The Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America say votes for the deal will be considered when compiling their annual scorecards, which are aimed at letting voters know how their representatives and senators rate when it comes to fiscal issues. "The deal relies on an insufficient level of cuts, a 'super committee' tasked with brokering a grand bargain that will lead to massive tax hikes, massive defense cuts or both. It remains insufficient to the task at hand," says Heritage Action for America, the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation.
Andrew Roth, vice president for government affairs at the fiscally conservative Club for Growth, is equally adamant about what he perceives as the proposal's shortcomings. "The problems with this proposal are many, but fiscal conservatives should have obvious concerns for the lack of guaranteed future spending cuts, no requirement that a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution be sent to the states, a commission that could still recommend job-killing tax increases, and worse of all, two debt limit increases totaling over $2 trillion within only a matter of month," he said.
Groups on the left are also opposed. Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org, which has 5 million members, says the deal is overloaded with stuff that will force cuts to programs that help the middle class -- without imposing harm on the wealthy. "This is a bad deal for our fragile economic recovery, a bad deal for the middle class and a bad deal for tackling our real long-term budget problems," Ruben said.
Source