a year ago the Blue Dogs warned about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new spending programs. We were concerned that the projections were based on unrealistic assumptions and that the projected surpluses could vanish as quickly as they materialized. We were concerned that the large tax cuts and increased spending would drive up the deficit and the national debt. Our warnings were ignored, and now we are told we will be borrowing virtually all of our Social Security surplus for the next decade and beyond. After passing legislation that would rack up an additional debt of $127 billion next year alone, Congress is considering legislation that would wipe the slate clean to remove all those costs from the ledger. The bill before us wipes the slate clean not just for this year and next year but for each of the next 5 years, allowing us to avoid responsibility for legislation adding over $550 billion in new national debt. I do not want to cut Medicare or veterans benefits, farm assistance, or child support enforcement. However, we object strongly to clearing the scorecard for the next 5 years, which allows Congress and the President to ignore the impact of legislation that will increase the deficit for the next 5 years without working to plan to stem the tide of red ink. I agree with what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said a moment ago. This is not the time to be talking about spending cuts or tax increases. I agree.…
Charles W. Stenholm: “a year ago the Blue Dogs warned about the danger of making long-term commitments for tax cuts or new spending programs.…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about long-term tax cuts and spending programs during a floor debate.
Share
More from Charles W. Stenholm
Mr. Chairman this is a very simple amendment to restore a little bit of accountability and honesty around here about our fiscal policies. My amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from dipping into retirement trust funds in…
I must respectfully differ with the chairman of the Committee on Rules. The majority has justified the decision of the Committee on Rules to not allow the minority to offer an amendment because it is not a complete substitute. That…
I rise in deep sadness about the way this House is being run. A rule which denies the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means an opportunity to offer a serious, responsible amendment on an issue as important as this is should…
that is not the intent of this amendment. It is not to get into taxes or spending. It is just to say to this body, we have to make a decision regarding how much more we borrow on our children and grandchildren.





