When Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his thumbs up to tax relief in January, he took some of the wind out of the big spenders’ sails in Washington. And when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office soon thereafter issued a sunny skies forecast, predicting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over the next 10 years, another argument against tax relief was tossed overboard.
Virtually overnight, the question of whether the narrowly split Congress would agree to sizable tax cuts this year became a matter of how much, when and for whom. Does that mean hardworking taxpayers can look forward to smooth sailing on the politically volatile sea of tax relief versus more government spending? Not quite.
The power brokers who traditionally favor tax revenue over tax relief will continue to stake out the surplus estimates for future government spending programs. Those who are reluctant to give money back to hardworking taxpayers are wedded to the idea that Washington knows best.
When it comes to tax cuts, they’ll argue 'first things first.' First comes the national debt, entitlement programs — including a new prescription drug benefit under Medicare — the military, and education.
As a fiscal conservative, I whole-heartedly agree with efforts to pay down the national debt. Moreover, retiring the debt will eliminate the $200 billion-plus a year that’s swallowed by debt service. This will greatly help us prepare for the day in the not-so-distant future when the giant baby boomer generation hits retirement.
As the senior senator from Iowa, which ranks among the oldest per capita in the country, I am well aware how important Social Security and Medicare benefits are to the livelihood of my constituents. But even when the surplus dollars earmarked for Social Security are fenced off from the rest of the budget, estimates show the federal government would still end up with a healthy $3.1 trillion surplus by 2011.
Moreover, the need to revitalize the U.S. military and upgrade defense systems to protect our national security from 21st century warfare and acts of terrorism is well understood. The same goes for investing in education, medical research, food safety and technology. Furthermore, it’s become far too easy for consumers to take America’ s abundant, safe and affordable supply of food for granted. As a farm-state lawmaker, I don’t. That’s why I fight to protect the safety net in the federal budget for family farmers.
As a senior member of the Senate Budget Committee I’m confident a blue print can be drawn that takes into account our spending priorities, debt reduction and tax relief. Taxpayers shouldn’t be shoved to the back of the line, begging for table scraps. They pay the bills. They deserve their fair share of the surplus.
It’s all well and good that the tax-and-spend crowd is crowing about the need for caution when it comes to tax reduction. But a look back at recent history reveals that if the money stays in Washington, it gets spent. Consider the billions of dollars in extra spending the last Congress dished out before adjourning last December. I guess they threw caution to the winds when expenditures jumped 11.9 percent this fiscal year over the last. It’s ironic we don’t hear the same sky-is-falling philosophy when spending limits are ignored.
Thankfully, the momentum in Washington today is on the taxpayer’s side. In late January, I participated in three meetings at the White House in as many days to find common ground on tax and spending issues. Using bipartisanship as a guide, I will chart a course over the next few months in the Senate Finance Committee to reduce the tax burden on American taxpayers.