|
The end of the year brings wonderful holidays and time with friends and families. Unfortunately, this year it is also likely to bring an ugly confrontation in Washington over the federal budget.
This is disappointing for those of us who hoped the change in control of Congress would reduce partisan rancor and mean progress in Washington.
So what’s gone wrong?
First, the two sides – the Democratic controlled Congress and the Bush Administration – have very different goals. Democrats believe we were elected to bring about change from the status quo. The President, on the other hand, often seems to believe that he remains the sole “decider.”
We’ve seen this in the debate over Iraq, where Democrats have tried to responsibly end the war and bring our troops home while the President has refused to even discuss the situation. Now, we are seeing it in the fight over the budget.
The President has laid out his “top line” number – what he believes the government should spend – and has refused to negotiate from that number. He says this is because he does not want the Congress to be fiscally irresponsible. This from a man who has presided over a $3 trillion run up in the National Debt.
The President has no credibility on fiscal responsibility. In six years he didn’t veto a single spending bill passed by the Republican controlled Congresses – not one. He also never attempted to pay for his huge tax cuts largely responsible for his record deficits. Ditto for the nearly $1 trillion Medicare prescription drug program and the huge Iraq war costs.
Additionally, the President’s nonnegotiable “top line” number is suspect. It left out some important priorities, like $3 billion in extra funding for veteran’s health care that Democrats insisted on to help our wounded veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. The President initially opposed this funding but since it passed the House with over 400 votes and enjoys strong support in the Senate, the President now says he supports it. Similarly he has rejected other common sense proposals despite their wide bipartisan support – like paying for No Child Left Behind mandates or improving security at our ports, airports and borders.
The President’s so-called fiscal responsibility apparently doesn’t apply to spending on Iraq. After submitting his budget earlier this year, he turned right around and demanded almost $150 billion for the coming year to pay for his war in Iraq. Then he called for another $50 billion! This is nearly 10 times the difference in funding that is being argued about when we talk about funding priorities like veterans heath care. Given all this, it is not hard to believe the President’s new found zeal for fiscal restraint is more about politics than governing responsibly.
Democrats have tried to change the status quo in several ways since taking over Congress. Regarding fiscal matters, we immediately reinstated tough budget rules from the 1990s that require all new tax cuts and spending programs be paid for with spending cuts and/or revenue increases. Those rules helped eliminate the deficit and start paying down the National Debt. Republicans abandoned these “pay as you go” budget rules when Mr. Bush took office. The $3 trillion flood of red ink began shortly thereafter and our children will be paying that bill for years.
Reinstating “pay as you go” means the bipartisan proposal to provide health insurance for 10 million uninsured children has to be paid for, and it is: with a cigarette tax. The same applies to the expansion of college aid we passed this fall, which is paid for by repealing excessive government subsidies to lenders. Similarly our proposal to keep the alternative minimum tax from hurting middle class taxpayers is paid for by closing a tax loophole. We believe tax cuts and expanded investments in education or children’s health are fine things, but we can’t just pass the bill onto our kids.
Finally, a word about “earmarks.” Many of the scandals in the previous Congress revolved around earmarks. Democrats responded by requiring full disclosure of all earmarks and by cutting them back by forty percent from when Republicans controlled Congress. I believe we can and will do more.
It also must be said that “earmarked” spending doesn’t have to mean wasteful spending. For example, this year I’m trying to get funding to remove the Matilija Dam, help construct the Rice Avenue Interchange, support St. John's Regional Medical Center’s diabetes prevention and management program, and continue dredging Ventura Harbor and the Port of Hueneme. I make no apologies for going to bat for responsible projects to help the people of the South Coast.
Despite our differences, there is a path to agreement on the budget. It requires compromise – by both sides. We’ve seen it in the past between President Bush’s father and a Democratic Congress, and between President Clinton and Newt Gingrich’s Congress. Already, Democratic leaders have offered to meet the President halfway, but he still refuses to budge. Let’s hope the holiday season brings about a change of heart in the White House.
Pictured above: (center) Congresswoman Capps meets with Central Coast firefighters to discuss emergency preparedness.
|
