Duckworth Challenges Roskam to End Earmarks and Embrace Pay-As-You-Go Budgeting

Duckworth Challenges Roskam to End Earmarks and Embrace Pay-As-You-Go Budgeting

Says His Record in Springfield Undermines Claims of Fiscal Responsibility

Congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth has challenged her opponent, state Senator Peter Roskam, to publicly embrace key budget-cutting measures, including a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting and eliminating billions of dollars in congressional earmarks that have led to scandal and higher deficits.

In a June 25 letter to Roskam, Duckworth chided his continued support of earmarks, despite the burgeoning federal deficit and the wave of scandal they have engendered for members of Congress from both parties. On May 26, 2006, Roskam told MSNBC that he is "unwilling" to end that practice.

"Lobbyists are trading campaign money, free trips and fancy meals for earmarks for their clients," Duckworth wrote. "In other cases, members of Congress are alleged to have used earmarks to enrich themselves and their campaign contributors."

According to the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal 1994 to 15,877 in fiscal 2002. The cost to taxpayers has doubled since 2000 - reaching an estimated $64 billion in this fiscal year.

Duckworth pointed out that opposition to earmarks is not a partisan issue, noting that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is a leading proponent of earmark reform.

"With our federal government currently running annual deficits that exceed $300 billion, and with our federal debt now approaching the record sum of $9 trillion, your defense of earmarks is very troubling," Duckworth wrote.

She added that Roskam's record in Springfield raised questions about his commitment to fiscal discipline.

"As a member of the state legislature, you consistently voted for Governor George Ryan's budgets, which left our state with a deficit approaching $5 billion. Even during that time, you continued to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars in ‘member initiatives.' This is not a record that inspires confidence in your willingness to instill fiscal discipline in Washington."

"Your continuing refusal to support a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting and the elimination of earmarks indicates that sending you to Congress would simply ensure more of the same," Duckworth wrote.

(A copy of the letter to Roskam is attached.)

TEXT OF LETTER SENT BY TAMMY DUCKWORTH TO PETER ROSKAM:

June 25, 2006

State Senator Peter Roskam

423 W. Wesley

Wheaton, IL 60187

Dear Senator Roskam:

I welcome your belated support of the line-item veto, which passed the U.S. House on Thursday by a vote of 247-172. As you know, I had earlier endorsed that legislation to give the president a deficit-cutting tool currently enjoyed by 43 state governors of both parties. Despite your last-minute support for that measure, you have yet to endorse other important proposals to get the skyrocketing federal deficit under control.

I have embraced a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting, which would require every new spending program or tax cut to be paid for at the time the legislation is passed, so as not to add to the deficit. That pay-go rule was put in place during the term of the first President Bush, and contributed to a string of balanced budgets and significant surpluses in the 1990s. Unfortunately, Congress repealed those rules after the 2000 election. Despite my repeated public challenges, you have yet to take a position on restoring pay-as-you-go.

I have also called for the elimination of congressional "earmarks," which allow individual congressmen to add special projects to legislation without going through the normal budget process. These earmarks have exploded in recent years. According to the Congressional Research Service, the total number of earmarks has grown from 4,126 in fiscal 1994 to 15,877 in fiscal 2002 — a nearly 400 percent increase. Earmarked dollars have doubled since 2000, reaching $64 billion during this fiscal year

Not only do these earmarks cost us billions of dollars in dubious spending; they are at the heart of the scandals currently sweeping through Congress. Lobbyists are trading cam-paign money, free trips and fancy meals for earmarks for their clients. In other cases, members of Congress are alleged to have used earmarks to enrich themselves and their campaign contributors. The concern about earmark is not a partisan issue. I agree with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that eliminating earmarks would help repair the hole in our federal budget. Just as important, it would help restore integrity in Congress.

Despite these growing scandals and the burgeoning deficit, you have consistently defended earmarks. As late as last month, you told MSNBC that you were "unwilling" to put that practice aside. With our federal government currently running annual deficits that exceed $300 billion, and with our federal debt now approaching the record sum of $9 trillion, your defense of earmarks is very troubling. Despite your belated support for the line-item veto, it betrays a lack of seriousness about attacking the budget deficit.

As a member of the state legislature, you consistently voted for Governor George Ryan's budgets, which left our state with a deficit approaching $5 billion. Even during that period, you continued to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars in "member initiatives" - the state legislature's version of congressional earmarks. This is not a record that inspires confidence in your willingness to instill fiscal discipline in Washington. Instead, your continuing refusal to support a return to pay-as-you-go budgeting and the elimination of earmarks indicates that sending you to Congress would simply ensure more of the same.

Sincerely,

Tammy Duckworth

http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/newsroom_details.asp?id=890