My email to Congressman Frank Guinta on the debt ceiling
Earlier this week three out of four of the New Hampshire leaders in Washington voted in favor of the debt ceiling bill–Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte being the lone dissenter. Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, voted in favor of the bill along with squishy conservative Congressman Charlie Bass, and my Congressman Frank Guinta.
I have sent Senator Ayotte an email thanking her for her vote, and I have sent Congressman Guinta an email informing him of my displeasure with the legislation, and his role in its passage.
My main concern with this legislation is the formation of a committee which circumvents the constitutional powers given to the House over the purse strings, and I made it known to him how I feel about this development.
Here is my email to the Congressman, I will post his reply once I have received it:
Hi Congressman, I am a supporter of yours and I feel you have done a great job so far in the Congress overall, but today I am writing you to voice my displeasure with your recent vote on the debt ceiling bill.
I understand that as of yet we do not have enough conservatives in the Congress to affect the change we all desire and that we had to settle for a deal that was less than what we had all hoped for in regards to spending cuts, but that is not my biggest problem with this bill.
My biggest concern with this legislation is the special committee which was set up to determine future budget cuts.
My problem with this committee is this: as you know, the Constitution gives the House the authority to initiate all spending bills, and with this deal the House has willingly abdicated the biggest responsibility it was charged with under the Constitution. This is a major win for Barack Obama when you consider the fact that the Tea Party/conservative/Republicans control this one branch of the federal government; Barack Obama has effectively taken the purse strings away from the conservatives in the House and handed it over to what by definition must be considered a much less conservative committee. The Republicans have surrendered the greatest tool they had in reigning in this president.
I find this to be a horrible turn of events and is about as anti-constitutional an idea as I can come up with–to think that a committee will be negotiating revenues behind closed doors, with only an up or down vote when the deal is reached and with no chance to amend or debate the bill is an idea that I cannot come to terms with.
Thank you for your time and I hope that you can explain to me why I am over-reacting to this “super Congress” because right now it feels as if the American people have been sold down the river.
America's Watchtower 
This committee can have nothing good come out of it, not to mention that it is unconstitutional. McConnell says he will appoint people who want to get things done. It gave me a shiver. I can’t imagine Democrats putting anyone on the committee who will agree to no tax increases. Should all Republicans refuse tax increases (which I doubt will happen) then, as I understand it, tax increases will be automatic.
LikeLike
It looks as if there will be tax increases no matter what happens; this just gives the Democrats on the committee more incentive to deadlock because they know if nothing happens they will still get their tax increases.
LikeLike
Great letter Steve, and I hope you get an answer, though I don’t expect it will be anything that helps us to make more sense of it. I would like to add, I hope you send a lot of letters to the editor, because your analysis of things is very helpful to my, and I’m sure others, understanding of what’s going on.
Today I received a letter from Scott Brown, more likely an unpaid 20 year old intern, but regardless, it was to reflect Brown’s position on something I called his office about, i.e., Audit the Fed. I wanted to know where he stood on that when I called, and I still want to know where he stands on that in spite of his answer.
As you likely know, he tends to keep us in the dark til the last moment. I’d like to know how YOU feel about auditing the fed, cause I can’t see a legitimate reason not to, so I’d like your take.
LikeLike
I know I will get a reply, I just don’t know how informative it will be. Past experience tells me it will be another form letter. I have sent a few letters to the editor on the Union Leader, the Union Leader publishes virtually every letter sent to them, and I have also had three articles published in the UL. Maybe I will have to send them one on this also.
I can’t see any reason we shouldn’t audit the fed or any downside to an audit.
LikeLike
Each Member represents something like half-a-million people, and so it’s practically impossible for them to respond personally to all correspondence. I’ve always found that to be one of the most frustrating things about our government. Some governments are set up so that the minority party always gets a certain percentage of the seats, forcing the legislature to become larger periodically. Ours doesn’t.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
It is frustrating, but at least their staff sees the letters and can gauge the feeling out there on certain legislation–although I would guess that most people only write when they disapprove of a particular piece of legislation.
LikeLike
Roooolllin…Rollin down the RIVER !
The Big Wheels keep on turnin…
Aloha From Tropical Storm Florida 🙂
LikeLike
And on and on it goes…..
LikeLike
Your email is facctually inaccurate – the Constitution does not reserve to the House the authority to initiate spending legislation. What it does reserve to the House is the authority to initiate revenue legislation.
There’s a crucial difference between the two, and unfortunately, I think many conservatives hold this elemental misunderstanding of our Constitution close to their hearts.
Both the Senate and the House may initiate legislation spending money; only the House may initiate legislation raising money.
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
.
LikeLike
You are right, I did unintentionally confuse the terms spending and revenue and for that I apologize. It is a little embarrassing that I made this mistake in a letter I sent to my Congressman. However I do not think this changes my point for two reasons. The first being that while the Senate can propose spending legislation if the House does not approve existing revenues for the legislation, or raising new revenues for the legislation that legislation will be DOA. And secondly, in regards to this super Congress, tax increases (raising revenue) will be discussed so the House still have given away the power granted to it in the constitution.
LikeLike
As to the committee, it’s a classic dodge of politicians – create a blue-ribbon panel to take time and hopefully let tempers subside. At any rate, it’s my understanding that this committee won’t have the power to effect any changes, simply to recommend them to the Congress.
Personally, I don’t like omnibus bills or omnibus committees, but sometimes they’re the only way to get things done in our Congress. Look at military base closings – as rational adults, we all agree that the decision to close any military installation should be made strictly on the basis of that facility’s significance to our defense effort. However, if the discussion touches on a based five miles from your home, which employs a third of the people in the region, “defense” suddenly shrinks in importance relative to “local economy.” And God help the Member who loses a military base in his or her district, unless he or she can say “It was part of a package.” Everyone who works on a military base, or is involved in economic activity oriented toward a base, like local housing, supermarkets, etc., will insist that their base is easily the most important to the national defense effort. Thus, military base closings are often decided on a package basis.
Same thing with this budget committee, unfortunately. Multiple cuts or changes will have to be made in multiple programs, and the only way to ensure passage is to make sure that everyone’s ox gets gored more or less equally.
LikeLike
Take good care, and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLike
According to what I have heard if the Congress does not accept the recommendations of the committee it will cause the triggers to be enacted, this for all intents and purposes will “persuade” the Congress to accept them.
LikeLike