Newsletter: Budgets

Statement

Dear Friends,

Last week, the House of Representatives voted on a series of proposed budgets, and for the first time since I came to Congress, I found myself without a home: I voted no on all the Republican and Democratic budget proposals. Here's why:

Voting no on the Republican budget, known as the "Ryan Plan," was easy. The main objective of this budget was to cut the top individual tax rate, paid by the wealthiest Americans, from 39.6% to 25%. To do this, they slash spending on everything else (except defense, where we already spend three times more than China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran combined): investments in roads and rails, medical research, Head Start programs, and Medicaid. They proposed $350 billion in cuts to education at a time when jobs depend more than ever before on how capable our young people are. All these cuts would come on top of the sequester cuts that have already visited real pain on nurses, teachers, and families trying to put their kids through school. Not surprisingly, their huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would actually raise taxes on the middle class. And instead of addressing increasing health care costs for an aging population, they merely shift the cost to future seniors. None of this makes sense.

The Democratic budget was more sensible. It better targeted the budget discipline imposed in the last several years, which has dramatically cut our deficits (and according to most economists, slowed our economic recovery). It made the kinds of investments in our infrastructure that have always helped drive our economic growth, and which would put many Americans to work on bridges, rail lines, and airports now. It maintained funding for our education programs at a time when most Americans are finding it increasingly hard to educate their kids. And it included the Senate's bipartisan immigration reform plan, which encourages entrepreneurs and skilled foreign graduates to start their businesses here.

Ultimately, I voted no on their budget as well because although it was forward-looking and fair, it did very little about the most serious and politically challenging budget issue we face: the need to fairly and equitably reform our Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid systems to assure their long-term stability.

I'm not supposed to say that. I'm supposed to tell you how the Ryan budget would roll grandma off a cliff, and join the chorus of those who want to talk about "our entitlements" only to gain an advantage. The fact is, Social Security and Medicare are just fine in the near term. And as much as I don't like the Ryan plan, no one is proposing changes to these programs that would hurt current beneficiaries. But in the distance, the picture is much more challenging, and a problem regardless of where on the political spectrum you sit.

You know the story. Social Security and Medicare have dramatically reduced the poverty rate among our senior citizens, and their continued success is critical to keeping the promise of health and dignity we have made to current and future seniors. But, largely due to the aging of our population, spending on these programs is far outpacing revenue collection. Without reform, these programs will eventually squeeze out all other spending: for defense, for education, for investment in basic research and for the safety net that tries to support our most vulnerable citizens. Responsible adults would agree on a set of fair reforms sooner rather than later. But alas, government officials get too much mileage from trying to scare senior citizens with horror stories of what the other party will do to Social Security or Medicare.

I know that the vast majority of my constituents would support a plan to fairly reform these programs, to invest in our future, and to make the tax code fairer, simpler, and more internationally competitive. In fact, that is what they deserve. So I will continue fighting for these things and opposing budgets that lack the vision or will to achieve them.

Sincerely,
Jim

Source