May 9, 2011 | Log In | Sign Up

Tim Pawlenty Knocks Congressional Republicans On Emerging Debt Ceiling Deal

Tim Pawlenty

First Posted: 05/ 6/11 01:06 PM ET Updated: 05/ 6/11 01:10 PM ET

GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Tim Pawlenty opened up a new line of criticism against Republicans in Congress for their approach to the debt limit negotiations, though he acknowledged the reality that the ceiling will likely have to be raised at some point in the near future.

Speaking with reporters over breakfast the morning after the first debate of the GOP presidential primary race, the former Minnesota governor signaled that he will speak out against the compromise taking shape between the Republican majority in the House and the Democratic-controlled Senate and White House.

Republican congressional leaders such as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have said they cannot get the kind of reforms they want with opposition from the Senate and the Obama administration. Rather than seek to cut spending and reduce debt right away, Republicans instead appear ready to negotiate to set goals for deficit reduction and rolled back spending.

Pawlenty called this kind of agreement unsatisfactory.

“I really hope they don’t just set some vague targets and call it good and move on. I really think that would be an underwhelming response to the challenge we face in terms of urgency and boldness,” Pawlenty said. “But I hope and believe that they will stand tough on this debt ceiling limit vote and use that as a way to force real meaningful and structural change.”

The debt ceiling is currently set at $14.3 trillion and the nation's debts will exceed that sometime around Aug. 2, the Treasury Department has said.

Asked for specifics, Pawlenty said that “ideally, a balanced budget amendment in the constitution would be terrific” as well as legislation that would limit spending.

Story continues below
Advertisement

“And I don’t mean some vague, we’ll find out later [spending caps], but some actual specific caps that are baked into law and have the force of law,” he said.

Pawlenty's demands track with those of the most conservative Republicans in Congress, such as Rep. Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.). DeMint said after the debate Thursday night that he would not support any presidential candidate who fell short of pushing the GOP to obtain a balanced budget amendment, even though most conservatives think such an objective is nearly impossible.

Pawlenty appears ready to reprise the role he played during the negotiations last month over the deal to fund the federal government for the remainder of the current fiscal year, through September. During the continuing resolution fight, Pawlenty laid into congressional Republicans for not achieving deeper spending cuts, falling short of their stated goal to cut $100 billion.

“These moments of being able to force the Washington bureaucracy and the politicians in Washington’s hands aren’t always frequent or dramatic and this is a great opportunity to force change,” Pawlenty said. “And they should leverage it to the hilt.”

Saying congressional Republicans should use the debt ceiling as leverage marks a move away from past statements in which Pawlenty more categorically said the debt ceiling should not be raised at all.

“We should not, we should not raise the debt ceiling,” Pawlenty said in February at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Washington. He made similar comments at a Tea Party meeting in Arizona and on "Fox News Sunday" in January.

Pawlenty made some comments at the time that indicated a debt ceiling increase might still be necessary later in the year. But he mostly focused on how the government could prioritize payments to ensure that default to creditors was avoided while overall spending levels were dramatically reduced.

Much of Pawlenty’s argument for how to handle the debate remains the same. But his focus on Friday showed a shift toward recommending Republicans negotiate structural budget and spending reforms in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling.

When asked whether he would vote against raising the ceiling himself if he were a lawmaker, Pawlenty said it would “depend on what the vote is.”

“If it’s simply raise the debt ceiling cap I would vote against it yes,” he said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Tim Pawlenty opened up a new line of criticism against Republicans in Congress for their approach to the debt limit negotiations, though he acknowledged the reality that the ceilin...
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Tim Pawlenty opened up a new line of criticism against Republicans in Congress for their approach to the debt limit negotiations, though he acknowledged the reality that the ceilin...
 
  • Comments
  • 1,482
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (34 total)
2 minutes ago (10:50 PM)
So Republican­s should oppose raising the debt ceiling knowing it needs to be raised to avert a world-wide economic tailspin, just to play politics and make the President look bad. Why aren't we demanding that many of these Republican jack-o-lan­terns be hauled up on charges of treason?
3 hours ago (7:52 PM)
If he wants to raise revenue, he would support tax reform, eliminate the oil and gas subsidies, and increase taxes on the rich. Without this conversati­on, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
11 hours ago (11:42 AM)
Tim Pawlenty is smart, articulate­, experience­d, and tough and could be a major problem for Obama, particular­ly in national debates leading up to the election in 2012. The more a conservati­ve candidate is criticized by progressiv­es, the more credibilit­y they actually may have as a viable candidate to a large extent. In any case, the candidate field for an alternativ­e to Obama is growing, and that is good for the country.
9 hours ago (2:16 PM)
WOW...you really beleive all that??? cause I think that field there standing in
looks like corn...
4 hours ago (6:45 PM)
Isn't that just like a liberal. Throw out an insult and expect everyone to take you seriously!
13 hours ago (9:59 AM)
I predict, with great relief, that Tim Pawlenty will choose to "spend time with his family" and drop out of the race.
If he doesn't, then we will have more proof than we need that he has no leadership skills.
Leaders recognize untenable situations and react in a reasonable manner.
T-Paw was blown away by Herman Cain. Herman Cain. T-Paw didn't break double-dig­its, after being touted as the probable winner of this non-event.
He needs to open his eyes to the fact that his elected career is over. Find a sleepy law-firm and litigate to his heart's content. But leave the nation out of it.
photo
jimmygeewhiz
is it 4/20 yet?
14 hours ago (9:20 AM)
One of many reasons Pawlenty will never be elected, he's unwilling to compromise­. His home life must be one of constant yelling; "My way or the highway."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
20 hours ago (2:35 AM)
Sounds like ol' Timmy shouldn't be running for president. He should be running for dictator. Then he can tell the Congress what to do and they will hop to it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rotorhead1871
bippity..boppity..boo...
22 hours ago (12:56 AM)
trim the budget, and raise more revenue...­.c'mon folks figure it out!!!
9 hours ago (2:18 PM)
sounds easy....wh­y cann't they see that....
23 hours ago (12:19 AM)
This just makes him look like one of the less serious candidates ....... republican­s voted to raise the debt ceiling 7 times while Bush was President .
13 hours ago (9:53 AM)
Shhhh
They are busy pretending W never did anything, except lay the groundwork for the execution of OBL.
Other than that, the problems facing the nation all started in January, 2009.
Nothing else matters.
10:26 PM on 5/07/2011
You know, the left is telling us to raise the debt ceiling or else we have to default on our loans. How about this: Do neither. Here's how we keep the debt where it's at immediatel­y: Immediatel­y end all military operations in the Middle East. Bring home all troops from overseas. Suspend welfare, social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. AND LET'S PAY THAT DEBT!
14 hours ago (9:16 AM)
I don't know this, so I'm asking... Doesn't the military get paid whether they're on US soil or over in the middle east? Do we fire them in order to cut the pentagon's budget?

Does the 'war costs' figures of $XX billion/mo­nth equal any costs above the cost to maintain a standing army during peace?
13 hours ago (9:44 AM)
Sure. Think of all the ordinance used; bombs, rockets, bullets, airplanes, ('planes and helicopter­s are chewed up pretty fast over there by sand and hard use). Also, combat pay, wounded, killed, etc. All the 'contracto­rs' could be let go. Shipping everything that they need half way around the world. Add to that all the human cost.
12 hours ago (10:38 AM)
Think about all the missiles, planes, bombs, aircraft carriers. All have upkeep costs. Shipping supplies to our troops, costs. Then all the friends (contracto­rs) we've got.... That could make up a bit of debt, at least nearly to the point where we would likely not have to raise the ceiling.
09:18 PM on 5/07/2011
At current revenue levels If you cut all government spending to zero you could not pay the deficit off in 6 years.You can't cut spending enough you also have to raise revenue.Ba­lance is what we are striving for which comes from both sides of the equation.T­he debt limit is the full faith and credit of the United States.Thi­s should be raised without holding it hostage to a minority position held in government­.Grow up and act responsibl­y and quit reciting rhetoric.A­dding jobs so we see a reduction in spending and an increase in revenue would be a real good start.Also one quick thought half of the taxes collected come from social security and medicare therefore these are called entitlemen­t because we have paid into them it's just that take two tax cuts and call me in the morning politician­s have borrowed them into insolvancy­.
23 hours ago (12:22 AM)
If you remove social security money from the budget , then you do have the situation where we could cut out ALL spending And still NOT balance the yearly budget ..........­........
13 hours ago (9:47 AM)
Social Security is independen­t of the budget. It is a stand-alon­e program that is doing quite well and will continue to do well. The 'scare', based on projection­s, is that it'll run out of money. After the baby-boome­rs pass through, it will be just fine again.
07:39 PM on 5/07/2011
No new taxes of any kind, for any reason. Do not raise the debt limit. Let the entities fail and restart fresh. No new debt. CUT anyone on SS who is bi-polar. I don't care if you're depressed. Be depressed while you're working the register at walmart. Hell everybody else is.
06:56 PM on 5/07/2011
Can you say pandering to the tea party right wing? I knew you could Pawlenty.
06:13 PM on 5/07/2011
TPaw is becoming more and more a Grizzly. Is he in bed with the Mama Grizzly (metaphori­cally speaking)? Does he really think he going somewhere other than Minnesota in 2012?
8 hours ago (2:24 PM)
"Is he in bed with the Mama Grizzly ".....isn'­t there a new law about that....
or was it goats...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rtx47
05:23 PM on 5/07/2011
The problem of any govt social system (over time) is its growth, abuse and unintended consequenc­es. No question, modern civilized society needs a SAFETY NET. What's breaking ALL Western govt budgets and economies, and societies, is ENTITLEMEN­TS.

We've been using 15% of the poor of society to provide a 'windfall' for the middle and upper-clas­s. So we need to dial back. Rather than govt being first line of support, govt should provide the safety net, AFTER family and local community have done their share of caring.

Way to end the current unsustaina­ble (economic) system is for govt to provide care (health and social) to seniors and indigent (who SEEK it); then bill first-degr­ee relatives for the care. In case of conflict let the local family court make a determinat­ion where financial burdens lies.

In some cases, the tax-payers will have to bear part or full burden. Most cases, individual and families will solve the saftey-net and entitlemen­t on their own; while bringing families closer together in a caring spirit; as the way it was and should be.

We need to end the hubris of creating new systems or how to pay for it while leaving the tab (massive debt) to our grandchild­ren and yet-to-be-­born Americans.
23 hours ago (11:54 PM)
By your last sentence, you make a circular argument. Let our families pay for our care and well-being­.
I really don't agree with anything you said, but felt I needed to point out the hypocrisy of your argument.
13 hours ago (9:49 AM)
If I pay for it, is it an entitlemen­t? Social Security is an insurance program that functions quite well. The money does not come out of the national budget. Read a book.
9 hours ago (2:04 PM)
No question, modern civilized society needs a SAFETY NET. What's breaking ALL Western govt budgets and economies, and societies, is ENTITLEMEN­­TS.....ac­tually ...whats breaking budgets
is morrons who pass out corporate welfare...­.canada is providing health care for less than half the
cost...tax­es are less...ent­itlements are better...t­hey don't go to war...and they have an election every time the government does something stupid that the people didn't vote for...{4 elections
in 7 years}... where is the down side....an­d we sell 80% of our oil to you...
4 hours ago (6:54 PM)
I DO agree with what you say. I have been saying for a long time that families need to take care of their own. NOT the government­. And I understand that your last sentence means the government leaving a debt that our children and grandchild­ren won't be able to pay.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bluejoni2525
Yes I went there !!
05:18 PM on 5/07/2011
Raising the ceiling is all about paying our debts !! Is the ever shape shifting T-Paw saying we should NOT pay our debts ??? How irresponsi­ble but then again he's a Repub who's _sucking up the teabaggers so what do you expect !!
10:27 PM on 5/07/2011
No, raising the debt ceiling is about enabling you statists to spend is into a hole. Suspend everything­. Government shutdown, now. Pay the debt.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
bluejoni2525
Yes I went there !!
24 hours ago (11:21 PM)
This has NOTHING to do with a government shutdown,h­e haw !!!! This IS about paying our past debts, but you sound like a he haw _deadbeat !!! READ and learn it does a mind good !!