La. delegation votes party lines on debt deal

Members of Louisiana’s congressional delegation split along party lines last week as a national debt deal was ultimately agreed upon with the White House and plans set forth to form a super committee of 12 specialists with instructions to cut up to $1.5 trillion from the federal budget for the next decade and get the work accomplished within the next four months.

Immediately following announcement of the plan backed by President Barack Obama, the national debt increased by $238 billion and reached 100 percent of the gross national product while also preventing the nation from defaulting on borrowed money.

“I’m sure by Washington’s standards [last Tuesday’s] deal is a great accomplishment,” Rep. Jeff Landry (R-New Iberia) said. “But by American standards it comes up short.”

Landry has heavily backed proposals for a balanced budget amendment and said that the debt deal was “skirting the problem” by simply creating debt in an effort to address debt. “This is not a fix,” he said.

By contrast, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) praised the debt ceiling compromise and said it could reduce the national debt by $2 trillion by the end of 10 years. She called Republican opposition to the plan as having caused, “a destructive hostage standoff that caused even more certainty for an already fragile economy.”

Landrieu, who like Landry, has in the past urged a balanced budget approach to national spending, admitted that the current compromise is far from perfect but justified it as being a way to bring realistic focus back on the nation’s economy as a while.

“Even though the bill has some flaws, we have taken several positive steps forward,” Landrieu said. “Most importantly, this compromise ensures that we will not have to relive this hostage situation in six months or a year.”

Landrieu, who supports the panel of 12, said that the debt deal is designed to make cuts without hitting social security or Medicare.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) opposed the debt deal and complained that it would not address balancing the budget or stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio.

“First, this bill doesn’t much change our spending and debt outlook,” Vitter said. “The upfront cuts of the first two years are trivial, less than 1 percent. We’re still adding $7 trillion of new debt under this plan. We’re never balancing the budget [and] never even stabilizing our exploding debt-to-GDP ratio.”

Vitter implied the bill was what is commonly referred to as feel good legislation intended to pacify the public. “There are no enforcement teeth in this bill,” he said. Vitter also voiced concern in cuts aimed at the military.

A website survey conducted by Vitter found as of Friday that of the 1,345 respondents, 55.6 percent supported an Obama plan to increase taxes with minor spending cuts to address debt and deficits.

Only 28.8 percent supported the Republican plan to make sweeping budget cuts to ultimately balance the federal budget. Of the poll participants, 15.4 percent opposed both plans and 2.1 percent said they were undecided on what could be considered the most favorable plan.

“[If] you [had] a credit card and had a $14,000 limit on it, without making any changes you could basically pay the interest on the card,” Landry said. “You could pay the house note and provide food for your family. That’s it. You couldn’t buy new clothing or anything. That’s where we are. What we are doing [with the compromise debt deal] is adding another $2,500 to your $14,000 credit card with no way to cut.”

“When the debt ceiling vote came up I voted for ‘cut cap and balance,'” Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-Baron Rouge) said.

Cassidy had favored what he referred to as a Budget Control Act, which would have also raised the debt ceiling, but required the House and Senate to address balance budget amendments. The combination with key cuts could have reduced spending by up to $2.4 trillion according to this congressman. Cassidy said the Budget Control Act would have made paying the national debt a priority, and protect selected obligations including Social Security and Medicare.

“Senate leader Harry Reid and President Obama must stop playing politics with America’s future if we are going to try to preserve the American dream,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-Mandeville) said.

Vitter said that the plan and its so-called 12-member super committee means little if there is no transparency in the process and the people involved. He called for a disclosure of campaign donations of more than $1,000 per committee appointee.

“Given the important work this committee will be doing over the next four months, it’s just plain good government for the public to know what special interests are trying to influence the committee,” Vitter said. “We’re making trillions in cuts, and there are already threats to increase taxes on many job creators. We need to see full transparency and accountability because these committee members will be making huge decisions with a lot on the line.”

“This is an issue that will stay before we Americans,” Cassidy said. “”At the end, though, I am confident we will address it.”