On Friday the 23rd of Sept. I sent a letter to my representative about the borrow and squander economics in congress. In
less than a week I had a reply in my mailbox. One can only imagine how much mail she's already gotten on the subject.
To better prepare my fellow Kossacks with their talking points, I will post key excerpts from my letter along with her retort. Any help debunking her claims is appreciated.
Update [2005-10-3 19:46:24 by winstnsmth]: I researched the Reconciliation Instructions ... her wording was ambiguous, as the National Conference of State Legislatures states: "The budget resolution calls for $35 billion in savings over five years from mandatory and entitlement programs."
I Wrote:
Since Bush's tax cuts went into effect there has been a steady decline in government revenues, from $994.3 billion down to $809 billion, to a point lower than they were before the heyday of the Internet.
But lowering income hasn't abated spending, which increased from 18.5% of GDP when Bush took office to the current level of 20.3%, according to a new report from the Cato Institute. And the American Enterprise Institute's Veronique de Rugy says total inflation-adjusted discretionary spending increased by a RECORD SETTING 35.1 percent in Bush's first term.
On Friday, the Government Accountability Office Comptroller General David Walker said "The status quo is not an option and we're not going to grow our way out of this problem - and the sooner we get started the better."
The Office of Management and Budget retort? "We do not intend to implement the report."
It's time to hold individuals accountable for the irresponsible financial mismanagement in Washington. What do you propose to do about decreasing government debt and increased spending? Do you condone the rampant escalation of our National Debt, now at $8 Trillion dollars?
And She Said:
... Discretionary spending rose by only three percent for fiscal year 2004. Furthermore, Congress and the administration succeeded in staying within strict spending targets for FY 2005, and in doing so placed a freeze on the growth of non-defense discretionary spending.
(her emphasis)
... The [FY 2006] budget included $35 billion over five years in reconciliation instructions to congressional authorizing committees. These measures require those committees to find savings in mandatory spending, which is a critical step in the process of returning such spending to a sustainable rate of growth.
Maybe it takes a congresscritter to understand this logic: We spent $35 billion in order to require spending savings??
Congressional spending restraint is definitely an important part of fiscal responsibility, yet the fiscal health of the United States relies most heavily on the country's ability to sustain economic growth. Growth will bring about a substantial increase in federal tax receipts, which will allow the government to balance the budget and meet its financial commitments. Recent growth in the U.S. economy has already produced significant decreases in the federal deficit. Last year's budget initially projected a deficit for FY 2004 of $521 billion. Yet because of economic growth generated by stronger revenues than originally estimated, and because Congress delivered the spending restraint called for by the President, the actual 2004 deficit came in
$109 billion less than originally estimated. FY 2004 ended with deficit spending at $412 billion, 21 percent below expectations. At 3.6 percent of gross domestic product, this deficit, while still too large, was well within historical range and smaller than the deficits in nine of the last 25 years.
Sustaining economic growth and eliminating the federal deficit will require Congress to enact measures that encourage the continued increase in federal tax receipts. The most effective means of ensuring such growth in our economy is to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Tax cuts encourage private sector investment and expansion--as economic growth continues, the federal government naturally can expect to receive more in tax revenues. These tax cuts have already begun to produce the desired effect, as lower tax rates have yielded rising tax collections.