Bachmann Votes No On Cut, Cap and Balance: ‘Does Not Go Far Enough’
(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.) was one of only 9 Republicans who voted against the Cut, Cap and Balance plan that was approved by the House of Representatives on Tuesday night.
“I rise in opposition to the motion before us,” Bachmann said in a statement on the House floor.
“While I embrace the principles of Cut, Cap and Balance, the motion does not go far enough in fundamentally restructuring the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars,” she said.
The Cut, Cap and Balance plan would increase the debt limit by $2.4 trillion in exchange for cutting spending by $111 billion next year and for congressional passage of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that, if ratified by the states, would require Congress to muster supermajority votes to increase taxes, increase the debt limit, or spend more than 18 percent of GDP in a given fiscal year.
The plan was approved by a 234-190 vote, with 9 Republicans voting against it and 5 Democrats voting for it.
Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) also voted against the plan. Paul, like Bachmann, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination.
In explaining her vote against Cut, Cap and Balance, Bachmann said she believed the bill’s principles were correct but that Obamacare must also be repealed if the country was going to deal with the fiscal crisis it faces.
“The principles found in this bill are a step in the right direction toward the fundamental restructuring we need in the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars,” said Bachmann. “Along with cutting spending, putting in place enforceable spending caps that put us on a path to balance and passing a balanced budget amendment, we must also repeal and defund ObamaCare.
“We must remember that ObamaCare is the largest spending and entitlement program in our nation’s history,” Bachmann said. "That means, at a time when we can least afford it, President Obama added to our spending problem by the trillions. Without its repeal, we cannot have real economic reform.”