WASHINGTON,
D.C. – During a Congressional hearing today entitled “Disappearing Tax
Dollars,” U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) said that “there simply
is not enough money to fund the government next year.”
Schakowsky
added that the Congressional Budget Office examined “the deterioration
of the surplus since last year, and concluded that the main cause for the
disappearing surplus is not September 11, and it is not the Bush recession.
The main cause of the disappearing surplus is the Bush tax cut.”
Below
is Schakowsky’s statement from the Government Efficiency, Financial Management,
and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee hearing:
Thank
you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing, and I thank the witnesses for
taking time out of their busy schedules to testify today. I have
worked with the chairman throughout this Congress to highlight the lack
of fiscal management in the administration. Most of our work has
focused on the Department of Defense, and it is clear that DOD is wasting
public funds at an alarming rate.
I
am pleased that today we are looking beyond DOD. I believe it is
important that we confront waste throughout the government. GAO has
told us that the Department of Education, since its original testimony
in April, had made significant progress in correcting the management failures
in the purchase card program. HUD, however, continues to behave more
like the management at DOD.
I
believe these issues are important because dollars wasted by the government
are dollars that are not available for the important programs within these
agencies. However, even if we eliminate all of the purchase card
problems at the Department of Education, there will not be enough money
to fund Title I, and Pell Grants, and all of the other important education
programs.
Mr.
Chairman, we are confronted with a more fundamental problem – there simply
is not enough money to fund the government next year. This problem
exists, not because of the events of September 11, but because of President
Bush’s tax cut.
Given
the title of this hearing – “Disappearing Tax Dollars” -- it seems
fitting that we look at this important information as well. On the
easel is a chart that summarizes a study by the Congressional Budget Office.
CBO looked at the deterioration of the surplus since last year, and concluded
that the main cause for the disappearing surplus is not September 11, and
it is not the Bush recession. The main cause of the disappearing
surplus is the Bush tax cut.
The
Bush tax cut has ended the brief period of surpluses, and returned us to
massive deficits. The second chart shows just how dramatic the change
is. If Congress does not restore the fiscal restraint that
characterized the budget process during the Clinton Administration, we
face massive deficits over the next 10 years. As most economists
will tell you, those deficits will have a chilling effect on the economy.
When
President Clinton signaled to the world that he was serious about balancing
the budget it had an important effect. International investment began
to flow into the U.S. economy, and was one of the engines of the expansion
of the 1990s. These deficits will have the opposite effect, holding
back the economy and taking a toll on everyone.
We
have already seen that happening. Last week the Department of Commerce
announced that the poverty rate was up and household income was down.
The last time we saw poverty go up and income go down was during the recession
in 1991.
The
tax dollars that disappeared because of the Bush tax cut are already having
an effect on programs designed to help the neediest of our citizens, some
of which are at the agencies before us today.
The
failure of this administration to follow through on its commitment to education
is shameful. The President’s program “No Child Left Behind” was supposed
to provide our children with the resources needed to obtain the best education
possible. Instead, the President’s education budget for 2003 would
stop six years of steady progress in federal support to local schools.
The
President’s education budget would reduce Pell Grants, eliminate funding
for rural education and technological training for teachers, result in
16,000 fewer teachers getting trained, and 50,000 fewer children in after
school programs. It is clear that in the President’s budget, the
children are being left behind.
This
afternoon, Ms. Calbaum from GAO will testify about the waste, fraud, and
abuse at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Quite frankly,
I am not surprised. I am dismayed at the insensitivity of the leadership
at HUD towards the people they are supposed to serve.
Last
year I introduced the Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victims’ Housing
Act which has bipartisan support and over 100 cosponsors. One of
the main provisions of that bill – funding for transitional housing for
domestic violence victims – was included in a bill sponsored by Chairwoman
Marge Roukema of the Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee.
The
Secretary of HUD opposes these provisions, and argues that there are sufficient
programs for these victims. Why then does a HUD commissioned evaluation
of transitional housing programs find that among all people served, battered
women are the least likely to experience improved employment and stable
housing?
If
the Bush administration can turn its back on these victims, it is not surprising
that it turns its back on the financial management responsibilities at
the Department. If financial management is any indication of clear
priorities, then I guess I should not be surprised.
Mr.
Chairman, as you know, I feel strongly about waste in our government because
it steals money from those programs that are already under funded.
As the President leads our nation on a path toward war, financial management
in his administration is actually a national security liability.
I commend you on your leadership on these issues, and it has been a pleasure
working with you on this Subcommittee. While this is not our last
hearing, I want to take this opportunity to salute you for the many accomplishments
of the subcommittee under your leadership. |