The Budget

THE BUDGET -- (Senate - June 28, 2006)

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I came to the floor a few minutes ago when Senator Gregg from New Hampshire was here. Senator Gregg is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I listened carefully as he talked about a plan to reform budgeting in America. The first thing I can recall was the phrase often used by a friend of mine who serves in the House of Representatives, Congressman Dave Obey of Wisconsin, who frequently chides Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle for ``posing for holy pictures.''

I thought to myself, how interesting it is to hear the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee coming to the floor preaching for dramatic reform when it comes to budgeting. If one were not aware of the history of budgeting under this administration and under Republican leadership in Congress, you might be able to sell this story. But it is hard to sell when you look at facts.

When President Bush took office, he inherited a surplus. It was one of the first surpluses in the Federal budget in decades. It was the result of President Clinton increasing taxes and cutting spending, determined to reduce the deficit.

We reached the point where we had surpluses that were being generated so they could pay down the debt to the Social Security trust fund, give it longer life, make certain that we were moving toward a fiscally sound future. President Bush inherited a Federal budget surplus. He also inherited a national debt of $5.3 trillion.

Now where are we today, almost 6 years into the Bush-Cheney administration? The national debt in America has risen under the Bush-Cheney administration from $5.3 trillion to almost $9 trillion. In 6 years, it is a dramatic increase. During that 6-year period of time this administration, with a Republican Congress, has consistently given us deficit after deficit after deficit, digging the hole deeper and deeper.

So when you take a look at the situation, you say, clearly, the Democrats must be at fault in this situation. But with the exception of 1 year, these were Republican Congresses generating the spending bills. So how many spending bills from Congress did President Bush veto in the 6 years he has been President of the United States? How many times did he say no to overspending by Congress? How many times did he use his Presidential veto pen denying earmarks by Congress? None. Not one. Zero. In 6 years, never. This President has never used his veto pen to stop spending by this Republican Congress, not one time.

Now comes these Republican leaders, and they say the problem isn't discipline. The problem isn't the President's veto. We have to reform the system. Now they are talking about this elaborate reform of the system.

If you are a student of political history, you have seen this before. When President Reagan's administration brought us the biggest deficits in the history of the United States, those who were responsible for the deficits were quick to the floor of the Senate, pleading for an amendment to the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment to save them from themselves. It did not pass, and it should not have passed because, as President Clinton demonstrated over 8 years, it isn't a matter of a weakness in our Constitution. It was a weakness of political will by the Republican side.

If you will take control of this economy and of this budget, you can truly reduce deficits and create a surplus. That isn't just a promise, it was a fact under the Clinton administration and evidence of failure in the Bush administration they have not come close to a surplus in any year. Now, as we face these record deficits and record debt for America, what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle? It isn't our fault. We have to change the system.

No, you don't. The system worked under a Democratic President. The system worked to generate a surplus. Now to have them come as political sinners posing for holy pictures when it comes to balancing the budget is a very thin charade that most Americans will see through.

We understand what this is all about. It was not that long ago that President Bush decided to privatize Social Security. It was an idea that flopped across America. The President took his road show out, and every time he made a speech about privatizing Social Security, the popularity of the idea plummeted. Finally, he gave up on it, as he should have. It is a bad idea to cut back on the cost-of-living adjustments that people living under Social Security count on. It is a bad idea to take money out of the Social Security system, when we know we have made promises to future generations that must be kept. And it is a fact that the Social Security Administration untouched will be able to promise payments every year, with COLAs, through 2030. It is a strong system. We can make it stronger, but privatizing Social Security is the wrong way to go.

I urge my colleagues, when Senator Gregg and Republicans come forward with this so-called line-item veto, look closely. Line-item veto is the privatization of Social Security. America rejected it once. We need to reject it again.

I yield the floor.

http://thomas.loc.gov/