Remember Congressman Burgess' proclamations in the run-up to the 2006 election?
I am a strong proponent of a balanced federal budget and an advocate for reducing the size of the federal government.
Well, guess who just voted against modest fiscal reforms? Last week, Congressman Burgess voted against rules that would reinstate pay-as-you-go (a policy that a bill cannot be considered if it reduces the surplus or increases the deficit) and identify all the earmarks in a bill along with their sponsors. Of the Texas delegation, 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans (William Thornberry and Ted Poe) voted in favor, and 17 Republicans voted against. The measure passed 280-152.
So let's take another look at that 2006 campaign promise.
The state of the federal deficit and debt is a sore spot for Republicans, because those who consider themselves true conservatives deplore the profligate spending of the last six years. The Bush administration, aided by ousted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, presided over the biggest run-up in government spending in U.S. history.
The state of the federal deficit and debt is a sore spot for Republicans, because those who consider themselves true conservatives deplore the profligate spending of the last six years. The Bush administration, aided by ousted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, presided over the biggest run-up in government spending in U.S. history.
Does this sound like smaller government to you?
The federal debt, the amount borrowed by the government to finance the deficits, increased 62% to a sum larger than all the previous administrative debts combined, a staggering $8.5 trillion dollars. That amounts to $28K for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Interest on the debt is now the fastest growing category of spending in the federal budget. The U.S. now spends as much just to pay interest on the debt -- $105 billion per year -- as it spends on Medicaid, which provides health-care payments for poor and uninsured Americans.
Several things account for this fiscal freefall. Funding for the Iraq war, originally budgeted for $60 billion, now stands at $400 billion and rising.
The use of earmarks to "buy" key votes has been unprecedented. The earmarks included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amounted to $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, including massive subsidies for energy companies, many of whom have since posted windfall profits. The 2005 transporation bill included over 4000 earmarks, pork to prime the pump in key Republicans regions.
But more than any other policy, the extensive use of tax cuts, the majority of which went to the top one percent of earners, contributed to our financial crisis by reducing projected revenues by billions of dollars. The full effect of these policies has yet to be realized.
What role did Burgess play in this financial debacle? Burgess was elected to Congress in 2002. He was not yet serving in Congress when the Iraq authorization for military force passed, but in subsequent votes on appropriations for the war, he failed to demand accountability from either the administration or its contractors for the use of those funds. While lamenting the practice of earmarks, he nevertheless bragged at a town meeting that as long as pork was part of the process, he was not "going to unilateraly disarm." He voted for the energy and transportation bills, even sponsoring an amendment that gives states incentives to toll new roads. He voted repeatedly for tax cuts for the rich, and was one of the key backers behind repeal of the estate tax .
There is one area where spending was reduced. Due to the ballooning of government spending in other areas, Republican budget resolutions sought and received reductions in several domestic programs, such as education and healthcare. In his campaign statements, Burgess indicated he "strongly" supported The Family Budget Protection Act, which would have capped spending on military pensions and benefits and Medicare Part B, among others, amounting to a cut in these programs of over $2 trillion over a ten year period. Thankfully, the bill never became law.
So keep this in mind. When Republicans start talking about smaller government, they actually mean reducing programs aimed at helping middle and lower class citizens in areas such as health care, college costs, and retirement, in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and its largest corporations. As a result, the percentage of tax burden for most of us is increasing, while the percentage of taxes paid by America's ruling class and corporations is decreasing.
We are increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have nots, with the highest income inequality among any industrialized nation. The Republican sellout of the middle class helped propel Democrats to power in 2006. The fiscal reforms proposed by the Democrats are a decent start. But no matter how well Democrats respond, we are stuck in a fiscal crisis that will demand tough choices and reduced benefits for all of us. When we're feeling that pain, let's not forget who got us there in the first place.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.The deficit (the difference between revenues and expenditures) went from a $284 billion surplus in 2000 to a $296 billion deficit in 2006. George W. Bush has presided over four of the top five largest deficits in U.S. history. (The fifth largest came under his father's administration.)
The federal debt, the amount borrowed by the government to finance the deficits, increased 62% to a sum larger than all the previous administrative debts combined, a staggering $8.5 trillion dollars. That amounts to $28K for every man, woman and child in the U.S. Interest on the debt is now the fastest growing category of spending in the federal budget. The U.S. now spends as much just to pay interest on the debt -- $105 billion per year -- as it spends on Medicaid, which provides health-care payments for poor and uninsured Americans.
Several things account for this fiscal freefall. Funding for the Iraq war, originally budgeted for $60 billion, now stands at $400 billion and rising.
The use of earmarks to "buy" key votes has been unprecedented. The earmarks included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amounted to $85 billion in subsidies and tax breaks, including massive subsidies for energy companies, many of whom have since posted windfall profits. The 2005 transporation bill included over 4000 earmarks, pork to prime the pump in key Republicans regions.
But more than any other policy, the extensive use of tax cuts, the majority of which went to the top one percent of earners, contributed to our financial crisis by reducing projected revenues by billions of dollars. The full effect of these policies has yet to be realized.
What role did Burgess play in this financial debacle? Burgess was elected to Congress in 2002. He was not yet serving in Congress when the Iraq authorization for military force passed, but in subsequent votes on appropriations for the war, he failed to demand accountability from either the administration or its contractors for the use of those funds. While lamenting the practice of earmarks, he nevertheless bragged at a town meeting that as long as pork was part of the process, he was not "going to unilateraly disarm." He voted for the energy and transportation bills, even sponsoring an amendment that gives states incentives to toll new roads. He voted repeatedly for tax cuts for the rich, and was one of the key backers behind repeal of the estate tax .
There is one area where spending was reduced. Due to the ballooning of government spending in other areas, Republican budget resolutions sought and received reductions in several domestic programs, such as education and healthcare. In his campaign statements, Burgess indicated he "strongly" supported The Family Budget Protection Act, which would have capped spending on military pensions and benefits and Medicare Part B, among others, amounting to a cut in these programs of over $2 trillion over a ten year period. Thankfully, the bill never became law.
So keep this in mind. When Republicans start talking about smaller government, they actually mean reducing programs aimed at helping middle and lower class citizens in areas such as health care, college costs, and retirement, in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans, and its largest corporations. As a result, the percentage of tax burden for most of us is increasing, while the percentage of taxes paid by America's ruling class and corporations is decreasing.
We are increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have nots, with the highest income inequality among any industrialized nation. The Republican sellout of the middle class helped propel Democrats to power in 2006. The fiscal reforms proposed by the Democrats are a decent start. But no matter how well Democrats respond, we are stuck in a fiscal crisis that will demand tough choices and reduced benefits for all of us. When we're feeling that pain, let's not forget who got us there in the first place.
