NHDP - Bass & Guinta Put Granite Staters Last in "Dodge, Duck , Dismantle" Vote

Concord, NH - It was made perfectly clear yesterday that Reps. Charlie Bass and Frank Guinta would rather protect tax breaks for big oil companies and corporate jet owners than keep their Medicare promise to our seniors.

The two New Hampshire Republicans voted last night for the so-called "Cut, Cap and Balance" proposal that mandates the same draconian cuts in the Ryan budget that ends Medicare as we know it. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Thad McCotter and Gary Johnson have also endorsed this proposal.

"I have a message for Charlie Bass, Frank Guinta and all of the Republican presidential candidates who have come to the Granite State and endorsed this proposal. Your agenda to double down on the failed economic policies of the past that nearly sank our economy into a second Great Depression, your out of touch plan to end Medicare as we know it, and your insistence on playing politics with the debt limit are not in line with New Hampshire values," said Ray Buckley, chair of the New Hampshire Democratic Party on a press call yesterday before the vote. "This type of extreme proposal is the reason a plurality of voters in both your districts are disappointed with your actions in Washington and the reason Granite Staters squarely oppose the GOP presidential candidates' so-called solutions for the economy."

"The truth of the matter is that what the Republicans are proposing isn't a solution at all, but instead a return to same dysfunctional policies of the Bush administration that brought our economy to the brink of a second Great Depression," said State Representative Cindy Rosenwald of Nashua.


Cut, Cap And Balance Calls For $111 Billion In Cuts In The First Year, Costing An Estimated 700,000 Jobs. "The 'Cut, Cap, and Balance Act' would require cuts totaling $111 billion immediately, in the fiscal year that starts 75 days from now, despite a 9.2 percent unemployment rate. These cuts would equal 0.7 percent of the projected Gross Domestic Product in fiscal year 2012 and would thus cause the loss of roughly 700,000 jobs in the current weak economy, relative to what the number of jobs otherwise would be." [CBPP, 7/16/11]

Cut, Cap And Balance Would Lead To Deep Cuts In Social Security, Medicare And Medicaid. "Policymakers would have little alternative but to institute deep cuts in specific programs. And as noted elsewhere in this statement, before the debt limit could be raised, Congress would have to approve a constitutional balanced budget amendment that essentially requires cuts even deeper than those in the Ryan budget. Reaching and maintaining a balanced budget in the decade ahead while barring any tax increases would necessitate deep cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." [CBPP, 7/16/11]

Cut, Cap And Balance Would Cap Spending At A Level Not Seen Since The 1960s. "This proposal might sound good in a press release. And it certainly allows its supporters to avoid calling for specific cuts to popular programs. But capping federal spending at 18 percent of GDP-a level not seen in half a century-would actually require cuts that are even larger than those in the original House Republican budget plan. The last time federal spending dipped below 18 percent of GDP was 1966. Back then there were 100 million fewer people living in the United States, the median age was nearly eight years younger, and the average cost of health care was one-fifth of what it is now." [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]

Cut, Cap And Balance Would Cap Spending Below Ronald Reagan Spending Levels; Not Even The Ryan Budget Achieves The Spending Cap Target. "President Reagan's budget proposals never dropped below 21 percent of GDP, and actual spending under Reagan averaged over 22 percent. Even the budget passed by the Republican-led House, with all its draconian cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, keeps spending above 18 percent of GDP for the next 30 years." [Center for American Progress, 7/18/11]