Duckworth Criticizes House Budget with $350 Billion Deficit!
Duckworth Criticizes House Budget with $350 Billion Deficit!
Renews call for ending earmarks, restoring "pay-as-you-go" budgeting
As the U.S. House approved this week a FY2007 budget with a $350 billion deficit and another increase in the debt ceiling, Sixth District congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth called for aggressive steps to control spending and institute fiscal responsibility.
Specifically, Duckworth reiterated her support for an end to "earmarks"-- the controversial procedure that lawmakers use to insert pork barrel projects into legislation-- and for re-imposing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting procedures.
In addition to the $350 billion deficit for the upcoming fiscal year, the House budget allows Congress to run up the nation's debt to $9.6 trillionthe second time the ceiling has been raised this year.
"Rather than continually raising the debt ceiling, Congress should be lowering the billions of dollars it inserts each year for special projects that can't make it through the normal budget process," Duckworth said. "Not only is that a recipe for red ink, but it's an invitation to scandal."
She pointed to the recent conviction of former-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.) and allegations about Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-West Virginia) - both centering on the use of earmarks to reward lobbyists and campaign contributors.
"The problems associated with earmarks aren't partisan, they're systemic," Duckworth said. "Congress ought to do away with them - once and for all."
Duckworth's firm position on eliminating congressional earmarks sets her apart from her opponent in the race, state Sen. Peter Roskam. Her stand was highlighted this week in an article in a Capitol Hill newspaper, for which Roskam refused to comment ("The Hill", 5/18/06).** Earlier, his campaign told reporters that he supports the controversial practice (Chicago Sun-Times, 5/12/06).
Duckworth also has called for a return to "pay-as-you-go" budgeting to ensure that any new spending initiatives or tax cuts are paid for in the budget, so they don't add to the deficit. That policy contributed to the budget surpluses of the Clinton years, but was repealed by Congress after the 2000 elections.
http://www.duckworthforcongress.com/newsroom_details.asp?id=912