Democratic Party Deception
Through the Eyes of an Auditor
A Case Study on Deception
SUBJECT:
Democrat Analysis of the Budget
Deficit
February 9, 2009
House of Representatives
What you are about to read and witness is
textbook deception. The Democratic Party
is knowingly deceiving American’s with a CBO 2001 $5.6 trillion surplus budget
projection. It is well understood in the
accounting profession the ease by which to
deceive with a projection. In some
parts of the private
sector the technique is illegal. You
will see the deception technique once again on display by the Democratic
Party. After 6 years of practice, they
have effective deception refined to a science.
Also, if you have ever wondered how the biggest frauds of our time
occur, they all
have in common the same elements you are about to witness.
Watch and listen to this
video and you will understand the Democrats biggest asset!
Listen for the cheers when Bill Clinton’s
name is mentioned! Voter excitement over
the budget surpluses generated in the dotcom/tech boom of the 1990s is the
incentive for the Democrats to deceive Americans. This case study is about ethics, not
politics.
With the understanding of the appeal to
Americans for the budget surpluses generated from the temporary economic events
of the 1990s (dotcom/tech rally, hyped stock market generating capital gains
and the post cold war peace dividend,) the Democratic Party is using the days
of perceived past glory to deceive Americans! For the Democratic
Party, the temporary economic event of the late 1990s and early 2000 is an
opportunity to deceive.
REFERENCE
ONLY
The following is an analysis of the
comments made by Democrats in the House of Representatives on February 9,
2009. For a transcript:
Search:
Rep
Spratt, 02/09/2009 at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r111query.html
REFERENCE
ONLY
CSPAN-Video 40:30 until 1:36:45
BUDGET
DEFICIT -- (House of Representatives - February 09, 2009)
[Page:
H1062]
*The RED print is comments from the
webhost.*
* The Case Study in Deception
now begins. So you can witness how
unapparent, deception can be, the video of each Democratic speaker is embedded.
*
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2009, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 60 minutes
as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, we are here this
afternoon to talk about a serious subject, something gravely facing our
country, and that is the budget deficit for this fiscal year 2009 and for the
years thereafter for as far as the eye can see. * Compare what you are about
to read and hear to Mr. Spratt’s words in 2001. *
As we speak, the deficit for
the year 2009, fiscal 2009, is soaring to record highs. CBO, the Congressional Budget
Office, our budget shop, which is neutral and nonpartisan * the fact
the CBO is non-partisan is irrelevant when it comes to projections. Projections are based on assumptions
regardless of whether they are from a partisan or non-partisan source. Nonpartisan does not guarantee the ability to
guess correctly *, has recently projected that the deficit for 2009 will be $1.2
trillion. And as high as this projection may be, our friends, it's probably a
low-ball estimate. * Mr. Spratt notes the inaccuracy of CBO, the nonpartisan CBO,
assumptions. Let’s look at what US Treasury Secretary Geithner says about the
reliability of projections: US Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner on the Reliability of Projections *
*The
above video is quite instructive as you are now going to witness how
politicians see projections as political opportunism. The tactic of deception with a projection is
well understood in the accounting profession, where in some
segments of the private sector it is illegal. *
It omits, for example, the supplemental to pay
for our deployment in Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be around $70 billion
for the remainder of this fiscal year; it assumes that the alternative minimum
tax will stay in full force and effect reaching 20 or so million-income tax
payers for whom it was never intended. This increases the revenues by $70
billion though AMT has, in fact, been omitted year so that it does not apply
for middle-income taxpayers for whom it was not intended.
It also assumes that the tax
cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, despite the fact that we have huge deficits, will
expire on December 31, 2010 * I have to note that if rescinding the tax cuts
in today’s recession is a bad idea, why was it a bad idea to pass them in the
recession of 2001? * a recession and as
provided by the law which enacted them in the first place.
When you add all of these
into the equation--the Bush administration's last deficit, the deficit that we
inherited from President Bush and must work our way out of--the deficit could
easily top $1.4 trillion. It staggers the imagination.
These are deficits that
happened on the watch of the Bush administration and under their fiscal
policies.* Even though the CBO in January 2001 said we could return to
deficits without any policy changes. *
But we, as Democrats, won the election, and it is our
responsibility to decide what should we do about the deficits left us. * A look at
the temporary economic events of the late 1990s and 2000 that resulted in the
Clinton budget surpluses will shed some light on what was really
happening. Here is one of my
videos: Obama: Understanding the
Clinton Budget Surplus *
Unfortunately, we've got
forces converging on the budget which make it difficult to bring the deficit
down to realistic terms. For example, we have the severest economic downturn in
our economy since at least the first or second world war ended. So we have the
mounting costs of counter-cyclical policies, TARP, the stimulus now pending in
the Senate, the conservatorship of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. All of these
things are hugely expensive. We have the rising costs of major
entitlements--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--due to the retirement of the
baby boomers. * A fact
highlighted by the CBO in 2001 *
We have defense budgeted and
funded at historically high levels and sustained for an historically long
period of time. Funds funded to front-end accounts, accounts in the budget
which need to be funded adequately but are not. Transportation is a good
example. It will exhaust its reserve early next year and run close to zero
unless we can get funds back into that particular account.
Of course, as always there's
education, which is not funded as robustly as many of us think it should be.
And of course there are new topics--alternative energies and various incentives
for increasing the energy supplies and making this country energy independent.
[Time: 16:45]
Then we have the renewal of
existing tax cuts, which are slated to expire on December 31, 2010. * If tax cuts during the recession
in 2001 caused the deficits, why aren’t they being immediately canceled during
this recession? *
When we add all of these
things in, in addition to the price commitments we have to do something about
the climate and something about universal health care coverage, it becomes
very, very difficult to do anything to the bottom line of the budget, despite
the fact that it is bigger than it has ever been before in peace time.
The overarching question
that faces this whole country as we incur these huge sums of debt is: How long
will foreigners help us? How long will they keep buying our Treasury debt?
We have, therefore, the
worst budget since World War II and the worst economy in which to work out the
problems of these budgets. Every recession has its own pattern to it. But it is
clear that it is difficult in every recession, any recession, to work out of
the recession when you're swimming upstream, when the economy is working
against you; to work out of a budget deficit when the economy is working
against you.
Let me show you some charts,
those who are listening. * Those who are listening,
let me show you an exchange between Chairman Bernanke and Senator Whitehouse
(D-RI) on how you need to understand projection assumptions, if you are to retain
credibility on the subject of projected results versus actual results. The
video is: Fed Chairman
Bernanke & Sen Whitehouse on Projected Budget Surplus *
This is a simple bar graph. It shows that the
Bush administration, when he came to office, had a phenomenal inheritance. A
budgeting surplus over the next 10 years by $5.6 trillion. * Not even the decency to say
it was a “projected” surplus. I will
cite for you a quote from Mr. Barry Anderson, Deputy Director, Congressional
Budget Office, “I know Congress needs estimates that go out ten years and we
supply them. But we make no bones about
it that there is an awful lot of uncertainty about what our projections are ten
years hence.” But this reality does not
stop Mr. Spratt from attempting to mislead Americans with blatant political
opportunism. This is
a link to a PBS video where Mr. Anderson explains the uncertainty of the
$5.6 trillion ten year projected budget surplus. Below is a visual aid used in the video.
Link to: DARTBOARD
Guesstimate
Here is a link to one of my videos: Sen. Obama & Democratic
Policy Committee Economic Deception Tactic explaining
Mr. Spratt’s deception. *
*Also, a few years
makes such a difference in Mr. Spratt’s opinion. In 2001 he said the $5.6
trillion budget surplus was highly uncertain. You are witnessing classic political hypocrisy
and classic deception with a projection. The CBO in 2001 included 11 pages of
uncertainties associated with the $5.6 trillion projection. A simple
reading of the 5 page Summary section will reveal the broad range of
possibilities included in the report, even without policy changes. * That
was January, 2001. * Based on the 2001 CBO report projecting a $5.6 trillion 10 year
surplus, based on the assumptions contained in the report. Some of the assumptions included the
continuation of the Tech/Dotcom boom and no immediate recession. Neither occurred. The following video
highlights how other politicians change their position for political
purposes. Actually Mr. Spratt has a part
in this video by saying the $5.6 trillion surplus projection was a blue sky
forecast: Ethics of the $5.6 trillion
surplus - Who do you believe? *
By January, 2004, that
surplus of $236 billion was gone. Vanished. * Just like the tech/dotcom
boom * In 4 year's time, we went from a $236 billion surplus to a $412
billion deficit. This happened under the policies and the watch of the Bush
administration. * As stated
by the CBO in January 2001, the rapid
revenue increases realized in the late 1990s and 2000 were not related to any tax
policy changes. Also, the CBO noted
in 2001 how
surprising rapid the economy was deteriorating. *
This next chart portrays out
over time the assets of this administration and the previous administration.
This is the first George Bush administration. The first Mr. Bush. There was a
significant decline in the budget at that point in time. But, when the Clinton
administration came to office, President Clinton sent us a budget in February
of 1993, on February 22, the first full significant action taken by his
administration, and every year after the adoption of that budget by one vote in
the House and one vote in the Senate, the bottom line is the budget got better and
better and better, to point where we were at this point right here, 1997, 1998,
the year 2000. * As stated
earlier, the revenue increases were not associated with any policy changes. Also, my previously highlighted video
explains the economic events of the late 1990s: Obama: Understanding the
Clinton Budget Surplus *
The
budget was, in those years, balanced for the first time in recent memory. Then,
in 2001, the year 2000, we had a surplus of $236 billion. The second Mr. Bush
came to office here. You can see the bottom line got worse and worse and worse
until there was a slight pickup here. But, then in the out years 2004, 2005,
2006, 2007, the budget got worse and worse and worse, until the point it runs
off the chart at the bottom of the page. That is the deficit we are now looking
at, a deficit of as much as $1.4 trillion. * This
video of mine shows a well know tactic of deception with graphs and facts: Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND)
and Deceptive Economic Graphs - Textbook Deception with Facts *
Now, that would be a concern under any circumstances.
But, in the present situation, the deficits that we have incurred over the last
10 years have largely been funded and financed by foreigners. Japan, China,
Great Britain, Europe, and Pacific Rim countries. They have run trade surpluses
with us and used the surplus dollars they hold to buy back our Treasury bills.
It's a convenient short-term arrangement. But, over the long term, it means
foreigners own more and more of our debt, and you find it hard to be totally
independent as a country, certainly the world super power, when you're also the
world's largest debtor.
As of 2008, the total amount
of foreign-held Treasury securities had tripled under the Bush administration.
Starting out at $1 trillion, it rose to $3.1 trillion--over $2 trillion--during
the period 2001 to 2008. That is the accumulation of foreign-held Treasury
bills and certificates.
As for the total debt of the
United States, this is where we began--$5.7 trillion in 2001. That is where the
total debt of the United States stood when Mr. Bush came to office. A
substantial sum. But every year that number went up and up and up, to the point
where, when he left office a couple of weeks ago, the amount of debt stood at
$10.7 trillion. Nearly doubled in an 8-year period of time--from $5.7 trillion
to $10.7 trillion. And, as a consequence of that, we are feeling the effects of
it in all sectors of our economy.
Would the gentle lady from
Massachusetts care to make a comment or a statement? I gladly yield time to
her.
[Page: H1063]
Ms. TSONGAS. I care deeply about the health of
our Nation's cities. Cities, large and small, are our Nation's economic
engines, and their well-being is critical to the prosperity and well-being of
all Americans.
Our cities generate wealth and
economic development for entire regions; provide the foundation for an educated
workforce; offer solutions to climate change and sustainable development; act
as gateways for goods and knowledge; and serve on the front lines of homeland
security.
They are centers of our
Nation's cultural activities and sports, and a repository of architectural and
historic riches. They represent the diversity and strength of our country.
When cities suffer, our
Nation as a whole suffers. During the last 8 years, our cities have suffered
because we have failed to properly invest in them when economic times were
good. * Is this a criticism of the Clinton years? It sounds like it to me because the recession
began in March 2001 *
Between 2001 and 2009,
programs critical to ensuring the health and vitality of our cities, from
social services to infrastructure, to economic development, have been cut or
flat-funded, even as the Bush administration set records for deficits in
debt. * So the debt should have
been more? *
Instead of making continuous
modest investments in the health of our cities when the economy was good,
President Bush chose to shortchange them, bequeathing our country a significant
shortfall in infrastructure, housing, services, and veterans' care.
The debt exploded under the
Bush administration, and we have little to show for it. As a result, in
President Bush's 2009 budget request, interest payments alone were almost four
times more than education funding, five times more than veterans' health care
costs, and almost six times more than funding for homeland security for fiscal
year 2009.
I represent older industrial
cities in the Merrimack Valley where for years the government failed to act,
and the consequences were severe. It took decades to recover, and it was only
after the Federal Government reengaged to the National Park System that we
began to turn the corner.
As we enter a severe
economic crisis, we now face dual challenges left over from the last
administration. * And
the administration before that. The
retiring baby-boomers started to qualify for Social Security retirement in 2008
* We need to stimulate our economy by reinvesting in the health
of our cities and towns, and we need to take smart, tough action to address our
national debt.
I thank the chairman, and I
yield back my time.
Mr. SPRATT. Going back to the topic before Ms.
Tsongas spoke, here are just some highlights of the economy we also inherited,
so that we have got, in effect, a dual negative double whammy--a budget deficit
that is soaring out of sight and an economy which is contributing to that
deficit--and it makes the effort to reduce and dispel and wipe out the deficit
ever harder.
For example, here's the
unemployment rate. It stands at a 17-year high. Nearly 600,000 thousand jobs
lost last month. * Here is one of my videos on why America is
losing jobs: Sen. Obama: Taxes &
Economy Deception - Why are other countries cutting Corporate Taxes? *
Against
a head wind like that, it's very, very difficult to bring the budget deficit
down. In fact, you need to have countercyclical policies in effect that are
actually adding to the demand of the economy in order to get the economy back
on track, back on its feet, which is what we are doing right now.
Here's another chart which
shows what happens in an economy like ours, where unemployment is close to 8
percent. Revenues that were expected last September, when the Congressional
Budget Office did its forecast of the budget, the revenues that were forecasted
then are not obtained. * Once again Mr. Spratt acknowledges the CBO, being non-partisan,
can make assumptions that do not come to fruition. Another example on how the Democratic Party
deception of the $5.6 trillion surplus projection is intentional * We are $2.7 trillion short over that period
of time, 2009 through 2018, in the revenues that were assumed last September,
which changes the basis for all of our policies when you simply don't have the
funding that you're anticipating having only a few months before.
It also shows you one of the
frightening features of this current recession is how fast it's coming on. It
lingered for some time. There were definite earmarks that we were headed toward
a recession. But now that it's here, we are seeing, in 1 month, 500,000 to
600,000 jobs lost, as tragic evidence of what's befalling us. 3.6 million jobs
lost since January of 2008. 3.6 million jobs lost since January of 2008.
Mr. Moran, I gladly
yield to you for any comment you would like to make on this topic.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Thank you, Chairman Spratt.
The number of jobs lost hits home--I think to all of us. Each of us probably
have different experiences. I remember the day that a large corporation took
over the corporation that my father was working for. And he had worked so hard.
So he was called into the corporate offices and he was told--well, he was just
told to show up. We all assumed he was going to get a raise or a promotion
because he had been working hard.
This was during the 1950s.
And they let him go because they said they were doing a corporate
restructuring. We were waiting for him. He didn't come home until the middle of
the night because he couldn't face us.
Mr. Chairman, that is
happening every single day, 20,000 times. That's the pace. 3.6 million jobs.
Most of these are breadwinners. I suspect that over this Christmas vacation
there are any number of parents who had to take their child aside and explain
to them they were no longer going to be able to go back and finish out the last
half of their academic year at college because they could no longer afford it.
Or, imagine the mother and
father sitting their children down and explaining that they had lost their
home. They weren't sure where they were going to go. They would probably have
to leave their school.
We look at these numbers,
and they are devastating. But I know that you are particularly sensitive, as
Ms. Tsongas was as well, to the human face behind these tragic numbers.
Worse, really, since the Great Depression, in many ways.
It didn't have to happen.
For 7 years of the Bush administration, we saw the largest corporate profit
ever in American history. But it's interesting that 40 percent of that profit
at one point went to the financial services industry alone, and 96 percent went
to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans. So that the Americans who have to
defend our country, are called on to fight our wars, who pave our roads and
build our bridges, who form the workforce that produced that corporate profit,
were left with 4 percent of the income growth during the last 7 years to share.
* As stated by the CBO, the top income
earners increasing their incomes were a direct cause for the revenues
increasing in the late 1990s and 2000 and this reality was a component in the
budget surpluses. *
[Time: 17:00]
So they relied upon
borrowing from the increasing asset of their homes. The amount of money
borrowed against home equity and credit cards is exactly equal to the increase
in consumer spending. Americans did what their leadership asked them to do in
2001: they went out and spent at the mall, but they didn't have the
commensurate income gains to afford that expenditure.
As a result, now that the
real estate market has crashed through people in large part manipulating the
market for their own gain and the disparity between the borrower and the lender
and all these exotic derivatives that were meant to expand the leverage and
increase the profit of the financial services industry, now we find ourselves
in an economic crisis, Mr. Chairman. You are laying out the figures that this
Congress must address on behalf of the American people.
I will have more to say, but
I very much appreciate the profundity of these numbers that you are sharing
with us today.
Mr.
SPRATT. You said the key point when you said it didn't have to happen. In the
year 2001 when President Bush first took office, we proposed at that time,
since we had a surplus for the first time in 30 years, to take the surplus in
Social Security and use it only to buy down or buy up outstanding Treasury
debt. That way we would have added to the net national savings of the United
States, which is woefully deficient. We would have added to the capital
availability in the United States and driven down to some extent the cost of
capital. And by the year 2020, 2022 when the baby boomers began retiring in big
numbers, Treasury would have seen much of its debt held by the public paid off.
* But the CBO said in 2001 even with the $5.6 trillion surplus
becoming a reality, the
baby-boomers still had the possibility to overwhelm the US with debt. This
video of mine highlights the impact of the baby-boom generation retiring, even
with the assumption there would be a $5.6 trillion surplus from 2002-2012: Obama: Baby-Boom Retirement,
Federal Debt, Social Security, Medicare - textbook deceit *
Now I am not so naive as to
think that we would have religiously stuck with that proposal, but that is what
the Blue Dogs were pushing and that is what many of us were pushing under the
corny name ``lockbox,'' but it had a serious, substantive idea beneath it,
namely that we would increase the net national savings and we would at the same
time clear up much of the debt
[Page: H1064]
owed by Treasury so that when the Social Security claimants came
and presented their claims in 2020 and 2022 in large numbers, Treasury would be
more solvent to meet those claims and less in need of borrowing in order to
satisfy those claims. That was a potential, very potential.
The Bush administration came
to our committee, you were on it at that time, and said we don't need to do
that. We won't need to increase the debt ceiling of the United States for at
least 7 or 8 years. And the next year they were back hat in hand asking for a
huge increase, several hundred billion dollars, until finally the increases got
to be nearly a trillion dollars a year, all because they spurned what was a
genuine offer of a truly fiscal conservative policy on what to do with our
surpluses in the year 2001.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I
do recall that very well. I was sitting on your committee, and you were almost
begging the economic leadership of the Bush administration to follow the
example that had been laid out by the 41st President of the United States,
George H.W. Bush, when he began the system of PAYGO, that President Clinton
then incorporated, raised taxes but balanced the budget * The CBO
in 2001 said the recent increases in tax revenue that
lead to a budget surplus had nothing to do with tax policy *, and
as a result generated more after-tax profit for the wealthiest people of
America than had ever been experienced, but provided the next President, George
Bush, the 43rd, with this $5.6 trillion projected surplus. * Note now
the CBO’s 2001 assumptions are to be totally relied upon versus what was
reported in the Uncertainties
section of the report that highlights the uncertainties of the assumptions
in the report. * A sunny horizon almost as far as the eye could see * based on
2001 CBO assumptions that were acknowledged by the CBO to be uncertain* now
has turned into deep deficits, deeper than anything we can imagine and which we
see no end for, and it will bring us all of the way to the point you bring up,
Mr. Chairman, when the baby boom generation retires and then puts an enormous
additional burden on our budget. * Just as the CBO in
2001 cited. *
You asked Federal Reserve
Chairman Greenspan if he would not impose some fiscal discipline on the
administration and asked whether we could really afford the 2001 and 2003 tax
cuts. As we look back, in retrospect we see the reason that $5.6 trillion
surplus that was projected was gone in 3 years * Not the least of which was
the CBO assumptions in the $5.6 trillion surplus projection of the continuation
of the tech
investment boom, stock market staying high and Defense
spending remaining low. * . By 2004, that surplus was gone. * The CBO
made assumptions in 2001 that did not come to fruition. Just like Mr. Spratt earlier cited, the CBO
is capable of making assumptions that do not come to fruition. *
Mr. SPRATT. Four years.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I
thought it was until January of 2004, but you would know better, Mr. Chairman.
The point is it was gone in
a very short period of time. It was used on tax cuts. * The CBO
in 2001 assumed the Tech/Dotcom boom would continue and the stock market would
continue to generate significant capital gains tax revenues. This conclusion is
political opportunism * Tax cuts that the vast majority of which went to the people who
needed them the least and who then invested them in hedge funds, invested them
overseas, and put them into collateralized debt swaps and credit derivatives
and every other kind of exotic investment, but they didn't go back into
strengthening the economic foundation of the middle class.
As a result, we look back
now and we see that those tax cuts, putting aside what we were promised, those
tax cuts generated about 13 cents on the dollar. In other words, about 87 cents
of every dollar of tax cut never went back into strengthening the economy, it
showed up in deficits. * Note how Mr. Moran is comparing today’s situation with the results
of the budget surpluses on the late 1990s and 2000 that were a direct result of
the tech/dotcom boom. The CBO stated in
2001 there was no change in
tax policy leading to the increase in revenues. * That
is why this deficit situation is so difficult to deal with. We have to increase
the deficit now to stimulate the economy because the private sector was given
$350 billion out of $7 billion and they weren't willing to lend so the public
sector has to come in, but it is all on borrowed money, as you emphasized, Mr.
Chairman. And again, it did not have to happen.
You were there sounding the
warning. * The warning the Chairman was sounding was the CBO projections could
not be relied upon. In fact the Chairman
stated the budget surpluses of the late 1990s were “unexpected” * It is
on the record if anyone would choose to check. And yet you were ignored and the
members of your committee and the leadership, or at least on the Democratic
side, was ignored. It seemed as though the policy was anything but the Clinton
administration's economic policy. * The CBO said the higher revenues
were not a result of any change in policy. The most critical point of this
deception exposure is the dramatic revenue increase relative to GDP had nothing
to do with tax policy. It had everything
to do with the tech/dotcom boom and hyped stock market, all of which was over
before Bill Clinton left office. * And now we find
ourselves in as bad a situation as has existed almost for 75 years. I greatly
thank you for raising that issue.
* Here is one of my videos on the temporary Clinton
economy: Senator
Obama - Plan for Wage and Job Growth - Devil in the details *
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Moran, in addition to
what you just said, not only did the deficit come down in 1998, 1999, 2000 and
2001 as a result of the Clinton administration's policies * Not according
to the CBO in 2001 * , but employment went up also. Every year the bottom line of the
budget got better and better and better for 8 straight years and so did the job
market, to the point where the average job creation in the Clinton
administration was 230,000 a month. * As noted there was a
tech/dotcom boom during this period.
Netscape went public in August 1995 marking the beginning of the boom
and the
bubble burst in March of 2000. First
time unemployment claims began
to rise in April 2000. All while
Bill Clinton was President. * Twenty-two million jobs were created as
opposed to this dismal picture here for the last year of the Bush
administration. So 230,000 jobs a month on average, all together 22 million
jobs created during the Clinton administration. * Job growth was a result of
the massive investments
associated with the Tech/Dotcom boom that peaked in 2000. Unemployment began to increase in April 2000
before Clinton left office. *
And it was connected with, I
think to some extent, the virtuous fiscal policy * Amazing how the Chairman
words this. “I think to some
extent.” I think to a great extent there
would have been continued budget deficits without the temporary tech/dotcom
boom of the late 1990s. Just look at the
budget picture in the early 1990s when President Clinton was projecting
deficits for as far as the eye could see * we were running at that time which shows you
that it does pay to have sound fiscal policy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. It
was clearly connected to confidence in the economy and the people that were
directing the economy and their reliance upon the private sector, but
recognizing that the Federal Government had a role in terms of regulation * This becomes laughable. Enron and Worldcom
frauds were taking place during this time, which I will argue contributed to
the artificial run up in stock prices generating more capital gains taxes. * and in
terms of monetary policy and in terms of balancing the budget. The budget was
balanced, and it was creating jobs, and now to think that we have gone from
increasing jobs from 230,000 to losing 600,000 jobs a month, 20,000 a day, just
an unbelievable reversal in terms of employment * not
if you study the economy of the late 1990s and 2000 and how the layoffs began
in April 2000.* that parallels a fiscal
reversal of $12 trillion from what the administration inherited * This is a
classic misuse of a projection.
Comparing a projected result to an actual result without evaluating the
assumptions is irrelevant. Political deception at its finest * to the
situation we find ourselves in now.
Mr. SPRATT. Let me turn to
Mr. Melancon and yield to him, the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. MELANCON. I apologize
for being tardy in arriving on the floor. I seem to be spending an inordinate
amount of time explaining to my constituents some of the false information *
Interesting choice of words about false information. Perhaps he should have been here to correct
all the previous misinformation * that is getting put out
there as though the deficits showed up yesterday at our doorstep unbeknownst to
anyone before.
Some 8 years ago we had an
estimated $5.6 trillion surplus projected out over the next 10 years * classic
use of a projection for deception.
Projection deception
tactic is illegal in the private sector and Mr. Melancon says he is
addressing false information. If you have ever wondered how the great frauds of
our time occur, they
all have the elements as what you are seeing on display here today.* As we
stand here today, that surplus * now he doesn’t even reference it as a projected
surplus * has turned to a deficit in excess of $10 trillion, and that is
on budget. I know I don't need to explain that to you, but off budget I guess
it is another several trillion dollars. Then if you go and use the accrual form
of accounting, as businesses do, and people that are in the business world
would understand, we are at $56 trillion and growing deficit, not talking about
the number of jobs * Now he is blaming Bush for all the future Entitlement commitments
that the CBO said in 2001 were going to overwhelm us in debt, even with the
$5.6 trillion surplus in the next 10 years.
This is the real strategy of the Democratic Party, to blame Bush for
every financial ill of this country, in spite of the fact we were going to have
them no matter who was in charge.
Political opportunism at its worst. * .
So if we are out here in an
economy, and of course a lot of what I hear from people is there is so much
waste in the stimulus bill, the things that were there are a miniscule part
that were made to sound like it was a whole package wrought with nothing but
people's special projects. As we move to try and remove some of those things
and get a viable bill that addresses stimulating the economy and putting people
back to work and addresses the needs of trying to keep the United States
economy from collapsing, because if we don't do that, I think the irony is that
people around the world are looking to the United States while each one of their
governments are trying to figure out what it is that they need to do to
stabilize their economy. They are watching the United States because we are the
kingpin. If we fold, we are going to be the tail that wags this dog, and we are
going to be the people who can hopefully keep our Nation afloat and keep the
rest of the world hoping that we keep away from a depression as our
forefathers, my parents and grandparents experienced, and a few who still live
today remember.
When we start looking at what
has occurred in this Nation, the relevant parties that were running the
government over the last 8 years, borrowing money, spending money, right now
the fourth largest item in our budget is the interest on the money that our
government has borrowed, and 40 percent of our debt is held by foreign
countries. We are already leveraged. We are a country that used to be a gross
producer of agriculture. We used to be able to hold our own in manufacturing
and energy independence. We are none of those any more.
As we move forward, placed
in our lap is not the opportunity, but placed in our lap is the disaster that
has been laid at our doorstep * This disaster has been building for years, and
if not for the temporary tech/dotcom boom and temporary peace dividend in the
late 1990s and 2000, would have continued through the Clinton years. *, and
now we have to figure out how to get us back, how to stabilize this economy,
how to fill that gap of the trillions of dollars that has been robbed from it * Does anyone
know what this means? * so that we can move forward so that my children, my
constituents' children, and all of the constituents in this country's children
and grandchildren can hope to have a better future. We shouldn't be the people
that have to be the bearer of bad news.
What we have facing us
today, as you have shown, just in 1 year, 3.6 million jobs lost, some
500,000-plus in the last month, that is not government working for the good of
the people. * But it
could be government working for the ill of the people. * So we
have a lot that we need to do.
[Page: H1065]
I thank you for the
opportunity to join you here on the floor here this afternoon.
Mr. SPRATT. I now yield to
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of
Connecticut. I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I am glad to
associate myself with his opening remarks and those of the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
Let me say that we were
fortunate this past weekend at our issues conference to have the President of
the United States address us. He said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Look at what I
have inherited. *
One-quarter of the population moving into retirement (in addition to those
already there) with unchecked entitlement programs, I assume this is the
inheritance he is talking about. *
I think, Mr. Chairman, as
you have done throughout your stellar career, you have outlined from a
budgetary perspective the God-awful mess that President Obama has inherited. * Every
President since FDR has refused to deal with the entitlements associated with
the retiring baby-boom generation. And
now that it is upon us, President Obama complaining about is somehow considered
part of the solution? What this is is
the Democratic Party grasping at political opportunism to blame Bush for the
long predicted financial situation we are now in. And the retiring baby-boom generation doesn’t
even include the fact that 2/3rds of the adult population are now obese or overweight.
* In fact, this is a cavernous hole that he finds himself in, as
does our Nation.
Mr. Melancon pointed
out exactly how deep a hole has been dug and what this problem means to every
American, not only from the standpoint of our national debt, but clearly from
the number of jobs that have been lost, from the number of people who have lost
their homes, and lost their health care.
Now you have done a great
job as chairman of our committee always bringing forward in detail. But, you
know, Harper's magazine did an article just this past month called ``The $10
Trillion Hangover'' in which they specifically, almost but not as succinctly as
your charts and graphs have indicated, but spell out how we got to this point. * Did they
address the specifics of the temporary Clinton economy as detailed in the CBO
2001 report? If not, then they didn’t
detail anything. Note how these
Democrats always talk about the results, but never the specific policy that
lead to the budget surpluses of the 1990s.
As close as they get is the tax hike in 1993; however, the CBO in 2001
said the recent tax revenue increases had nothing to do with tax policy. *
I think Americans all across
this great country as our new President struggles to deal with the hole that
this previous administration has left us * Political opportunism at
its finest * , want to know how we got here and how we make this steady,
determined ascent out of this cavernous hole. * I suggest you study the
temporary Clinton economy and the massive investments being made by the private
sector during the tech/dotcom boom. Then
you will understand the need for tax policy that encourages capital investment
and rewards the people who succeed. You
should understand the top 1% did the best in the temporary Clinton economy *
But the daunting task before
this President is laid out before the American public with the 3.6 million jobs
lost, with the projected recession in growth, and what we have heard from every
single economist that has come before us is the difficult and uncharted waters
that we are in. And that doesn't count what we anticipate might happen with the
other shoe, credit default swaps and derivatives, and where the bottom is on
that.
[Time: 17:15]
And yet this President, with
the help of this Congress and under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi * who uses
the same tactic of deception.
Links: 2009, 2008. Here
is the 2009 video: Speaker
Pelosi and the Obama Budget - Democratic Deception *
, strives to make
that move, that steady, determined ascent by both providing economic investment
and economic recovery and, as important, economic stability for all of our
citizens. So I commend the gentleman for bringing forward what is at best a
very bleak picture for America, but to be counterweighted by the determination
of this Congress and Members who have come here to the floor this evening * note the total disregard for ability of Americans to succeed * to make sure that there is a steady ascent from
the depths of this cavernous hole, dug in unprecedented fashion, where people
were asleep at the switch, not watching what was going on, and running up
unprecedented debt, where two wars were unpaid for, a Medicare bill unpaid for,
tax cuts unpaid for, all to come home to roost. But determined we are as a
Nation and as a Congress to make a steady and determined ascent out of the
depths of this cavernous hole dug by this previous administration. * Classic political opportunism all based on the temporary tech/dotcom
budget surpluses while Clinton was president. *
I
thank the gentleman.
Mr.
SPRATT. I yield now to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).
Mr.
BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr.
Speaker, I'm delighted to be here with you, Mr. Chairman. You have been a great
leader for us on these fiscal issues and budget issues of the United States
Government. You understand how our economic model works as well as anyone. And
the fact that if we, as a government, as a people, if we're going to provide
services which are normal government functions for our people, those services
have to be paid for in some way.
Mr.
Speaker, I came to this Congress 12 years ago, 12 years ago last month, having
campaigned much on the idea of fiscal responsibility. At that point in time,
the Congress was controlled by Republicans, and the administration was in the
hands of a Democrat. They were working very hard to solve a serious fiscal
problem that was inherited in 1992 by the then-new Clinton administration. And
this Congress and that administration worked hard. I came in in the middle of
that and was happy to play some very minor role in moving this country toward
fiscal responsibility, moving out of a period of 30-plus years of deficit
spending toward recognizing the fact that we needed to pay our bills and that
we should have enough money to do that, either by cutting spending or by making
the revenue and the spending match in some way.
In
4 short years, by 2001, when President Bush took office, this country had moved
to a surplus situation, as you have heard described here, surpluses as far as
the eye could see. * Notice there is no reference to the
fact the surpluses “as far as the eye could see” was based on the assumptions
requiring the continuation of the dotcom/tech boom, which was over before Bill
Clinton left office. That all depends on
what assumptions you choose to accept and what uncertainties you choose to
ignore in the 2001 CBO budget projection.*
We had our budgets in balance. And there were a group of us fiscal
conservatives, and a group I work with, called the Blue Dogs.
As
President Bush came in and proceeded to advance his economic package, we told
him there were three things he needed to do with that surplus. Number one is
cut taxes, lower taxes. All of us want lower taxes. If you have a surplus, then
you have room to do that. You should do it.
Secondly,
you should deal with the long-term problems that this country faces. We all
knew back then, as we know now, that Social Security and Medicare, the
entitlements, are going to be a serious, serious drain on this Nation as we
move forward from this point. It is much more critical now than it was even
back then. So let's take part of that surplus and deal with and fix the
structural problems that existed in Social Security and Medicare so that those
programs would continue to exist on into the 21st century and continue to
create a lifestyle when people get into retirement that enables them to be
productive rather than to be a drain on society. *
The CBO in 2001 said that even with a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10
years we were still
at risk to be overwhelmed by Federal debt. *
And
thirdly, we should take the balance of the money and pay down debt. This
country had been running deficits and creating debt for 30 years running. And
it was time to stop that and to begin to lower that debt bill, that side of the
ledger, if you will. Why would you want to do that? Number one, is you always
prepare something for the downturn days. Those were good days economically. But
we knew, all of us knew that wouldn't last forever, that you would eventually
have a downturn in the economy, and you would need some cushion to make sure
that you could survive those downturns. We also know that from time to time in
the history of this Nation we have disasters, whether they be natural disasters
or manmade disasters. And in this case, the 9/11 disaster was a manmade
disaster, but nevertheless one we that had to deal with. And so you look at
things like that and you want to have a reserve. And this package that the
then-President Bush pushed overlooked that and didn't accommodate that.
The
other thing you do by lowering debt is you lower your debt service, your
interest costs that you have to pay annually, and you are able to spend more of
your revenue base on the programs that are important to Americans, whether it
be Medicare, Social Security, health care, education or national security or
whatever it may be. Why would you want to take the money and pay debt service,
interest, if you will, rather than put it in the programs that are important to
people and help people? So we explained all this to the President and to his
team, his OMB director and his Vice President. They kind of made fun of us and
said, oh, no, no. We're going to have plenty of money. If you pay down debt,
you pay it down too fast, and there would be prepayment penalty problems. And
gosh knows, I wish we had that problem today.
We
are in a very serious situation now as a result of those policies. * And the fact the retiring baby-boom generation is now retiring and
entitlements have never been adjusted to deal with the new demands. * Even on the
tax-cut side, we had an opportunity to fix some very serious problems in our
Tax Code that we talk a lot about today. The AMT, the alternative minimum tax,
could have been fixed permanently in 2001. The estate tax, all of us know the
problems that the estate tax causes our small business people, our ranchers and
farmers. That could have been fixed permanently in 2001. How about the child
tax credit? How about the marriage penalty? All of those problems that we face
today could have very easily been permanently fixed in 2001. And it was passed
on to jam the money into the marginal tax bracket categories. * An economy and stock market going into decline before Clinton left
office also had something considerable to do with declining tax revenues. *
[Page: H1066]
So,
we find ourselves 8 years down the road, as Mr. Spratt and others have
talked about, in a very serious, serious hole. America has found itself in this
kind of place before. And we will buckle up. We will put our shoulder to the
wheel. And Americans will, as they begin to understand this a little bit better
* not until they understand the deception
tactic of the Democratic Party is based on portraying the temporary Clinton
economy as something that was permanent * ,
as our new, wonderful President Barack Obama takes this message out to the
world, out to the country, then Americans will be asked to do the things that
we have to do to restore our position in the world as the economic, the
political and the military leader of the world.
So,
again, I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, to my constituents and to the rest of
the world out there, I stand ready to work with Mr. Spratt, Speaker Pelosi,
Mr. Hoyer, our majority leader, and our new President, President Obama,
to tackle these tough problems. Some tough decisions have to be made in the
coming months as to how we blunt the effects of this economic downturn, how we
soften the impact, how we shorten the length of the economic downturn. It's
going to be a very difficult thing to do. And it's going to be painful. But we
can do it.
I
want to thank Mr. Spratt for leading this Special
Order.
Mr.
SPRATT. I now yield to the gentleman from Maryland, our distinguished majority
leader, Mr. Hoyer.
Mr.
HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. But much more than that, I thank him
for the work he does as our chairman of the Budget Committee and for the work
he has done over the years as ranking member, the minority member of the Budget
Committee, for being consistent *
You have to be kidding!! In 2001 Spratt
said the budget
surpluses were unexpected and could just as easily turn against us, and now
he says the deficits are all Bush’s fault *
and, in my opinion, accurate in his observations as to what we would reap from
the fiscal policies we have sowed over the last 8 years. *
This is amazing. We have ignored
entitlements for 30 years, they are now over 60 percent of the budget and
growing, and Mr. Hoyer says it all happened in the last 8 years. *
We
are here today, in my opinion, to be honest with the American people. * Oh please, give me a break *
They need to know that this economic crisis will not end overnight. I think the
chairman has made that pretty clear. And they need to know the reasons for the
deep, deep, deep fiscal hole we have inherited after 8 years of fiscal
recklessness. * The CBO in 2001 said the economic outlook
was so uncertain we could return to deficits without any policy changes and
Mr. Hoyer says it is all Bush’s fault.
This is political opportunism in its purest form. * In fact, the projected deficit for fiscal year
2009 is $1.2 trillion. That is a figure difficult to comprehend. It's a figure
particularly difficult to comprehend when President Bush and his economic
advisers opined that they were worried about paying off the debt too early
under the Clinton policies. * Now you have just seen how you can extrapolate the budget surpluses
generated directly from tech/dotcom boom, a hyper inflated stock market and the
temporary defense spending cuts from the post cold war into Clinton
policies. Even the CBO says the tax
revenue spike had nothing to do with tax policy. *
One
point two trillion dollars of deficits. Two factors have helped create that
record-shattering number, the consistent irresponsibility of the past
administration * Wouldn’t a few facts like the collapse
of the Tax Revenue spike that occurred during the budget surplus years that
were a direct result of the tech/dotcom boom and the hyped stock market, as
well as the full employment during that same period, the trends for all of
which had reversed when Bill Clinton was still President. If this temporary
Clinton economy had lasted for just 8 more months (until February 2001,) the
Republicans would have had no chance to explain what happened. * and our efforts to dig out of the economic mess he
left us. It was not that long ago that you could hear on this floor heated
debates about how to spend a projected $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus created
under the Presidency of Bill Clinton. *
Projections are based on assumptions so what Mr. Hoyer is saying is: there was
a 10 year $5.6 trillion budget surplus projection based on continuation of the
tech/dotcom boom, which had burst before Clinton left office, but let’s not
consider that because the CBO assumed it was going to continue, and to tell
everyone about the CBO assumptions would expose my intention to deceive every
American that might be listening. *
Who would have thought, who would have thought then that our surplus would be
wiped out by one President's borrow-and-spend foolishness by five
record-setting budget deficits in 7 years? * Or wiped out by
assumptions that did not come to fruition as the CBO said had a chance of
occurring without any policy changes from the next president. *
I
would remind my colleagues, who undoubtedly need no reminding, that there has
been a hegemony of power, a monopoly of power, a singular control of policy
over the last 8 years. Now I understand some of my Republican friends would
say, well, the Democrats were installed because of the obvious need for change
recognized by the American voters in 2006. They put you in charge in 2006 and
2008. That is true. But as I also point out, the President was not on the
ballot, and two-thirds of the United States Senate was not on the ballot, and
therefore, it was impossible to make the change that America knew was needed. * Wait just a minute; nothing can become law without the House passing
the bill. What a copout. * They have done that now. But they have done it
after a very deep hole has been dug. *
And it is getting bigger *
While
Democratic budgets were on pace to eliminate all of our public debt * assuming the dotcom/tech boom etc, etc had continued, which even a
casual observer of history will tell you did not happen *, today we are more indebted than ever. The
national debt is now over $10 trillion from that projected $5.6 trillion of
surplus. * This statement goes beyond the
deception associated with a budget projection; he now blames Bush for all the
debt ever incurred. * Who projected that? * The CBO did say in 2001 we could pay off the debt or we had the possibility
of returning to deficits without any policy changes. * Not Bill Clinton. George Bush. * Actually it was the CBO on January 31, 2001, but who’s counting? * President Bush's OMB projected that. * Actually the CBO projected the $5.6 trillion on January 31,
2001. OMB also was projecting a
surplus. * Who told us that? President George Bush in
2001, speaking in this Chamber, told us that is the surplus that we could
expect.
Tragically,
that was dissipated. That $10 trillion of debt now has replaced that $5.6
trillion of anticipated surplus. *
No where will you find where the CBO states the surplus is “anticipated.” In the last four paragraphs Mr. Hoyer has
used deception with a projection three times. Does anyone believe this constant
reference is by accident? The CBO in
2001 prepared the projection and the CBO made extensive attempts in the report
to communicate the uncertainties of the $5.6 trillion surplus budget. What a perfect example of deception with a
projection. Does everyone now understand
the ease by which people can be deceived with financial projections? Does anyone wonder why this tactic of
deception with a projection was made illegal in the private sector with the
passage of The Securities Act of 1933?
Is Mr. Hoyer violating a public trust?
Here is one of my videos on this subject: Clinton Deception - $5.6
Trillion Budget Surplus - Same applies to Obama
*
[Time: 17:30]
We
will be paying hundreds of billions of dollars in interest on that debt that we
have incurred. That's just one more way in which the Bush legacy means large
structural deficits for years to come. *
Once again the Democratic Party’s fall back is on the deception associated with
the temporary Clinton economy. *
So
what does that mean for our economy and for American families? It's easy to see
a budget as nothing more than numbers on a page and it's just a short step from
there to agreement with former Vice President Cheney's nostrum that deficits
don't matter. In fact, he said that Ronald Reagan taught us that, that deficits
didn't matter.
Unfortunately,
the Federal Government pursued that policy. Unfortunately, business pursued
that policy, and unfortunately, and tragically, to their harm, too many
consumers followed that policy. But deficits do matter. Mr. Speaker, they
matter profoundly.
Deficits
and debt tie up huge amounts of capital, and when it comes to mitigating a
financial emergency in the early stages, they tie our hands too.
Republican
fiscal policies have also made massive borrowing seem normal and acceptable, as
I said, the five largest deficits in history over the last 8 years. They've set
the disastrous example that it's just as acceptable for a household as for a government
to live far beyond its means. And just as surely as unchecked borrowing can pay
for unsustainable luxury today, the bill will come due.
In
2006 Comptroller General David Walker told us that American irresponsibility,
public and private, will gradually, and this is a quote, ``will gradually
erode, if not suddenly damage, our standard of living and ultimately our
national security.'' How true his words were.
Mr.
Speaker, there's nothing to gain from pointing fingers at the last 8 years * This statement is amazing, then why have you spent the entire speech
doing just that? *, but there is much to learn and a
great deal to gain from looking back honestly at the fiscal choices we've made
in the past. * And this should include an honest
analysis of how the budget surpluses under Clinton were achieved and how the
$5.6 trillion surplus budget projection was based on assumptions that called
for the continuation of those temporary events. *
We learned just how much this painful legacy will complicate our efforts to
confront this crisis, and we strengthen our pledge to return this Nation to
budgetary sanity. * What is painful to me is watching you
Democrats succeed with your Party endorsed intentional deception tactic that
became infamous in the 1920s, a tactic that could send a CEO to prison. *
With
your leadership, and with the courage on both sides of the aisle, on both sides
of Capitol Hill, hopefully, we will accomplish that. * There will be no success until you choose to forgo the political opportunism
associated with the results of the temporary Clinton economy. As highlighted in the first video, Senator
Obama used the tactic to win the Presidency. *
While
economists agree that getting out of this recession will require deficit
spending, that spending would be deeply irresponsible without a long-term plan
to restore fiscal health.
I
know, Mr. Chairman, you're focused on that objective. I am as well, and all the
Congress needs to be, as well as the American people. Getting the budget under
control is going to require hard choices, choices we're going to see reflected
in President Obama's first budget, in my opinion. It will be a serious document
for serious times because getting back on a sustainable fiscal path is going to
take sacrifices from every one of us. But we can call confidently for those
sacrifices for two reasons. First, because they will be truly shared from
Members of Congress to every working family. And secondly, because if we put
off our hard choices, they will grow harder and harder by the year, until
they're absolutely crippling.
Last
month we heard our new President declare, and I quote, ``a new era of
responsibility.'' * The “new era of responsibility” did not
keep the President from using the same tactic of projection deception in his
budget. Here is a link to a text
summary of this event. * This is what it looks
like. This is where we are. Let's meet it with our eyes open and make the best
of it together.
Mr.
Chairman, there's been much made of bipartisanship. I'm for bipartisanship. But
I note, in 1990, there were really three reasons we created that $5.6 billion
surplus. * I assume he meant trillion, and now he
doesn’t even bother to say it was a projection. There was never a $5.6 trillion
surplus created. This is blatant
deception with the use of a projection. *
We made an agreement with President Bush I in 1990. In 1993 we passed a bill
that set us on a fiscally responsible course, and in 1997, in a bipartisan way,
we confirmed that course. Unfortunately, history shows us that we haven't had
bipartisan support. * What about the tech/dotcom boom that was
fueled by massive private investment that led to the high paying temporary
jobs, a hyper inflated stock market generating huge capital gains tax revenues,
the top earners doing well so the progressive tax revenues generated more tax
per GDP. And let’s not forget the
Defense spending cuts while we chose to ignore terrorist attacks around the
world, and at home. Here is a link
to my analysis of the temporary Clinton economy. *
In
the 1990 Budget Act, one of the key three steps that got us to that $5.6
trillion budget surplus * Not even a reference to it being a
projection. Classic and blatant
deception. Never will you see a better
example of political opportunism than this.
It is easy to understand why deception with a projection is illegal in
the private sector as the only people who will recognize this attempt at
deception are those of us trained to detect such deception. If
you have ever wondered how the biggest frauds of our time occur, it is because they all have in
common the same elements as you see on display here today. My video featuring the three North Dakota
Democrats explains very well how this deception technique is intentional and
how a deception spreads among people with shared opportunity and shared belief
in their respective abilities to be successful at deceiving Americans: Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) -
Ethics - $5.6 Trillion Surplus *
, when we passed it
through the House, there were only 10 Republican yeses, only 10. That was one
of the key steps in getting us to fiscal surplus. * And there would never have been a surplus without the temporary
Clinton economy. * Not one of those 10 serves in the
House of Representatives today.
In
1993, of course, no Republicans voted for that bill. And in 1997, it was a
bipartisan bill, which, Mr. Chairman, you and I both voted for. We then came on
very hard times and we confronted the TARP bill.
[Page: H1067]
Let
me go back to 1993, however, when I said no Republicans voted for that bill.
When it came back from conference, excuse me, there were no Republicans that
voted for that bill. But in 1990, when it came back from conference there were
47 Republicans ``ayes.'' One of them remains here today.
Now,
one could draw the conclusion that, well, they lost because of those votes.
That would be the dead wrong conclusion. What they lost as a result of, I
think, first of all, retiring, and secondly, feeling that perhaps their party
was moving in a direction that they could not agree with. * How about the Democratic policy of deception with a projection
convincing people the Democrats were somehow responsible for the Clinton
surpluses? Democrats use this as a theme
in every election is not happening by accident. *
I hope that their party and this party comes together. * Oh please *
On
the TARP vote that we had to meet this crisis caused by this fiscal
irresponsibility * It never stops. We must demand explicit
details or forever be at the mercy of deceptive politicians. * , the Democratic Party stood with President Bush
in making very hard votes, and the majority of us did so. The minority of his
party chose not to do so.
It is time for the majority of
both parties to stand with the American people and future generations to return
fiscal responsibility *
What year are you speaking of? * to this Nation and to our people. *
The first step will be for the Democrats to understand the important elements
in the temporary Clinton economy, how that temporary spike in revenues was
projected forward resulting in the $5.6 trillion projected budget surplus and
then make an equally concerted effort to explain to the American people what
actually happened as opposed to their concerted effort to deceive
Americans. This will be difficult for
them to do because of the success they are experiencing through their use of
deception. But the first step, as just
stated, is to understand how the tax revenue spike occurred. This video of mine will get them started: Part 2 - 1990s economy and
budget surplus – Revenues *
I
thank the chairman for his leadership. *
Leadership on how to deceive? Is Mr.
Spratt where you learned it? *
Mr.
SPRATT. I thank the gentleman. And I yield the balance of our time to Dr. SCHRADER
from the State of Oregon, a freshman Member, a veterinarian, I believe. Let me
find out from the Speaker how much time is remaining.
The
SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bright). The gentleman from South Carolina has
6 minutes remaining.
Mr.
SPRATT. Six minutes.
Mr.
SCHRADER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To be honest, I was not going to
even speak today. I had thought that the legacy and the problems that we
confront right now are such that I look forward to working with my Republican
colleagues as well as my Democratic colleagues to help solve some of these
problems. And so, as a result of that, I wanted to be building some bridges and
look to build some bridges with some of my moderate colleagues across the
aisle.
But
I've become very disturbed with the tendency, as we talk about some of the
problems and solutions to some of those problems that are left behind by 8
years of fiscal mismanagement * Once again the
Democratic Party is living off of the myth and deception associated with the
temporary Clinton economy and the ensuing budget surpluses. * , that there's going to be an attempt to paint
Democrats, as we come into control, as people seek fiscal responsibility with
President Obama and the Congress of the United States of America, paint the
fiscal picture as a Democratic problem. And I take great offense at that. * If I were emotional
about the Democratic Party’s deception I would be offended also, but after 30+
years as an auditor, I have learned not to be offended. I have learned to just get the facts out and
let them speak for themselves. Let’s
take this opportunity to understand the driving force in the success of the
temporary Clinton economy. If the
Democratic Party does not try to replicate this element leading to the
surpluses of the Clinton years, then it will in fact be a Democratic
problem This early video of mine
explains one of the primary elements of the economy of 1995 to 2000 which were
massive private capital investment: The
Clinton Economy of the 1990s *
I
spent a few years in our State legislature in the great State of Oregon trying
to balance our budget. No easy task. And I think this administration, with this
Congress, with Speaker Pelosi * I wonder if Mr.
Schrader considers this work by Speaker Pelosi worthy of praise?: Speaker Pelosi - $5.6
Trillion Surplus Political Deception Explained - September 29, 2008 *
and
Senator Reid, deserve a great deal of credit for coming forward and
talking about how to get us out from under. *
Until you explain how the Clinton surpluses occurred, the Democratic Party will
be living on deception. *
I'd
like to just reiterate a few facts that I know have been discussed perhaps at
length here, but I think it's important for Americans to understand clearly how
we got into this mess. We now have a deficit of $1.2 trillion, at least, in
2009. That's a stark contrast to the budget surplus *that was a result of the temporary tech/dotcom bubble and cuts in
defense spending that was over before Bill Clinton left office * that many, including the good gentleman, majority
leader from Maryland have talked about. *
Talked about without providing one detail on the major economic events (capital
investment, hyped stock market, etc, etc) *
The
debt of the United States officially is $10.7 trillion. I'd like to make an
argument in a couple of minutes that it's actually a great deal more than that.
The interest payments now consume more than our major spending on education,
veterans benefits and indeed non-mandatory health care programs. That's a
travesty in an industrialized Nation like ours.
Thirteen straight months of job
losses, 22 straight months of declining home prices, the majority of stock
indices down 37 percent. And the real income of the average American family
hasn't gone up. If you're in the rich 10 percent of Americans, yeah, sure,
you've done great *
just like in the temporary Clinton economy of the 1900s and 2000 * . Your income's doubled. You've done
very well. * We must take this opportunity to look at a
similar fairness point Senator Clinton made during the campaign: Hillary Clinton on Economic
Fairness in the 1990s. *
But
95 percent of Americans have seen their income fall, and in this day and age
that's unconscionable. Right now, in the greatest industrialized Nation in the
world, 7 million Americans without health care. That just shouldn't be
happening.
I
would like to reference just a few key points here, Mr. Chairman, about our
debt. Where are we really as we try and dig out? Our official national debt has
doubled. We're at $10.7 trillion. We were at five plus not 8 years ago.
But
I would argue it's worse than that, unfortunately. Americans need to know that,
and it's going to take probably the next 8 to 10 years of serious budget work,
under your leadership, to create a path to getting back on a budget surplus * and when mandatory spending is over 60% of the budget, there will be
deficits until this is addressed. Just
like the CBO said in 2001, even with the assumption of a $5.6 trillion budget
surplus over the next 10 years. Of
course those assumptions did not come to fruition. * , or at least no longer deficit spending with
items off budget, like you've heard discussed here today.
The
projected deficit for 2009, yeah, probably at least $1.2 trillion. We inherited
that. I'd argue that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac added about a $5 trillion
increase to our debt, and even under the most conservative estimates, at least,
have a tough time gaining $1.6 trillion of that back, under best of
circumstances. The debt from the other bailouts adds at least another half
trillion dollars. We're talking about the AIG bailout and the numerous stock
and bond portfolios that we've had to bail out at taxpayer expense.
Future
interest on the new debt. Historic. I mean, it's $1.2 trillion. Americans need
to understand that that interest is consuming a lot of our ability to spend on
other great programs.
Medicare
Modernization Act, part D, heralded as a great improvement in drug benefits for
a lot of Americans; while I'm not sure they'd agree they've gotten those benefits
with the doughnut hole and inability to negotiate best prices. But what they
can be sure of is it costs another $800 billion that we don't have.
The
last administration thought they could fight a war, they thought they could increase
spending, and they thought they could give tax cuts all at the same time. I
don't think there's a household in America that believes that's good policy,
good financial policy or a path to success. *
The budget surpluses in the Clinton years were the direct result of massive
capital spending from the private sector.
If you are going to follow the Clinton model, we need policies that
encourage massive private sector capital spending. *
Right
now we're investing more in the war. We're not taking care of our veterans that
come home. I think we need to be turning that around. It will cost some money
to do that. And over the next 8, 10 years, as the administration, led by
President Obama and you, Mr. Chairman, seek a path to fiscal responsibility, Americans
need to know it's going to take time *
this is so the Democrats can continue to run on the budget surpluses of the
temporary Clinton economy * and it's going to
take a little effort. We're going to have to watch what we do on the mandatory
programs. We're going to have to watch what we do on defense spending, we're
going to have to watch what we do on wealthy tax breaks.
We
need to get back to the sound budgeting principles that we had under the
Clinton administration and previous democratic administrations. The fact that
the last 8 years there was no PAYGO is a testament to the fiscal
irresponsibility of the previous administration * PAYGO in the
1990s and 2000 had nothing to do with the record tax revenues to GDP generated
because of the capital gains from the hyped stock market * . I'm proud to be associated with a Congress that
believes that is important, and that we will be doing great things in the
future.
Mr.
Chairman, we are in a world of hurt here. The D word, the D word, not deficit, * not deceit and not deception
which is what will need to be exposed before Americans understand what really
is going on in the halls of congress *
but depression is being mentioned in the corners of this building. I hope that
is not the case. I look forward to your leadership and leadership of President
Obama * who also used the same deception
tactic in his budget on February 26, 2009 *
and the Congress to get us out from under. Thank you, sir. * President Obama also
used the same deception tactic to win the Presidency. See for yourself: Economic
Deception!!!! - Senator Obama - Clinton Economy *
Mr.
SPRATT. I thank the gentleman for his statement and yield back the balance of
our time.
END
*Watching these elected politicians twisting in the wind trying to make
their flawed facts and contradictions in logic appear to the American public as
thoughtful insight always reminds me of the cliché in the business world of
putting on a “song and a dance.” If you
can last until the last two minutes of my video, you will understand what I
mean: Democratic Response to Bush
Budget Analyzed - 2 *