Several times in recent years, I have disparaged the process of eleventh-hour budgeting because it inevitably leads to one thing: a rising tide that lifts all spending. All the Republican programs get higher funding, all the Democrat programs get more funding. The budget busts apart at the seams. The taxpayers are the losers.
And it's not just the budget process. Bismarck would have croaked had he seen how the normal legislative process -- bad as it is -- was bypassed, becoming a free-for-all. It's as if the Clinton Administration and the Congress had a power outage, and the looters came from everywhere and picked the taxpayers' pockets clean. The legislative process was stripped of its integrity.
This isn't an "omnibus" bill; it's an "ominous" bill.
Many of us in this body have brought the good news home to our constituents. We have delivered the first balanced budget in a generation. We created surpluses as far as the eye can see. The debt is finally being paid down. Our children have a brighter future because of it. And Social Security will be saved for the Baby Boomer generation. This is the vision we had when we passed the bipartisan Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
I voted against this bill. The reason is because it threatens that vision. A vision we committed to just one year ago. Specifically, there are three reasons I oppose it. First, it threatens what we accomplished last year. It compromises the Balanced Budget Act. This bill proves that the Clinton White House and Congress can never resist the temptation to spend money, even though we've promised to save the money for Social Security and to pay down the debt. That signifies a total lack of fiscal discipline.
Second, it squanders the surplus. It would soak up $21 billion of it in the coming year alone. This is just one month after the announcement of the nation's first surplus in 29 years. Both sides were patting each other on the back. Meanwhile, we couldn't wait to spend it. We could have and should have found offsets for this money. I predict that in coming years, this will be Congress' way around the budget agreement -- Call any program an emergency and the budget agreement is by-passed.
Third, the bill, is a budget-buster. Maybe not technically, maybe not now. But in pushing $4.1 billion of spending decisions into next year, it's the first die cast in ensuring another rising tide of spending next year. In addition, it's not really clear what the budgetary impact is of all the legislative mushrooms we're passing in this budget. The funding for these programs is like fertilizer. And next year these mushrooms become BIG mushrooms. And that creates further budgetary pressures for more spending.
In short, Mr. President, this process shows we have reverted to the same attitude, the same mindset, the same practice, that brought us monumental debt levels in the first place.
Moreover, I deplore the intellectual dishonesty of the President of the United States. For nine months, I have been applauding his stated commitment to save the surplus to ensure the viability of Social Security. Then he pushes for a budget that spends $21 billion of that surplus in just one year. The following day, the President appears in the Rose Garden and announces we've agreed to a budget deal, and saved Social Security in the process.
Mr. President, this cynical statement by the President, and the precedent it sets, hasn't saved Social Security. It has threatened Social Security. It has opened up the flood gates. It ensures future raids on future surpluses. And the President now has no moral authority to use those surpluses exclusively for Social Security. He squandered that moral authority.
It is also intellectually dishonest of the President to oppose tax cuts, using the argument that tax cuts would jeopardize Social Security, yet assume that spending the surplus would not.
These reasons, Mr. President, constitute why I am seriously disappointed in this process, and in this budget. I regret my vote against it because there are many provisions in this bill that I fully support. Some of them I am even responsible for.
For instance, there is approximately $300 million for Iowa farmers in additional relief. The relief package includes AMTA payments, disaster assistance and new operating loans. In addition, there is tax relief for farmers, including Permanent Income Averaging, accelerated health insurance premium deductibility, and a 5-year net operating loss carry-back.
There are other provisions I fought for and support. Chief among them are:
These are all provisions that I worked hard for, supported and that I believe are essential. However, they could have been paid for without this revival of the practice of incrementally mortgaging the future.
The easy thing for me to do would be to vote for this bill. But when the process of governing breaks down and puts our commitments and our future at risk; when Congress's recent fiscal discipline falls apart; and, when our elected leadership abdicates its responsibilities of governing, it's time, in my view, to say "no."