Requirement in Budget Submission With Respect to the Cost Per Taxpayer of the Deficitby Representative Marlin A. Stutzman
Posted on 2013-03-05
STUTZMAN. Thank you to my friend from Indiana. This is, I
believe, the fifth speaker from Indiana. Maybe we're getting something
right in Indiana--I don't know what it is--but thank you for sharing
We do have a balanced budget in Indiana. We have made sure that we have taken care of the children in education, we've made sure that our law enforcement is taken care of, but we've also made those difficult choices early on that Washington could really learn from in budgeting.
So I appreciate Congressman Messer for bringing this particular bill. It's a good government bill.
[[Page H964]] And I know the other side of the aisle is talking about the sequester. I find it ironic that the Washington Times today has a headline that says 400 more jobs are created, in spite of the sequester. So I don't believe that the sky is falling here.
This legislation requires the President to do some simple math and include with his budget, should he choose to submit one, an estimate of the cost of the deficit per taxpayer. Taxpayers just simply deserve to know how much they owe for Washington's out-of-control spending. After all, every dime that the Federal Government borrows is saddled on this generation and the next generation and generations to follow.
Right now, the cost of Washington's $16 trillion of national debt totals more than $147,000 per taxpayer. In fact, approximately every minute, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government borrows another $4 million per minute, leaving this generation empty promises and massive debt.
This is no way to run a government. If the President refuses to break the cycle of bailouts, borrowing, and tax hikes, taxpayers deserve to know the true cost of the President's irresponsible decisions. The American taxpayers deserve transparency, and that's exactly what this bill does.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague from Indiana, and I thank him for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the support of all of my colleagues here in the House of Representatives.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it's always good to see a show of Hoosier unity on the floor of the House, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in voting for this bill.
The State of Maryland also has a balanced budget, but we also have a capital budget and other parts that we do differently.
Look, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to support this bill. I support transparency. I supported virtually the identical provision 30 days ago. That's really not the issue. Yes, we want more information, and we'll get it.
But the real issue here is the loss of jobs. Now, the previous gentleman mentioned that the Washington Times has an article saying more jobs were created. Thank goodness we are finally seeing more and more jobs created.
We will have economic growth. There will be jobs created. The question is how many fewer jobs we will have as a result of the sequester. The CBO hasn't said it will stop every job from being created.
What the Chairman of the Federal Reserve has said, and what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said, is that this sequester, if it remains in place through the end of the year, will be a drag on growth, so we will have fewer jobs created. In fact, they estimate we will have 750,000 fewer American jobs by the end of the year if we don't do something about the sequester.
So, Mr. Speaker, I'd just go back to the original question: Why take up something we've already done, already passed virtually unanimously, when we have a much more pressing issue and when we, today, will ask for the fourth time this year, when it counts, to vote on a bill that would replace the sequester in a smart and balanced way without the loss of jobs? That's the fundamental question. And why this House is shirking that responsibility and refusing to hold a vote on a proposal that would prevent the loss of 750,000 jobs is a question I think the American people are asking themselves.
So, Mr. Speaker, let's get on to the pressing business. Let's focus on jobs and really reducing the deficit and not playing these kind of games on the floor of the House.