The default debate is, at its heart, a debate between two visions for America. One side envisions rebuilding our country, investing in jobs and education and infrastructure, and rising from the Great Recession as a stronger and more resilient Nation. The other side accepts a pessimistic vision of a weakened America with a shrunken government--a Nation hampered by deep cuts to the safety net and hobbled by a refusal to invest in our future. I have no doubt that, in a fair debate, a hopeful vision for America would win out. But the default debate has not been held on fair terms. The Tea Party and their enablers have held America hostage. They have insisted that, unless Congress enacted their radical, ideological agenda, they would force an unprecedented default on America's obligations and thus trigger an economic collapse. From the beginning of this debate, I rejected the notion that America's creditworthiness should be used as a bargaining chip. Yet I was willing to support a balanced, fair deal if that was what was required to prevent a default. Unfortunately, today's deal is not balanced. It is not fair. Most of all, it is not right. The House has voted for vast cuts in government services that ordinary Americans depend on: student loans, unemployment insurance, food safety inspections, highway safety programs, and more. These cuts will force layoffs among teachers, public safety officers, construction workers, and more.…
Share
More from Steven Holt
I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), a coproposer and coauthor of this amendment.
Groups representing a diverse group of businesses and manufacturers support this amendment--groups that believe we should proceed with caution when making decisions about vast quantities of domestic energy resources. The Department of…
I thank my friend from Florida for offering this amendment. It should go a long way toward recovering the lost reputation of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Mr. Chairman, this came about because the National Security…
I have an amendment at the desk that affects line 18, I believe. The Acting CHAIR. The Chair notes that the amendment addresses a portion of the bill not yet read for amendment. Is there objection to consideration of the amendment at this…