God Bless C-SPAN

I've been able to spend the better part of this evening listening to and/or watching the Iraq debate, streaming on-line, while working on another project. Most of the debate has been civil, although it's been getting testier as the night goes on. I'll post some of the better speech segments from both sides when I can. In the meantime, you can check out the soundbites the Associated Press has plucked here.

MUST READ: David Broder on the Budget

If you really want a breakdown of exactly how people like Representative Scott Garrett are misrepresenting the truth about the President's budget proposal, read David Broder's column printed today in The Record. I've gone through it and looked at the tables referenced, and he's accurate in his reporting of what the proposal has in it. Here are some of the highlights:

It would be wonderful were deficits to disappear -- if only it were true. But on the final page of the document, in Table S-10 on Page 172, one learns the disturbing truth. In fiscal 2012, the president's target year, the gross federal debt will -- by his own estimate -- grow by $372 billion.

How can this be? Well, the Page 1 claim is achieved by ignoring or minimizing a bunch of real-world challenges. For example, the president proposes just a one-year patch for the growing problem of the alternative minimum tax, which is whacking more and more middle-class families who thought they were beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. The one-year fix would cost the treasury $47.9 billion, but no revenue is lost in the next four years -- because Bush just ignores the problem.

[snip]

As he noted, Table S-7 shows that the $61 billion surplus Bush claims for 2012 -- using all the gimmicks he can find -- is achieved only by counting on the $248 billion in anticipated Social Security surpluses that year to wipe out the $187 billion deficit rolled up by all the other activities of the federal government.

In other words, Bush is borrowing from Social Security to achieve his budget surplus -- and that money will have to be repaid out of future taxes, or beneficiaries will suffer.

[snip]

In fiscal 2006, the past year, the total federal debt was $8.45 trillion. In 2012, by Bush's optimistic estimate, it will reach $11.49 trillion. That is $3 trillion of added debt in just six years.

More and more of that debt is held by foreign countries. Another table, buried back on Page 234 of a supplemental volume, shows that the foreign holdings of U.S. government securities have more than doubled in the past five years, going from just over $1 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Japan and China are our largest creditors, increasing their leverage over our economy. And Uncle Sam has become the world's biggest borrower.

That's another fact you won't find anywhere in this budget.

This is a far cry from the fiscal conservatism that is supposed to be at the heart of Republican values I grew up with. While the article does point to the fact that the budget is the most honest when in comes to entitlement programs, because of the false promise of a balanced budget by 2012 the President has lost any strength in his arguments.

The debt Washington is straddling future generations with is immoral, because as noted above, it increases the leverage on our economy of places like China. Defending such actions when the facts are on the table, and misrepresenting the intentions of those sounding the alarm is inexcusable.

36 hours, 15 minutes

Starting tomorrow, the House will be debating a non-binding resolution on Iraq, giving each member 5 minutes to speak their mind. I'll be curious to see how it turns out, simply because the House is more partisan than the Senate, yet doesn't have the parliamentary tricks to block the vote. I fear it's going to turn into a "We Support the Troops more than you do" kindergarten finger pointing exercise. Meanwhile, the resolution doesn't provide any teeth.

I've heard the Republicans have an alternative, calling for a non-partisan commission to oversee the "surge." The problem is, the last non-partisan commission to offer the President advice was largely ignored, so I'm not sure how effective a new one would be. While it seems there are a lot of ideas of how to resolve the crisis, because of how bitter and partisan the debate has become, combining the best ideas of each proposal and getting it through the House or the Senate seems impossible. The ultimate losers of the partisanship on the Hill are our soldiers in Iraq.

American voters knew, despite the promises, that this would happen and this unfortunate reality was reflected in polls leading up to and following the election. We all support our troops, and it would be nice if those in leadership could put down the partisan dangers for a second, stop trying to score cheap political points and get to work. My belief is our soldiers would trade 30 minutes of a discussion that generated some results, instead of 36 hours of partisan grandstanding over a non-binding resolution, any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I'll post Representative Garrett's five minutes, as well as any other ones that are poignant.

Budget Double Talk

Overall, yesterday's interview of Rep. Garrett on The Brian Lehrer Show was actually interesting. The one point to make, to his credit, is that he criticised the President's budget for not dealing with the AMT. He laid out the importance of such a reform for our area, and much of the Northeast. It seemed as though he was on a roll, but then he applauds the President for proposing a budget that can be balanced in five years. By the time of the interview, Garrett had to know the way the President's plan is drawn there won't be AMT relief. While he sounds sensible in the interview, he is once again engaging in double talk and being "disingenuous" (must have been his word of the day, because he kept saying it). If the only way, in a real sense, that the President's financial outlook can balance the budget is by ensnaring more middle income families in the AMT, we need Garrett serving as a roadblock and not simply a worn down speed bump talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Bergen Dems stood up to the Boss

I wrote in an earlier post about the war going on in the Bergen County Democratic Organization, pitting the will of the Chairman against that of the county committee members that didn't support his cronies. Regardless of which party you fall into, the ability of the people to choose their own representation is at the heart of our government. The good guys won, and the Democratic Party will be better for it.

Talking 'bout Money, Money, Money...Money

Representative Garrett's still on the defensive about his vote against a round of Hurricane Katrina aid. His website now is running an "In Case You Missed It" spot touting how the government is trying to recoup funds from fraud, waste and abuse related to the recovery efforts. When voting against the package, to his credit, he gave as his reason for voting against the aid a lack of controls against such fraud. Granted, it's unclear which pot the money that was abused came from, the package he voted against or the package he voted for, but we'll let him have his moment of prideful chest beating.

In the same vein though, let's apply the same "In Case You Missed It" attitude to the President's budget proposal. There are two very big problems for our area in the proposal. First are the myriad of cuts to police, fire departments and hospitals which will inevitably lead to increased property taxes as the state and towns are forced to pick up the tab. In addition, there would likely be an increase in health insurance premiums as hospitals diligently continue providing care for those whose funding is being taken away, passing the cost to those of us fortunate enough to have health insurance.

Second, is in order to project a budget surplus in 2012 while making permanent the "temporary" tax cuts enacted a few years back, the President needs to bring in a trillion (with a t) more dollars from the alternative minimum tax (AMT). While a temporary fix is in place preventing more NJ families from falling into the AMT trap this year, it expires after next year. It has been documented for years that the AMT entrapment is spreading, and this is a large part of how the President's plan balances the budget.

But now, due to inflation coupled with administration tax policies, the AMT is hitting millions of ordinary families, many earning well under $100,000 a year. Within five years, 37 percent of people earning between $50,000 and $75,000 and 73 percent of those with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the AMT, compared with less than 3 percent three years ago. Nearly all families earning over $100,000 will pay it, according to a Brookings Institution study.

So, realistically speaking, as laid out the President is planning on a massive tax hike for families in our District. But, now to the "In Case You Missed It" part, here's what Garrett's had to say about the budget so far:

From The Record:

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, said the president's budget represents "a positive step" toward that goal, and warned against Democrats' raising taxes to afford more spending.

"Every family in America must set priorities and make difficult decisions when putting together a household budget, and the federal government should be no different," said Garrett, a member of the House Budget Committee. "I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle will remember that ... every dollar that goes into the federal budget is a dollar that comes out of a family budget."

From The Courier Post:

However, Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage, saw things the opposite way. He praised Bush for adopting the "common sense, bipartisan goal" of balancing the federal budget within five years.

And this from Garrett's Website:

For instance, the budget request projects a drop in the Federal deficit over the next four years, leading to a $61 billion surplus in 2012. Also, the budget plan will balance the Federal budget within five years.

I saved that one for last, because it's important to note the projected $61 billion surplus is for the BUDGET in 2012 and not, as is inferred, wiping out the $8 trillion federal deficit we are currently saddled with. Now, it's going to take a while to get through all the source material, and truth be told I'll be relying on both conservative and liberal media to point me in the right directions, but this proposal is by all early accounts a very raw deal for New Jersey. Granted, the budget is months away from being complete, but I just can't believe in the early stages, with his support, Garrett is advocating higher property taxes and the extension of the AMT to more families in our area.

Deserved, but misplaced rage

Yesterday, the House voted to approve the massive appropriations bill HR 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007. The was a merger of all the spending bill's the 109th didn't pass before they left to campaign or once they returned during the lame duck session. I'm not sure why the Republicans couldn't pass the spending bill, but they left it to the Democrats. This inaction is going to cost our District roughly $16 million in earmarked grants that had been included in the bills the Republicans didn't pass.

Rep. Scott Garrett released the following statement regarding the bill, probably because he knows he's going to need to be on record explaining why he voted against certain programs, included in this bill, come election time (I could write a half dozen radio ads right now).

Reform means nothing if it only applies to everybody else. For all the political grandstanding by the Democrats over the last few months, their actions today show that they have no plans to make good-governance, reform, or transparency priorities during their tenure in the majority. I voted against this bill today because I believe that allowing an elite few from one party to unilaterally decide how to spend $463 billion of hard-earned taxpayer dollars is a betrayal of the principles of accountability, transparency, and bipartisanship that the Democrats themselves called for just three short months ago.

Now, on the one hand I don't think it's right that they limited debate and amendments on a spending bill. Garrett's right, it's our money and Representatives should be able to debate certain things. On the other hand, this is the grave the Republicans who didn't get voted out of office last November dug for themselves when they failed at delivering the appropriations bills in December. This is one of the most basic of responsibilities for members of the House, and the Republicans didn't get it done.

Instead, the Republicans spent hours debating or speaking about resizing park borders, congratulating social service organizations for their service, renaming buildings, and increasing swimming pool safety. A good bit of time was spent on the India Nuclear deal. To varying degrees, these were important issues, but passing the appropriations bills should have taken precedent. Now, you have protest statements from the Republicans about how things were handled, when they are the ones to blame for being in the situation in the first place.

The good news is, this omnibus bill freezes almost all spending levels from the previous budget, so there isn't a huge increase in government spending. The bad news is the loss of funds to those projects here in our district and throughout the state. Several, like the West Milford Streetscape project, had the big check presentation with Garrett already. The money's not gone, but Congressmen will now have to deal with the agencies under which the money had been earmarked. It will be a fight to get it, and we'll see how Garrett does.