When former Bill Clinton political adviser and Fox News analyst Dick Morris recently appeared before a Freedom Foundation event, he was critical of Republicans who voted for “only” $39 billion in spending cuts late last year in a presidential and congressional compromise to reduce federal spending. He praised the 59 members of Congress who voted to support larger spending reductions and pointedly criticized 5th District Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers for not bucking her leadership team to support higher spending reductions.
When a member chooses a career path to congressional leadership, a member’s independence is often compromised in favor of the leadership team, and the member’s constituents are sometimes left behind. It happened previously in the 5th District to former Speaker Tom Foley, who was stuck supporting the Clinton agenda in 1994 that led, in part, to his unseating. There’s a fine line between supporting the party’s leadership team and being true to a member’s constituents. These times demand that all members of Congress pay closest attention to doing what’s right for the United States, and not just what’s right for a congressional career.
The United States’ national debt is over $14 trillion. The debt limit is $14.29 trillion. President Obama and his economic advisors have warned of a pending Aug. 2 hard deadline to raise the federal debt limit (the authority necessary for the federal government to keep borrowing to pay government obligations). Congressional failure to raise the debt ceiling threatens to weaken American economic credibility, jeopardizing credit instruments, America’s credit rating, economic well-being and job recovery.
Vice President Joe Biden and congressional leaders have been negotiating a package of reductions in order to offset a $2.5 trillion debt-ceiling increase before Aug. 2. That would make the debt ceiling $16.7 trillion. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently withdrew from the negotiations because Democrats wouldn’t abandon their insistence on tax increases as part of the package of debt-ceiling offsets.
The federal debt limit has been increased 10 times since 2001 and 72 times since 1961. Each time the debt limit is raised, Congress and the president spend up to the debt limit, necessitating another increase. Now with the U.S. debt-to-GDP (gross domestic product) ratio nearing 100 percent, many members of the U.S. House and Senate newly elected in 2010 are insisting that greater spending cuts be adopted if the United States is ever to get out from under its staggering debt. President Obama proposed a $3.7 trillion federal budget for 2012, leaving a lingering annual deficit of well over $1 trillion.
When Iceland’s economy collapsed, its debtto-GDP ratio was 310 percent. The Greek ratio is about 125 percent. Any nation with a ratio of 100 percent or more is in fiscal trouble.
America has experienced debt and borrowing since the Revolutionary times, and, until recently, paid it back. Our country borrowed to meet the national demands of war, economic upheavals and panics. It was during the national adoption of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s that the federal government became a major lender by allowing federal agencies to directly help Americans recover from their economic problems.
In 1950, credit cards became an acceptable way for the business community to charge business-related expenses. Credit cards proliferated during the following four decades, leading to a credit-dependent American society. It’s no wonder that the federal government is now saddled with its own “credit-card debt” as the debt ceiling and federal borrowing keep increasing to ever more dangerous levels.
Last week, Congress returned to the nation’s capital for the balance of July to wrestle with the debt ceiling “fix.” It’s a good bet that Congress will not fail to raise the debt limit. To allow default would be irresponsible and foolish. The important action will be what Congress does to reduce spending. If members don’t exact substantial spending reductions to offset debt-limit increases, they should face election consequences at home.
The pressure will be massive to support a deal reached between President Obama, Democrats and the Republicans. Speaker John Boehner, a thoughtful and experienced leader, has set down a marker that expects the debt ceiling increase to be the same as spending reductions — a workable solution but one that will be painful to those dependent on government payments.
There will be others in Congress, possibly some running for president in 2012, who will want more. But the debt-ceiling vote and accompanying spending discipline will be a leadership test for those we entrust with our tax dollars and the fate of the national economy. They should be litmus-test votes for 2012.
Voters should ask, “Did our member of Congress have the courage of fiscal convictions to vote to fully reduce federal spending?” and further, “Was our member of Congress willing to vote for substantial-enough spending reductions, without concern for the next election?” This year, politicians who hide behind “safe” votes disguised as bold action, and offer ambiguous platitudes to America’s economic problems, should be dismissed next year at election time.
When 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor,” they acted boldly, with conviction and on principle, believing in a just cause that has survived 235 years of American existence.
All we ask of our current members of Congress is some measure of honest and bold leadership at this momentous time in our nation’s fiscal history.
George Nethercutt is the former congressman representing the 5th District of Washington. His column appears here once a month.

Your statement that the GOP ideology is driving us off the cliff presupposes that the Democrats have no ideology behind their reasoning and are not driving us ever-deeper into debt. I´m not in the financial position to concern myself with the historic lows of the bond markets (and I seriously doubt that most average American voters are), I do know that every American family must balance its budget and its checkbook at the end of the month. Why shouldn´t the government? Overindebtedness can drive most average American families to ruin quicker than you can document the historic bond market lows. You´re simply playing the blame game. The problem goes back much farther than Bush. And the American public is to blame as well. As to confidence, I always remember my mother´s good friend, Lt.Col. George Washington Hull´s comment to me: "It doesn´t matter whether or not the dollar is sound. What matters is that the public believe the dollar is sound." Jul 20, 2011 | Reply to this comment
Mr. Nethercutt mentions that we have experienced debt since the Revolutionary War, and until recently paid it back. What is he cloaking here? Recently must mean the Civil war as we have had debt ever since. Cuts must be made, and revenue must increase to address the amassed debt and present deficit. This mess didn’t start 2 years ago. We are fighting 2 wars. We all love the USA and support our citizen soldiers, until it’s time to pay for it, then it’s don’t tread on me, you socialists. It seems the most vocal supporters of the Red, White and Blue are the ones who pay back the smallest percentage, the uber-rich, the people whose voting record contributed to the deficits, and the biggest Corporations (perhaps they are one in the same). It will take the rich, the poor, the middle class, corporate America, and the government each stepping up to a fair share, rather than simply pointing a finger and forgetting how we put ourselves in this predicament. Mr. Nethercutt during his long tenure as a Politian is as guilty as any current Congress member, through his voting record, amassing huge deficits, adding to the national debt, but he is now a master finger pointer. We danced, now it’s time to pay the band.
Jul 22, 2011 | Reply to this comment
Yes, I am playing the "blame game" because I live in the reality based world. At the end of Clinton´s Term, we had a SURPLUS. That means, if Bush had not passed the two tax cuts, mostly for the wealthiest Americans, had not lied us into an unwinable war in Iraq, and had increased revenue to pay for Medicare part D, we would have been paying down the debt for a decade rather than running the largest debts. I agree that we need to pay our bills, and it has been the Democrats who have had the balls to actually tell the American people that if we want Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and the Dept of Defense unchanged, we need additional revenue. Cathy McMorris continues to live in a world where giving millions of dollars to billionaires trickles down to the middle class. The fact is that wages have been stagnant since Bush was in office, and the House Republicans won´t allow the country to recover because they know that it means re-election for President Obama. Jul 25, 2011 | Reply to this comment
I don’t think politicians should sign anything that closes off discussion before a debate has even begun. That’s what Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” does. Who appointed him the final arbiter of our nation’s business? This is the patriot who said he wanted to drown our government in a bathtub – just the extremist I want to have the ear of my representative.
The problem with his taxpayer protection pledge is that it is false advertising. It does nothing to protect citizens who pay their fair share and blocks any attempt to rid the tax code of loopholes and special interest tax breaks. It seeks to perpetuate a system of inequality where the tax burden is dumped on lower income brackets. It doesn’t protect businesses that pay their taxes, only businesses that have tax breaks, some of which were slipped into bills quickly to avoid scrutiny and due diligence. These corporations and powerful special interests that finagled to get special treatment are, as a skeptic once observed, “the biggest welfare freaks on the planet”. They hide behind the unproven claim that every tax break creates jobs.
Legislators abuse the democratic process when they sign oaths of fealty to a fanatic who is on record ranting against our system of government. It makes me wonder what they don’t like in the Pledge of Allegiance that causes them to seek his approval, maybe the “justice for all” part.
I don’t like taxes. Who does? But it seems unreasonable to me to think a civilized society can function with no taxes at all. I’m all for reducing government spending as long as the tax code is rid of loopholes and questionable tax breaks.
Corporations argue vigorously for their right to personhood in the Supreme Court, but when it comes to paying taxes they want to skip out on that little detail.
Jul 29, 2011 | Reply to this comment