state's fourth congressional district which extends east and north from its southwest corner in Sacramento County.