Rep. Shuster says vote in favor of debt deal was about "principles"

Representative Bill Shuster (R - PA) issued a statement yesterday outlining his support for the debt deal passed today in the Senate and signed into law by President Obama. Although Representative Shuster feels that the bill did not go far enough to control federal spending, he still voted in favor of it.

“After weeks of intense negotiations and impassioned debate, a bipartisan agreement has been reached to cut spending and prevent the United States from defaulting on our debt.

This agreement, while in no way perfect, is a milestone in the fight for smaller, more responsible government. This legislation has reshaped the debate in Washington regarding out of control spending, helps put our nation on a more fiscally responsible path, and has finally brought the dangerous implications of our growing debt to the forefront of national debate.

My Republican colleagues and I control just one half of one third of our government, yet our guiding principles have defined the debate on the debt limit. I am proud that this agreement adheres to the principals I have supported throughout this debate – that Congress must cut spending more than we increase the debt limit; there should be no new taxes; and we should advance our commitment to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution."

Shuster's statement along with statements by other Pennsylvania GOP lawmakers who voted for the debt deal is misleading. According to a report put out by the CATO Institute, the debt ceiling deal would only cut spending this year by $200 Billion, which is still less than the interest paid on our federal debt. The report also asserts that the spending cuts in the deal would only reduce baseline spending. Thus, spending would actually increase to the tune of $1.8 Trillion overall.

Is this really sticking to conservative principals?

CATO's report proves that this debt ceiling compromise was more of a deal than a solution to our 14 trillion dollar debt crisis. Furthermore, saying that you only have control of 1/3 of the government is still not an excuse. A true principled conservative vote would have been a "nay".