[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                PRESIDENT'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, February 5, 1998

  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Budget 
Committee, to analyze the President's budget for FY 1999.
  The federal budget isn't just an accounting tool. It's a vision of 
the kind of America we want for our families. Our vision is for an 
America where families are restored to their central role in society, 
the entrepreneurial spirit is unleashed in every community, and 
religious and civic organizations are released to solve local problems.
  Unfortunately the President's vision, as outlined in his latest 
budget, is limited to an ever expanding Federal government.
  The President claims that his spending plan achieves a $9.5 billion 
surplus in fiscal year 1999 thereby reaching, an even surpassing, the 
goal of a balanced budget three years sooner than expected.
  But even is that assertion is correct, his budget submission misses 
the real point: balancing the federal budget is not just a bookkeeping 
exercise. Balancing the budget is about moving power out of Washington, 
having more decisions made by families and communities, and putting 
more faith in people rather than Washington ``experts.''
  Balancing the budget is about restraining the size of the federal 
government so that other fundamental institutions--families, religious 
and civic organizations and business enterprises--begin to play their 
appropriate roles in the nation. When government grows, it invades the 
proper roles of these other institutions. The reverse is also true, so 
that when government is restrained, the other institutions grow. That 
is why Congress insisted that last year's budget agreement should not 
only balance the budget, but should also cut taxes at the same time. 
Only by coupling both strategies would the growth of federal 
bureaucracies stay in check. Only in this way could balancing the 
budget achieve the far more important goal of restoring balance among 
the nation's fundamental institutions.
  One example of this restored balanced is the economic growth of the 
past several years, which has contributed significantly to today's 
favorable budget outlook. Critics have long predicted that too much 
deficit reduction, undertaken too fast, would cause the economy to 
contract. Instead, the reverse has happened. As the 104th and 
105th Congresses held fast to their pledge to restrain spending and 
reform government, the engines of economic growth took over. The 
economy grew faster than projected. Interest rates fell, which in 
effect gave everyone a tax cut. Employment climbed. This growth, 
coupled with Congress's spending restraint, fueled our ability to 
quickly reach a balanced budget.

  Another example of how rebuilding fundamental institutions helps all 
Americans is the decline in welfare dependency. This has occurred 
partly because the welfare reform law adopted in 1996--a reform the 
President vetoed twice before finally accepting public demand for it--
devolved responsibilities and control to states and communities, which 
always were better suited to address the problems of poverty. Welfare 
reform gave Governors the flexibility to experiment, and tailor 
programs to their own unique populations. More importantly, it showed 
real compassion for those who received public assistance by encouraging 
taking responsibility for their lives, by making them accountable, and 
by moving them off the welfare rolls and onto payrolls. Since welfare 
reform was enacted, the welfare rolls have declined by 2.2 million 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, the President seems not to have noticed. His budget 
reflects a typical return to expanding government whenever and wherever 
possible. For him, every problem (real or imagined) has a government 
solution--one that puts trust in Washington bureaucrats rather than 
individuals and families.
  The President's budget contains 85 new spending programs, including 
39 new entitlements. In all, these entitlements add nearly $150 billion 
to federal spending over the next five years. Meanwhile, he fails to 
pursue any further reduction in the tax burden on the American family--
who notwithstanding last year's reduction--are still overtaxed. In 
fact, he slams the family budget by gobbling-up over $129 billion more 
of American income in new taxes and fees.
  The President, who speaks of building bridges to the future, is 
actually taking the discredited road of the past--the past that brought 
on the era of big government. His zeal for more spending is disturbing. 
The government should be doing all it can to foster growth of economic 
resources, to provide for long-term prosperity, and to assure that the 
nation can meet its obligations to future generations. The government 
should not look for every way possible to spend these resources.
  Nowhere is this more important than in Social Security--and nowhere 
does the President present a more staggering contradiction. To his 
credit, the President has acknowledged the need to prepare this unique 
program for the coming retirement of 76 million ``baby boomers.'' In 
his State of the Union address, he urged that any budget surpluses that 
appear should be preserved for Social Security's needs. But right now, 
in this budget, he proposes to spend any surpluses and then increase 
taxes and pour those funds into more government programs. All this 
increased spending could, alternatively, be preserved for saving Social 
Security. But the President's actions say more than his words. He would 
rather spend the money on special interest giveaways than provide for a 
safe and secure Social Security system.
  The soul of last year's budget agreement was a commitment to restrain 
the growth of government and to help restore the vitality of America's 
communities, neighborhoods, and families. By contrast, the President's 
budget harkens back to the era of big government. While Americans have 
come to recognize the limits of Washington's ability to solve problems, 
President Clinton continues trying to draw more of American life under 
the control of Washington.
  America is hungry for a positive vision of society, a society that 
values hard work, honesty, and a commitment to family faith and 
freedom. But the President only serves up a vision of more government 
in a budget that is balanced in numbers, not in spirit.

                          ____________________