Skip to main content

Letter from Congressman Culberson

This is a response from Congressman Culberson to my email, pleading for some serious cuts and dealing with the debt ceiling in a constructive way.



August 2, 2011



Mr. Gene Morphis

2345 Sage Road #182

Houston, TX 77056-4621

Dear Mr. Morphis:

Last night, I reluctantly supported the debt ceiling compromise for several important reasons. First, America will run out of money in early August, putting us at risk of a default. The ratings agencies have threatened to downgrade our AAA credit rating, which would drive up interest rates, shrink our GDP, and collapse our economy. For every 1% increase in interest rates, we lose a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts we enact.

There is a particularly well researched explanation of the debt ceiling problem at www.bipartisanpolicy.org. Click on the debt limit analysis, and pay particular attention to the Bloomberg.gov debt bubble link.

Recognizing the very real threat of default and downgrade, we had to find a way to avoid this disaster while preserving our core principles. Constitutional conservatives only control one half of one third of the government, and the federal government has been hardwired for decades to spend ever increasing amounts of our tax dollars, so we were facing very long odds in the fight to control spending. Despite these daunting obstacles, Speaker John Boehner managed to forge a solution that preserved our core principles.

First, this agreement prohibits any new tax increases. Second, it enacts enforceable spending caps for the next decade that will restrain future spending. It cuts more than one dollar of spending for each dollar the debt limit is increased, with spending cuts totaling $2.1 trillion over 10 years. Finally, this legislation guarantees a vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment by requiring each chamber of Congress to vote on the amendment before the end of the year.

I have co-authored the Balanced Budget Amendment every year since 2001, and I am an original cosponsor of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. I am fiercely committed to balancing Washington’s checkbook the same way that most states and American families do.

You can always count on me to do the right thing for the right reasons and to approach every vote as a free market, constitutional conservative. While Speaker Boehner was accurate in saying this plan is far from perfect, he deserves credit for the extraordinary job he did negotiating the largest possible package of cuts that could pass the Democrat Senate and the White House.

We have much more work ahead of us to balance the budget and improve our economy. We need to get the federal government out of our way and let Americans save, invest, and create jobs. Texas is proof that tax cuts, deregulation, and tort reform are the best ways to create jobs and grow the economy. I am committed to these goals, but it will take a conservative majority in the Senate and a conservative in the White House to work alongside our conservative majority in the House.

This battle was the first in a much longer fight to restore the constitutional limits on the federal government and eliminate the roadblocks to job growth created by decades of unrestrained spending, taxation, and overregulation. Today’s agreement moves America in the right direction, and you can count on me doing my part to keep us moving in the right direction.


Sincerely,

John Culberson

Member of Congress



JC/rs

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Book Review: What Matters Now by Gary Hamel

Interview of Eric Schmidt by Gary Hamel at the MLab dinner tonight. Google's Marissa Mayer and Hal Varian also joined the open dialog about Google's culture and management style, from chaos to arrogance. The video just went up on YouTube. It's quite entertaining. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Cover of The Future of ManagementMy list of must-read business writers continues to expand.Gary Hamel, however, author of What Matters Now, with the very long subtitle of How to Win in a World of Relentless Change, Ferocious Competition, and Unstoppable Innovation, has been on the list for quite some time.Continuing his thesis on the need for a new approach to management introduced in his prior book The Future of Management, Hamel calls for a complete rethinking of how enterprises are run.

Fundamental to his recommendation is that the practice of management is ossified in a command and control system that is now generations old and needs to be replaced with something that reflects an educat…

Book Review- Stretch by Scott Sonenshein

Have you ever watched, or been involved in, a business failure, where, despite the best efforts of hardworking people, the business doesn’t survive? Scott Sonenshein lived through it, as he describes in the Introduction to his engrossing book Stretch.  (In some books, the reader can skip the intro- not this one; the introduction is a must-read part of the book.) He was hired by start-up Vividence in Silicon Valley at the very apex of the tech boom.  Despite prestige VC backers, top-tier hires and $50 million, Vividence didn’t make it. As his career continued, that experience led to an interest in why some well-funded operations don’t succeed, while other, more resource constrained, do. Peter Senge wrote about reinforcing cycles as part of his book The Fifth Discipline, which I consider one of the finest business books ever penned. In it, Senge describes the downward cycle that some companies fall into, and why it is so difficult to reverse. Sonenshein explores those cycles from diffe…

Tax Inversions

A savvy businessman once told me “it’s important to know what problem you are trying to solve”.
Let’s ignore for the moment whether or not Treasury or the IRS had the power to change the rules on so-called tax inversions without Congressional action. (The power they said they didn’t have only a few months ago.)
Rather, let’s focus on what problem we are trying to solve. That is, why is the greatest country on earth chasing companies away? Shouldn’t the U.S. be the place that companies want to locate their headquarters?
Imagine this: the U.S. legal structure and tax regime was so attractive that Mercedes, Toyota, Astra Zeneca, Samsung, Total, Singapore Air, Banco Santander, Petrobras, Fujitsu, Nokia, SAP, Audi, Tata Group, Lenovo, Pirelli, Deutsche Bank, Honda, LG, Hyundai, Roche, Credit Suisse, Four Seasons, Siemens, Phillips, Bridgestone, Anglo-America, DeBeers, Volkswagen, Canon,  L’OrĂ©al, Swatch, Armani, LVMH, Toshiba, H&M, Mahindra, Aldi, Kubota, Onex, Ducati, Pemex, Saudi-Ara…