Federal Government Spending

Floor Speech

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING -- (Senate - October 16, 2007)

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have, as the saying goes, some good news and some bad news. The good news is the budget deficit has dropped in the last year from 1.9 percent of the gross domestic product of this Nation down to 1.2 percent--a historic low level for the budget deficit. But as Members of the Senate know, the budget deficit is just a year-to-year statement of what the financial obligations are of the Federal Government. The figure that is the bad news is the debt; that is, the bills, if you will, owed by the American people to finance the cost of Government. The bad news is on September 27--a short time ago--this Congress voted to increase the debt ceiling for the United States of America from $8.965 trillion to $9.82 trillion.

Now a ``trillion'' is more money than any of us can possibly imagine, but let me break it down to what it means for every man, woman, and child in America. It means today, every man, woman, and child in America owes $30,000 of the Federal debt--the cost of the Federal Government doing business.

So instead of passing on to our children and grandchildren the kind of prosperity and opportunity to start on a level playing field and to reach their God-given potential to achieve their dreams, we are burdening our children and grandchildren today, if we do not do anything about it, with a minimum of $30,000 of debt.

The fact of the matter is, it is actually worse than that. As to Social Security, we understand from the Social Security trust fund, they will be running red ink by the year 2017, unless we do something about that. In other words, as to the Social Security taxes that are deducted from your paycheck and mine and everybody's in America to help pay our share of Social Security, the money that has to be paid out will exceed the amount of money coming in as a result of those Social Security taxes by 2017, if we do not do anything about it.

In addition, Medicare is even in worse shape. By 2013, the amount of money coming in to pay for Medicare for seniors will be exceeded by the outflow of funds. So instead of being in the black and being able to sustain itself, both Social Security and Medicare are on the road to insolvency and worse.

Just when you think the story, the financial picture, could not be any worse, there comes the revelation that actually Congress is spending the current surplus for Social Security, for Medicare, for Civil Service Retirement, and the Transportation trust fund, spending money that is a surplus now and issuing debt to be paid by our children and grandchildren--in other words, funding out of the Civil Service Retirement Fund, Medicare, Social Security, and the Transportation trust fund, taking money out of that to pay the current bills of the Federal Government.

This is a dire financial circumstance that only the Federal Government could ignore. No family, no business, no one in America could run their finances this way and get by with it, except for the Federal Government because the Federal Government can continue to issue debt to borrow from surpluses in one fund to pay for bills in another. Frankly, this is a train wreck we are beginning to see in slow motion taking place right before our eyes and will be played out over the next few years, unless we act in a more fiscally responsible way right now.

The President has vetoed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, and I want to talk about that in a minute. Thursday, I believe the House will vote on whether to override that veto and there has been a lot of misconceptions about that and I wish to clarify that with my remarks.

But I want to suggest to you that before Congress votes to expand current programs, even successful programs, beyond their original scope, such as the SCHIP program, which has been enormously successful, targeted at low-income kids whose families earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to buy private health insurance--before we expand that, not by 40 percent, which I support, but by 140 percent, to cover adults in 14 States, and with a combination of waivers that can be issued by the executive branch of Government to potentially cover people up to 400 percent of the poverty level, displacing private health insurance and taking individuals who currently have health insurance and replacing it with Government--read ``taxpayer''--subsidized free health care for people, families making up to $82,000 a year--before Congress should attempt to expand programs in this sort of irresponsible manner, in my view, we ought to take a look at the programs that have been rated by the Federal Government in terms of their effectiveness and look at opportunities for cost savings there.

I think the American people do not resent paying their fair share of taxes for efficient Government and for a consensus role in what Government should be doing as opposed to the private sector. What they have a right to resent is the fact the Federal Government wastes their money and grows Government at the expense of the private sector in ways that crowd out the private sector.

I would like to suggest to my colleagues they look at a Web site called Expectmore.org. This is a Government Web site that, through the Office of Management and Budget, rates various Federal programs and agencies. What they have concluded--the Office of Management and Budget--is that out of 1,016 programs they have evaluated, 22 percent--almost a quarter of them--have been rated as ineffective or, perhaps even worse, we cannot tell whether they are working as intended--22 percent.

Only 18 percent have been rated as effective; 31 percent, moderately effective; and 29 percent, adequate. This is a miserable scorecard for the Federal Government in terms of the taxpayers' dollars actually delivering the kind of services we should expect Government to deliver, efficient use and respectful use of the taxpayers' dollars.

Before we talk about growing any program--even the SCHIP program--by 140 percent to cover adults and people in the upper middle class with free taxpayer-subsidized health insurance, should we not try to eliminate some of these ineffective programs that have been inconclusive in terms of the evaluation?

As it turns out, I have introduced legislation, along with some of my colleagues, designed to do this, building on the successful sunset commission programs in Texas and elsewhere, which periodically--say every 10 years or so--take an agency and evaluate it and make the agency justify its continued existence, start with a zero-base budget and justify each and every dollar they use in order to perform that function, in order to make sure it actually is effective.

In my State of Texas, the sunset commission has been responsible for eliminating a number of different programs and saving taxpayers a lot of money. We can do the same thing for the Federal Government in Washington if Congress would merely have the will.

Another idea, another proposal I have made, along with some colleagues, is modeled off of the enormously successful Base Realignment and Closing Commission, the BRAC Commission. This, as my colleagues know, is a way for Congress to make sure we eliminate unneeded and unnecessary military installations. When trying to do it on an individualized basis, is very hard because there is always a constituency for maintaining a military base someplace, even if it is not needed by the military. But the BRAC situation is an independent commission that collects recommendations for all of the unneeded bases and presents it to Congress for an up-or-down vote. No cherry picking, no putting some in and taking some out. We have to vote on all of them up or down. That BRAC Commission has been enormously successful in eliminating unnecessary, unneeded, and costly military installations. We need to do the same for the Federal Government. Before we spend any more of the Federal taxpayer dollars, I think we need to show the taxpayers we are being good stewards of the money they faithfully pay to the Federal Government for their tax obligation.

In addition to not taking care of this growing crisis I have described, Congress continues not to keep its fiscal house in order. It is common knowledge that we have not passed a single appropriations bill for the current fiscal year, and we are operating on a continuing resolution that Congress passed because we have not been able to take care of the simple matter of paying the bills--again, something no family or business could get away with. But the Federal Government is guilty of fiscal mismanagement, once again, by failing to pass a single appropriations bill and sending it to the President.

What this is leading up to, as we all know--and this is no secret--is likely pulling together all of the various appropriations bills, all 12 of them, or some combination of them, into an omnibus appropriation, which somebody told me the other day is Latin for ``watch your wallet.'' We are going to have a huge game of chicken between the President of the United States, who wields the veto pen, and the Congress over how much excessive spending Congress is going to be able to pass against the President's stated intention to veto excessive spending.

Again, this is not for the benefit of the American people; it is, rather, for partisan political benefit--a big game of chicken and potential Government shutdown because Congress isn't taking care of its business and its fiscal house is in a state of disarray. The American people are enormously skeptical, and they have every right to be given what I have described a moment ago. What they want us to do is quit the partisan game playing and trying to score points, and simply work things out in the best interests of the American people, being respectful of their tax dollars and not wasting 1 penny more than we must.

This is especially true in the SCHIP program, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which I described. It is currently, again, on a continuing resolution. It is currently in effect and not in any danger whatsoever of coming to an end. There is bipartisan support for the continuation of this successful program, if it is intended and does affect children of low incomes, up to 200 percent of poverty. There is not a political consensus; indeed, there are those who object--and I am one--to a radical expansion of this program to cover adults in 14 States and to go up to, along with the Presidential waiver, 400 percent of the poverty level for a family of four making $82,000 a year. At that level, for every two people added, one of them will get Government-subsidized health care by dropping their private health insurance--an unhealthy development, to say the least.

Here again, Congress is up to its old tricks. It relies on an unsustainable funding stream, a regressive tax that hits low-income Americans the hardest, and a budget gimmick that will demand that either Americans' taxes be raised by 2012 to continue the program or children will be dropped from the program.

I have a prediction to make. There is, as Ronald Reagan said, no such thing as a ``temporary'' Government program from the Federal Government. I believe he said that a temporary Government program in Washington is the closest thing we have to eternal life here on Earth. I think he has been proven right.

What I would hope that the leadership--Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi--would do is sit down with Republicans and with the President and try to work out our differences. As I said, everybody supports continuation of this program. I am willing to predict, without equivocation, that this program will continue; it will continue to help poor children--and it should--on a bipartisan basis. We should not have a game of chicken where, as Leader Reid said and Speaker Pelosi said--Senate Majority Leader Reid said this:

If the President says let's sit down and talk about it, it is something that is not going to happen.

He said that in Congress Daily on September 28, 2007. Later, he said on that same day:

We have compromised all we are going to compromise.

What we see here is more political theater and partisan

point scoring, as opposed to working together to try to find ways to resolve this impasse. We can do it. It is strictly a matter of political will and, frankly, I think it is what the American people want us to do. They are sick and tired of Congress being dysfunctional when it comes to meeting the very clear needs of the American people. I have described some of them. But at least we can try to work out this SCHIP impasse in a way that is fiscally responsible and meets the intended goals of this important Children's Health Insurance Program.

Today, a Gallup poll reported, for what it is worth, in USA Today that 52 percent agreed with President Bush that most benefits should go to children and families earning less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty level, about $41,000 for a family of four. Only 40 percent in the Gallup poll reported today in the USA Today said benefits should go to families earning up to $62,000. As I said, there is a provision for a waiver that can go up even higher if, for example, President Clinton is in the White House after the next election.

The Gallup poll says 55 percent of those polled are very or somewhat concerned that the program would create an incentive for families to drop their private health insurance.

At a time when the American people are taxed at huge levels, you can see that this chart says ``living essentials squeezed by Federal taxes.'' The American wage earner has to work 120 days a year to pay all their State, local, and Federal taxes, while they work 62 days a year to pay housing, 52 days a year for health care, 30 days for their food, and 30 days for their transportation. But, again, it is 120 days to pay Uncle Sam and State and local taxes.

Should we not be taking care of our finances in a way that does not pass a huge IOU down to our children and grandchildren that we will never repay? Should we not quit robbing from the surpluses of Social Security and Medicare today rather than using that money to finance other programs? Should we not be eliminating ineffective programs or those programs that have been rated as inconclusive in terms of whether they are actually effective? Should we not take a more restrained approach to the growth of Government programs, including programs that have worked, such as SCHIP?

Instead of a 140-percent increase and transforming it into something that bears very little similarity to what Congress originally intended when they started this program, should we not take a more restrained and careful approach?

Rather than drawing lines in the sand and threatening the termination of benefits of their health care to poor kids, shouldn't the majority leader, the Speaker of the House, the President of the United States, and the folks on the Republican side of the aisle sit down and try to work it out?

As I said, everybody in Congress supports this program, virtually without exception. The only difference is between those who believe this is an irresponsible, radical expansion of the program beyond recognition, and one that others have offered--including me--is a reauthorization of the program designed to meet its original target, and that is poor and low-income kids.

I hope the leadership will listen and make a sincere attempt to try to meet in the middle on this. The children of this country will benefit, and I think the American people will be enormously relieved.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source