Last week Congress passed a responsible budget that begins to restore fiscal responsibility, at last.
At the same time, it begins to make up for the disastrous cuts the President and the previous Congress has made to vital services for Americans.
Even so, the GOP spin machine is doing a somewhat successful job of getting the key words "tax and spend" out there to taint the good work our Dems have started with responsible appropriations. We need to counter attack and fast and consistently.
This House budget is .07 of 1% different from Bush's own proposed spending plan. What Bush does not like about Congress' plan - is that the priorities are different from his. Despite his veto threats, the House has passed all 12 appropriations bills with more than adequate bipartisan support, with an average of 50 Republican votes each.
This new budget heralds the start of a more responsible Congress.
This House budget restores pay-as-you-go budgeting. It makes no new spending commitments without providing ways to pay for them.
"... Pelosi outlined a domestic policy agenda so elegant in its symmetrical pursuit of both long-range change (an attack on global warming) and lunch-bucket progress (a bumper crop of 'green-collar jobs' to be created from investing in new energy technologies) that you begin to believe she is of a rare species among practiced Washington hands: That is, her political instincts come from somewhere well beyond the Beltway." (Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group)
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Maryland) made this statement in response to the President's remarks on the economy:
"Receiving a lecture on fiscal responsibility from President Bush is a little bit like getting a lecture on the Freedom of Information Act from the Vice President. That is, it strains credulity...
"In six short years, the Bush Administration has turned this projected surplus into more than $3 trillion in additional debt - and the President failed to veto even one spending bill sent to his desk by the Republican-controlled Congress during that time."It is unfortunate that the President now seems determined to instigate a political fight with the Democratic majorities in Congress over appropriations bills, because the truth is that the differences in our spending proposals are actually quite modest...
"Furthermore, the President's general statement that the economy is 'thriving' must come as news to millions of hard-working Americans who have seen real earnings growth and real household incomes decline over the last six years, even as health care, college tuition and energy costs have exploded. No amount of Administration spin will convince these Americans that they are the beneficiaries of a so-called 'thriving' economy."Democrats in Congress will continue to fight for fiscally responsible policies that make crucial investments in our security, education, health care and other national priorities."
This new trend by the Democratic controlled Congress is in line with public sentiment. Citizens are fed up with sending their hard earned tax dollars to Iraq while watching their neighbors and friends here at home lose their homes, their healthcare and their pensions.
"While our budget difference is less than 1 percent, our priorities are dramatically different. The President has chosen to give tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and to spend $3,800 each second, more than $228,000 per minute, to keep our troops in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. Democrats are instead focused on rebuilding our military and our National Guard, investing in protecting Americans from terror here at home, and taking care of our troops, their families, and our veterans. We must redeploy our military might to defeat al Qaeda and be ready to respond and to deter any other threats to our national security." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, August 8th, 2007
This new approach is strikingly different from Bush's free wheeling spending and borrowing over the last six years. Bush's reckless handling over the last six years has widened the gap between haves and have nots, increased our national deficit to record debt levels and weakened our dollar in the world market.
"After six years of reckless spending in Washington, President Bush is the last person who should brag about fiscal responsibility. The President's short-sighted economic plans have proven a failure. Rising health care, energy, and college costs have put the American dream out of reach for too many hard-working Americans. And today, the President misled the nation about the budget Congress has sent him." - Speaker Nancy Pelosi, August 8th, 2007
While Bush has poured 100 billion dollars each year into the occupation of Iraq, he has simultaneously slashed safety net programs for good honest and hardworking Americans here at home.
Earlier this year, Bush sent Congress a request for a $2.9 trillion spending plan. Yes, you heard that right. Two point nine TRILLION DOLLAR spending plan for Bush. What did he want to do with that ungodly amount of hard-earned taxpayer money? Mostly, he wanted to appropriate billions more for the occupation in Iraq.
President Bush sent a $2.9 trillion spending plan to a Democratic-controlled Congress on Monday, proposing to spend billions more to fight the war in Iraq while squeezing the rest of government to meet his goal of eliminating the deficit in five years. Democrats widely attacked the plan and even a prominent Republican said it faced bleak prospects.
Bush's spending plan would make his first-term tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years. He is seeking $78 billion in savings in the government's big health care programs - Medicare and Medicaid - over the next five years.
Release of the budget in four massive volumes kicks off months of debate in which Democrats, now in control of both the House and Senate for the first time in Bush's presidency, made clear that they have significantly different views on spending and taxes. "The president's budget is filled with debt and deception, disconnected from reality and continues to move America in the wrong direction," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. - Martin Crutsinger, AP
Bush made significant cutbacks in 2006 to many safety net programs, right at a time when suffering Americans needed access to those safety nets. He and his then 2006 Republican-controlled Congress made over $50 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Student Loan Programs. The lock-step Congress of Republicans joined with Bush last year and harmed citizens that were least able to defend themselves or help themselves and too afraid to protest.
Now, with the Democratic controlled Congress of 2007, Bush had the nerve to try to propose even more safety net cutbacks to fund his occupation of Iraq.
Bush's 2007-2008 budget proposal would have resulted in $77 billion in funding cuts for Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years, and $280 billion over the next 10. If enacted, Bush's Medicaid changes would place significant stress on state budgets. While the Medicare proposals would result in premium increases for some Medicare beneficiaries, they leave overpaid Medicare contracting HMOs unscathed. Bush's proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are simply unrealistic and only serve to dress-up the five-year deficit projections.
Fortunately for us, the leaders in the House of Representatives know better and aren't about to sucker into Bush's ridiculous plan to unravel the social contract for our citizens.
Besides, Bush's continuous pouring of tax payer money into the failed "surge" and occupation of Iraq is foolhardy.
The Congress must continue to provide resources to support U.S. troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. However, it is also important to recognize that operations in Iraq consume almost 25 percent of all funding devoted to U.S. national security and roughly six times the resources dedicated to Afghanistan, where the 9/11 plot was planned and where its perpetrators--al-Qaeda and the Taliban--are making a comeback. There is little doubt that spending in Iraq, which now exceeds $8.4 billion each month, could be invested in other areas, including intelligence gathering and homeland security, that are also vital to U.S. national security. This diversion of resources also saps the U.S. ability to handle a host of international challenges such as peacekeeping, weak and failed states, pandemic flu, counterterrorism efforts, and Darfur. (Center for American Progress)
Democrats are fighting for a budget that reflects the values of America's middle class. Democratic members of Congress are working to restore fiscal responsibility and to deliver results to the American people, along with economic prosperity, a strong national defense, affordable health care and energy prices, and strong public schools.
"The President took no questions after his report on the economy today because frankly, his assertions wouldn't hold up. The question the President really should have answered today is this: 'After six and half years, what have you done to help restore the American dream?'"- Speaker Nancy Pelosi, August 8th, 2007
The president argues that the additional funding proposed by Congress is unneeded because his budget already contains a $60 billion increase in discretionary spending.
The problem with the president's argument, however, is that all of that increase goes to just four of the 12 appropriation bills - the four bills that fund defense, veterans affairs, foreign affairs, and homeland security. The entire domestic side of government is frozen, which means - when you consider the effects of inflation, the growth of the economy, and population - that they are facing substantial cuts...
Nearly $4 billion of the $20 billion added by this Democratic Congress will go toward improving administrative services and medical care for returning veterans. The Congress is providing the VA Medical system with sufficient funds to keep up with inflation and the added cost of providing medical care to the increased patient load resulting from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan...
The new Democratic bill also partially restores the decline in assistance to support elementary and secondary education over the past five years. Under the president's request, inflation-adjusted support to local school districts for elementary and secondary education would be 7 percent below 2003 levels in 2008. The House passed a Labor-HHS-Education bill that funds those programs at about 1 percent below 2003 levels. Congress also restores cuts made in the Head Start Program and in a variety of job training programs.Finally, Congress is attempting to address the growing problem of providing health care for uninsured Americans. The Census Bureau estimates indicate that the number of Americans without health insurance grew by 7 million between 2000 and 2007. The administration's budget for 2008 responds to that fact by cutting federal programs that provide health care services to the poor and uninsured slightly below 2007 levels despite projections that the cost of providing health care services will rise by 3.7 percent. The House appropriation bill adds $645 million to those programs - not only offsetting the impact of inflation, but also extending health care services to 2 million individuals who cannot be served at current funding levels.
There is, of course, one great flaw in the [Bush] administration's argument that they are opposing these increases for the sake of fiscal discipline. While polling data indicates that nearly all of the government activities listed above are supported by large majorities of Americans - and in some instances by majorities within each of the two political parties - the Bush administration still supports one activity of the federal government that is opposed by large majorities of the American people. That activity is the Iraq war.According to recent estimates, the Iraq war is costing taxpayers more than $10 billion a month, or about as much in outlays in a month as the above programs will cost in a year. If it were true that we cannot afford to make the investments that Congress is insisting on, the reason would clearly be that efforts to care for our veterans, protect our environment, educate our children, and find new treatments for dreaded disease are being crowded out to pay for a war that most Americans believe we cannot win and is in fact harmful to the nation's long-term security interests. (Scott Lilly, Showdown on Government Investment)
Despite his call for spending restraint in the current budget fight, Bush is just this week seeking a fresh round of tax cuts for corporations that would further deprive revenue for important programs.
President Bush said yesterday that he is considering a fresh plan to cut tax rates for U.S. corporations to make them more competitive around the world, an initiative that could further inflame a battle with the Democratic Congress over spending and taxes and help define the remainder of his tenure...
Democrats quickly returned fire, noting that Bush inherited a surplus that turned into a deficit and that he never vetoed a spending bill during the six years that Republicans controlled Capitol Hill, even as the budget grew by 50 percent. (Washington Post, August 9, 2007)
Fifteen years ago, American corporations contributed 27% of the overall tax bill, with individual Americans ponying up 73% of the money required to run the government. During Bush's reign as president, the corporate contribution has waned significantly, with many highly profitable American corporations not paying any tax. That's right - many highly profitable corporations not paying any taxes at all, yet those same corporations expect so many favors from our government - essentially from individual tax payers.
Something is real wrong with Bush's idea of government and money. This last year, 2006, American corporations paid only 7% of the entire American tax bill, with individual tax payers paying the full 93% of the entire amount necessary to run the government including the occupation of Iraq. And, isn't it weird? Much of that tax payer money has ended up in the pockets of corporate shareholders, in the form of lucrative defense contracts.
Bush has no credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility -- only a penchant for irresponsibility and political gamesmanship.
Thank goodness the new 2007 Democratically led Congress is restoring America's safety nets, its pride and its fiscal responsibility.
"Some nonpartisan observers agreed Democrats had reason to boast. 'Democrats have had a good run legislatively over the past few weeks and that does help them going into the recess,' said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia." (Reuters)
All 12 of the appropriations bills have passed the House with bipartisan support - with an average of more than 50 Republican votes each.
"[The Democratic leaders in Congress] can send their members home crowing about their accomplishments, and they've done it in a bipartisan way, which is exactly what they promised to do," Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Illinois) said. (Washington Post)
Cross Posted at EverydayCitizen.com!