Requirement in Budget Submission With Respect to the Cost Per Taxpayer of the Deficit
by Representative Luke MesserPosted on 2013-03-05
Tweet
MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 668) to amend section 1105(a) of title 31, United States
Code, to require that annual budget submissions of the President to
Congress provide an estimate of the cost per taxpayer of the deficit,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 668
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT IN BUDGET SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO
THE COST PER TAXPAYER OF THE DEFICIT.
Section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) redesignating paragraph (37) (relating to the list of
outdated or duplicative plans and reports) as paragraph (39);
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page H959]]
``(40) in the case of a fiscal year in which the budget is
projected to result in a deficit, an estimate of the pro rata
cost of such deficit for taxpayers who will file individual
income tax returns for taxable years ending during such
fiscal year.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Messer) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 668, currently under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan and
Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen for allowing the House to consider this
measure, which will require the President's annual budget submission to
Congress to include the cost per taxpayer of the deficit for each year
the budget is projected to result in a deficit.
This bill is based on one simple principle: that each hardworking
American taxpayer deserves to know how much the deficit costs them each
year. This requirement would be a powerful reminder to the President
and Congress that our decisions have real-world consequences for
hardworking taxpayers.
It's long past time to hold Washington accountable for its wasteful
spending. The massive national debt has ballooned to an unsustainable
level because Washington has refused to make tough choices, instead,
simply spending money we don't have and ignoring the explosive growth
of entitlements. This abdication of responsibility is delaying the
inevitable until there may not be any good choices left.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As one of the earlier speakers said during the 1 minutes, this bill
simply requires a math calculation, and we have absolutely no objection
to doing that. As the gentleman may know, about a month ago we passed
an amendment that did virtually the same thing.
I do wonder why it is we think the President is better with a
calculator than Congress. Because what this does require simply is that
you take the deficit and you divide it by the number of taxpayers. But
we're certainly fine to have transparency and have the President put
that in his budget as part of his submission as well.
Our concern is that this really doesn't address the fundamental
question that we're facing here in the Congress: number one, making
sure we get the economy kicked into full gear, and jobs; and, number
two, reducing the deficit in a smart and balanced way over a period of
time so that we're not balancing the budget on the backs of our
seniors, that we're not violating commitments we've made to our
seniors, that we're not cutting into education funding for our kids--
which is important to making sure that the economy grows and that they
have opportunities in their lives--and that we do that in a smart way
that doesn't, in the process, result in fewer American jobs.
So the real number we should be focused on here today is 750,000,
because 750,000 is the number of jobs that the independent, nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office says will be lost so long as the sequester
that began March 1 remains in place through the end of this year.
So let me say that again. So long as the sequester that started on
March 1 remains in place through the end of the calendar year, the
independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that we will
have 750,000 fewer American jobs. That's not President Obama's number;
it's not my number; it's an independent number.
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, was on the Hill
testifying just last week and made similar predictions. They have
both--both the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, as well
as the Congressional Budget Office--said that our economic growth
between now and the end of the year will be reduced by a full one-third
if the sequester remains in place. So that's what this House should be
doing.
Today, a little later today, for the fourth time this year--for the
fourth time this year, Mr. Speaker--I will go, on behalf of my
colleagues in the Democratic Caucus, to the Rules Committee and ask for
the opportunity to vote on a piece of legislation that would replace
that sequester in a smart and balanced way and in a way that doesn't
result in 750,000 fewer American jobs.
{time} 1240
Now, you would think our colleagues would want to vote on something
like that instead of voting on a bill that just requires a math
calculation--which is fine--but it doesn't do anything about jobs, and
it doesn't actually do anything to reduce the deficit. But we've not
been given that opportunity.
So I would just ask my colleagues: Why is it so important to bring a
bill to the floor that asks the President to do another math
calculation--which we all can support--and not bring to the floor of
the House a bill that actually would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs
and present a balanced plan to reducing the deficit in a way that
doesn't harm the economy?
That really is the question here today, Mr. Speaker, and maybe at
some point we'll get an answer. And maybe this House will live up to
its promise of being the people's House and a transparent House, and
we'll actually get a vote on our fourth request. I'm not holding my
breath, but it would be nice if those commitments would be kept, as
well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Representative Van Hollen and
his comments. As he well knows, this Chamber has twice considered
sequester replacement bills put forward by the House Republican
leadership, voted on and passed out of this Chamber.
The alternatives are clear. I appreciate his recognition that this
simple little calculation, while admittedly not going to change the
planet Earth, it is important in providing budget transparency and
helping the American taxpayer understand how much money we're spending
here.
We often hear, as you're out in townhall meetings, How much is $1
trillion? And what this bill simply shows is that if you take $1
trillion, if that's the deficit in a given year, and divide it by 145
million taxpayers we have, it adds up to about $6,800 per taxpayer that
we are adding to our debt every year.
Back where I come from in Indiana's Sixth Congressional District,
that's a lot of money. He cited the number 750,000, and I would concede
that $85 billion is a lot of money; but it represents about 2 percent
of what we spend as a Nation every year in our $3.6 billion budget.
I came to the House floor yesterday and held up two pennies
representing the two cents--the two percent--the two cents out of every
dollar that we're asking Congress to trim out of our Federal budget.
Does anybody in America really believe that our Federal Government is
so efficient and so effective that we can't afford to trim two cents
out of every dollar?
Now, clearly, we can do this in a more sensible way. I know of no one
in either Chamber who is not arguing that we ought to find a more
sensible way to bring these reductions forward, but bring them forward
we must.
Now, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
