“I want to be supportive because I know Paul worked hard on it, but - and he says it doesn’t violate our principles - but it violates the previous agreement we had. And that’s kinda part of my principles,” Gohmert told CNSNews.com.
“And I know it’s part of the president’s principles,” he continued. “Clearly, President Obama does not want the budget caps burst through. Why would I say that? It’s because the president, I heard him very clearly with my own ears saying that if a bill is agreed to by both Houses and he puts his signature on it, and the Supreme Court doesn’t strike it down, then it’s the law and we’re not changing it.
“So he had the idea of the sequestration. Both Houses passed that bill and he signed it into law. It's been upheld, so it is the law of the land – the court hasn’t struck it down. So obviously, unless the president wasn’t being truthful when he said that, then he would surely want the sequestration cuts to remain in place.”
The BCA raised the federal debt ceiling by $400 billion in exchange for spending cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, commonly referred to as the sequester. According to Ryan, the budget deal he brokered with Murray “provides for $63 billion in additional discretionary spending in 2014 and 2015 – in return for permanent deficit reduction of $85 billion. On net, this bill reduces the deficit by $23 billion.”
But Gohmert says the agreement upends the previous deal Congressional Republicans made with Obama in 2011: permanent cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
“We were told in the summer of 2011, this is the starting place. We get them to this, then each year in the future we can add to the cuts that we got in this bill. Well, as you’ve seen, we’re not adding to the cuts. Actually, we bust through the cuts this year. Even though money’s moved around, ultimately bottom line, we’re not staying with the cuts that we created.”
Gohmert also pointed out that even though Ryan’s budget deal eventually cuts the federal deficit by $23 billion over 10 years, “it is not very significant when you’re adding trillions of dollars to the lifetime of debt” of young Americans still in their teens and 20s.
“It’s incredible. It’s a moral issue,” Gohmert told CNSNews.com. “It’s immoral that we can’t control our spending and get it within our means and that we’re relying on our kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids to pay it back someday. We owe it to future generations to do better than this.”
CNSNews.com asked Gohmert how the Ryan deal will affect future attempts to control federal spending.
“If we can’t even hold onto the minimal cuts that we created, I don’t know how you ever get control of the red ink,” the Texas Republican replied. “If the Republicans agree to it, that’s a problem, and that’s my concern.”