[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S75-S80]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTURBING FISCAL SITUATION
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, in recent months President Obama has
frequently discussed our Nation's disturbing fiscal situation.
He is right to do so.
Our yearly deficits and accumulated debt hang over the futures of our
children and grandchildren like a sword of Damocles.
Though he was late to the table on this issue, President Obama seems
to have finally recognized the frustration and anger of the American
people over our Federal fiscal policy.
Recognizing that you have a problem is an important first step, and I
applaud the administration for speaking about our Nation's structural
deficits.
But this is a critical issue, and any solution will require that
those responsible give a full and fair accounting of the policies that
led to this crisis.
Unfortunately, rather than own up to his administration's complicity
in our fiscal imbalance, the President prefers to blame our current and
future fiscal problems on the previous administration.
For this President, the buck always seems to stop over there.
This trope is getting old.
Well before citizens began organizing against this administration and
its historic spending spree, the President and
[[Page S76]]
his Democratic allies in Congress were justifying their stimulus
program by blaming the previous administration. Yet trying to pass off
the consequences of the last 2 years on a long-retired President and a
Congress that ended over 4 years ago is no longer plausible.
Try as they might, revisionist fiscal history will not absolve our
friends on the other side for the fiscal decisions made on their watch.
I will explain that point separately, and in detail, in a few days.
It is well past time that this administration stop pointing fingers.
The American people are demanding that their elected Representatives,
in Congress and the White House, act like adults and fix this fiscal
mess.
In a few weeks, President Obama will send Congress his third budget.
The fact that Treasury Secretary Geithner has already written us
requesting legislation to raise the debt ceiling does not bode well for
citizens seeking greater spending restraint from this administration.
The people of Utah and of this Nation deserve a fair accounting of the
spending decisions that have led to this request.
Let me be clear.
The President's desire for a larger level of public debt is a
consequence of the fiscal policy choices that he and a Democratic
Congress have made over the last 2 years.
Between 2007 and 2010, Democrats enjoyed unprecedented control over
Federal policy. When the President was inaugurated 2 years ago, he set
to work with historic majorities in both the House and Senate.
Never letting a crisis go to waste, he sought a fundamental
restructuring of the American economy, one in which government would
play a starring role.
Thanks to our Founders' design, the American people were able to go
to the ballot box and give their opinion about these spending policies.
Unfortunately, the administration and its allies did not curb their
spending in response to democratic uprisings.
The people spoke--first in Virginia and New Jersey, then in
Massachusetts, and finally, last summer, nationwide.
But the Democrats, rather than adjust their policies accordingly,
just kept on spending.
The tab for this binge is almost beyond description. In the 2 years
that Democrats controlled Washington, our debt has risen by almost $3
trillion.
I have a chart documenting these staggering hikes in the debt limit.
During the short period of all-Democratic rule, the law was changed
to raise the debt ceiling on three separate occasions.
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase
bill of $789 billion, the cost of the stimulus bill at that time.
On December 28, 2009, President Obama signed a debt limit increase
bill of $290 billion.
And on February 12, 2010, President Obama signed a third debt limit
increase bill of $1.9 trillion.
These dollar figures, in terms of the percentage of the economy they
represent, are breathtaking. I, like most other Members on both sides
of the aisle, eagerly await the President's State of the Union Address.
The President is a gifted speaker. And in his usual, eloquent manner, I
am sure he will skillfully lay out his fiscal and economic policy
goals.
As the incoming ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, let me
be the first to say that Republicans are happy to hear the President
contemplating serious deficit reduction proposals. We would be
overjoyed if he actually took a stand for a meaningful attack on
structural deficits and the debt.
But we will judge his proposals harshly if they provide mere window
dressing, rather than bold efforts to address a spending trajectory
that is approaching crisis status.
Willie Sutton, the infamous bank robber, was asked why he robbed
banks.
By the way, here is a chart depicting a photo of Mr. Sutton from
Life.com.
How would Willie respond?
He allegedly said he robbed banks because that is where the money is.
If President Obama wants to propose credible deficit reduction
proposals, he needs to go where the deficit dollars are.
And what is the source of those deficits?
Taking Willie Sutton's answer to heart, where do we look for those
deficits?
They are in the trillions of dollars in new spending that the
American taxpayer has been burdened with by this administration.
Non-defense discretionary spending, by itself, has grown by 24
percent over the last couple of years.
And that 24 percent figure does not include the stimulus bill
spending.
If stimulus spending is included, nondefense discretionary spending
has grown by 84 percent.
That is right, Madam President, 84 percent.
How many typical taxpaying American families have grown their budgets
by that much in the last couple of years?
Let's take a look at the Gallup weekly survey of daily consumer
spending as a comparison. I have a chart which shows the trend line in
daily consumer spending.
Over here, we can see from the chart consumer spending before the
financial crisis of fall 2008 and the recession.
It is running near or above $100 per day.
Then what happens?
Americans cut back their extra spending.
It is right here on the rest of the chart.
Is it any wonder Americans are telling us to cut our spending?
They have cut spending. Why can't we in Washington do the same?
When the President laid out his last two budgets, the loudest
bipartisan applause came when he stressed fiscal discipline.
That reaction should surprise no one. Though conservatives led the
way, the American people understand that deficit reduction is not a
partisan issue. If the promises of our Declaration of Independence and
Constitution--promises of liberty and opportunity--are to mean anything
for future generations, our country needs to take up deficit reduction
now.
Republicans are going to insist on meaningful deficit reduction as a
course correction to our currently unsustainable fiscal path. As our
Nation comes out of this painful slow-growth period--hopefully sooner
rather than later--we must focus on cutting the deficit and the debt.
As Republicans, we agree with the President on the priority of fiscal
discipline.
But deeds mean more than words.
And twice, the President's budget, in spite of rhetorical nods to
fiscal discipline, has gone in the direction of unpaid-for spending,
new government programs and entitlements, and massive financial burdens
on the next generation of American taxpayers.
The numbers don't lie.
The President and the Democratic leadership have dramatically
expanded the deficit and piled onto the debt.
Two years ago, Republicans and Democrats dramatically disagreed on
the stimulus bill. Out of all the Republicans in the House and Senate,
only three supported the stimulus bill conference report.
Along with most of my Republican colleagues, I rejected this stimulus
bill for several reasons.
First was the size and the form of the stimulus. Most on our side
understood that $1 trillion in deficit spending was an unacceptable
burden on the people who would ultimately foot the bill.
Second, we questioned the focus of the stimulus. We weren't keen on
trying to grow the economy by priming the government pump. Spending $1
trillion of taxpayer money on the academic theory that you have to
spend money to make money was a gamble the American taxpayer could not
afford. And last year, while the administration and its allies were out
promoting recovery summer, citizens in Utah and around the country had
long before figured out that the administration's stimulus bet was a
big loser.
Finally, what disturbed us most was the hidden fiscal burden built
into the bill. Although sold as a $787 billion bill, the real cost of
the stimulus was, in fact, much higher.
I am going to use a chart to show this hidden cost of the stimulus
bill. This chart was produced last year but will be updated when we
receive the Congressional Budget Office baseline.
According to the nonpartisan CBO, if popular new programs in the
stimulus
[[Page S77]]
bill are made permanent, the cost will be $3.3 trillion.
To use Washington speak, the greatest threat of the new stimulus bill
was that it raised the baseline.
This is a nifty trick if you can pull it off.
Its purpose is to open any future spending cuts, no matter how
modest, to withering attack.
Here is how it works.
First, Democrats raise spending for some program--to borrow from
George Costanza, we will call it The Human Fund.
After Democrats take control of Congress and the White House,
spending for The Human Fund goes up by 25 percent, from $1,000,000 to
$1,250,000.
Then, when the people reject this spending and send Republicans to
roll it back, efforts to cut that spending by a meager 5 percent, from
$1,250,000 to $1,187,500, leads all of the interest groups dependent on
this federal money to scream that the sky is falling.
An attack on The Human Fund is an attack on all that is decent in
this country!
Never mind that this program is still substantially better off than
before the Democrats' massive increase in spending.
All that we will hear is that Republicans are ruthlessly seeking to
cut 5 percent from this program's budget.
And so it goes.
Our deficit and debt continue to grow as irresponsible and
unaffordable increases in spending are baked into our budgetary cake.
This strategy of raising the baseline is on full display in the
stimulus bill and the threat that its programs--sold to the public as
temporary--will become permanent.
This chart details CBO's analysis of the stimulus.
Let us move from left to right on the chart.
The first column is the basic cost of the bill. If the making work
pay refundable tax credit is extended, there is $571 billion in future
deficits.
It is in the second column.
If the new entitlement spending in the stimulus is made permanent,
then the cost of the bill more than doubles.
It means almost $1 trillion in new hidden entitlement spending right
here.
In the fourth column, we have the appropriations spending.
If those increases become permanent, then there is $276 billion in
new nondefense discretionary appropriations in this bill.
Finally, we have the rent on all this borrowed money. That is the
interest expense. CBO tells us that the interest cost alone on the
overt new spending and the hidden new spending from the stimulus totals
$744 billion.
Total it all up, and we get $3.3 trillion, not $787 billion.
The total cost of the stimulus is $3.3 trillion.
Our Nation can simply no longer afford this.
These are CBO figures. They are not from a conservative think tank.
There are a couple of simple ways for the stimulus bill supporters to
correct this trajectory.
If they want to keep the long-term cost of the stimulus down, they
could agree to make all of the stimulus provisions temporary.
Or they could agree to offset extensions of stimulus spending with
other spending cuts.
But our friends on the other side have done just the opposite. They
have insisted on extending the policy in the stimulus bill without
offsets in other areas of spending.
You will recall then National Economic Council Director Larry
Summers' three Ts tests for stimulus.
To be effective, the stimulus needed to be timely, targeted, and
temporary.
It is failure on that third T, the temporary test, which has been
very troubling. Two years into this failed economic experiment, and
Democrats still refuse to agree that temporary stimulus proposals
should remain temporary.
The path forward is not going to be easy.
While we do have a recent example of deficit reduction, it was not
generated by this administration or its congressional allies. If you
want to look at enacted legislation over the last decade, there is one
significant spending reduction bill. It was the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005. It contained a modest amount of deficit reduction.
The deficit reduction attained was $35 billion. And how did we
achieve those savings? That bill was accomplished through
reconciliation. The other side opposed it in lock step.
In the end, only Republican votes carried that stand-alone deficit
reduction measure.
Yet now American taxpayers are being asked to believe that Democrats
have found religion on deficits and debt.
Our friends on the other side will, no doubt, say time out. We have
produced a significant deficit reduction bill, they will say.
They will point to last year's ObamaCare legislation. They will argue
that this bill, which creates massive new entitlements, somehow saves
money. Our Democratic friends will even cite a CBO score showing $230
billion in deficit reduction from this bill.
This assertion does not pass the laugh test.
Anyone who looks beyond the basic score will see that ObamaCare is
another huge deficit generator that will burden the American taxpayer
for generations to come.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan released an analysis,
derived from CBO data, that tells the full story of ObamaCare's deficit
impact. Here is what Chairman Ryan said:
Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion needed
to implement the law. The score double-counts $521 billion
from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and
Medicare cuts. It strips a costly doc-fix provision that was
included in initial score. It measures 10 years of revenues
to offset 6 years of new spending. There is no question that
the creation of a new trillion-dollar, open-ended entitlement
is a fiscal train wreck.
Add it all up and the fiscal reality is that ObamaCare busts the
budget by $701 billion.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Chairman Ryan's analysis be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Five Budget Reasons To Repeal the Democrats' Costly New Health Care Law
1. Take away smoke and mirrors and law adds over $700
billion to deficits: Democrats' score excludes the $115
billion needed to implement the law; double-counts $521
billion from Social Security payroll taxes, CLASS Act
premiums, and Medicare cuts; and fails to account for the
costly ``doc-fix'' provision that Democrats stripped out of
the bill and passed separately.
2. Massive tax increase minus slightly less massive
spending increase isn't ``fiscal responsibility'': According
to CBO, the Democrats'' law will ``reduce deficits'' by
increasing taxes by $770 billion, while ``only'' increasing
net spending by $540 billion. That's not the kind of
``deficit reduction'' we're interested in. Furthermore, we
believe spending will actually be much higher.
3. True cost 10-year cost of the law is closer to $2.6
trillion: The Democrats rigged their law to show 10 years of
revenues offsetting only 6 years of new spending. A true 10-
year score of the new spending in the law puts the cost
closer to $2.6 trillion. Costs could run even higher if
employers dump their employees onto government exchanges and
Medicare ``savings'' fail to materialize.
4. This law bends the cost curve up, not down: Exploding
health care costs are bankrupting families, companies,
states, and the federal government. The Democrats' new health
care law--with its maze of mandates, dictates, controls, tax
hikes and subsidies--will drive costs up even faster.
CBO Director Doug Elmendorf says new law ``does not
substantially diminish'' pressure of rising health care costs
on the federal government.
Medicare/Medicaid Chief Actuary Richard Foster says that
the law would result in ``higher health expenditures,''
straining budget to the breaking point.
5. Creation of a new open-ended entitlement isn't ``fiscal
responsibility'': The reality is that we cannot pay for the
health care entitlements we have, much less a new government
takeover of health care that adds trillions of dollars to our
existing liabilities, drives costs up even faster, and puts
the federal government in charge of even more health care
decision-making.
The only way to control costs when the government is in
charge of the system is for bureaucrats to ration care.
The path to greater choice for patients and lower costs for
all must begin with a full repeal of the Democrats' costly
new health care law.
The True Deficit Impact of the Democrats' Health Care Law
Bottom line: The Democrats' health care law is a budget-
buster. Claims of deficit reduction exclude the $115 billion
needed to implement the law. The score double-counts $521
billion from Social Security payroll
[[Page S78]]
taxes, CLASS Act premiums, and Medicare cuts. It strips a
costly doc-fix provision that was included in initial score.
It measures 10 years of revenues to offset 6 years of new
spending. There is no question that the creation of a new
trillion-dollar, open-ended entitlement is a fiscal train
wreck.
Over $700 billion in red ink: To hide the true cost of
their $2.6 trillion health-care overhaul, the Democrats
loaded the overhaul with gimmicks and double-counting. Once
these gimmicks are accounted for, the law would add over $700
billion in red ink over the next decade, as health-care costs
send the debt spiraling out of control.
Discretionary Spending: The CBO score did not include the
cost of setting up and administering the massive overhaul,
including the cost of hiring new health-care bureaucrats to
run the new spending programs, as well as thousands of IRS
agents to enforce the new mandates.
Accounting for these discretionary appropriations would add
$115 billion to the bill's 10-year cost, all but wiping out
its alleged ``savings.''
Double-Counting: The new law double-counts an estimated
$521 billion in alleged offsets:
Social Security will receive an additional $53 billion in
higher payroll tax revenue as a result of the new law.
Instead of setting aside this revenue for promised Social
Security benefits, the law spends it on new subsidies.
The Democrats' bill created the CLASS program, a brand new
long-term care entitlement. Over the first 10 years, program
would take in $70 billion in premiums, but instead of setting
money aside to pay for future benefits, the law spends the
premiums on new subsidies. Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad
called the CLASS Act: ``A Ponzi scheme [that] Bernie Madoff
would have been proud of.''
Democrats claim they are extending solvency of Medicare by
cutting $398 billion from the program, but they
simultaneously claim that these savings will offset new
subsidy programs. CBO has made clear these savings cannot be
used twice.
The Doc Fix: The Democrats' bill originally included the
``doc fix'' that CBO estimated would add $208 billion to the
bill's score. Democrats removed this provision to lower the
bill's CBO score, but promised doctors that they would enact
the fix later, and did in fact pass a short-term prevention
of cuts to physician payments last year, adding to the
deficit.
Add It Up: Take $115 billion in discretionary costs, plus
$521 billion in double-counting, plus $208 billion for a
long-term doc fix (minus the $143 billion of claimed
savings)--and the law would add $701 billion to the deficit
over the next 10 years.
The Democrats' brand new open-ended health care entitlement
will--unless repealed--exacerbate the spiraling cost of
health care, explode our deficit and debt, and forever alter
the relationship between government and the American people.
Mr. HATCH. This double counting of the Medicare cuts is a dangerous
accounting gambit. Former Senator Gregg and I warned the Medicare
trustees about it in a letter last year. I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of that letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Hatch, Gregg Urge Medicare Trustees to Provide ``An Accurate and
Complete Assessment of New Health Law's Impact on Medicare
Washington.--U.S. Senators Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire),
Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and Orrin
Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Health
Subcommittee, today urged the Medicare Trustees to release
supplemental information when they issue the 2010 Medicare
Trustees report ``so that the public can accurately assess
the impact of the new health care law on the Medicare
program.''
``Our nation stands on the precipice of fiscal ruin. Based
on past Trustees reports, we know Medicare is on the brink of
collapse,'' said Senator Hatch. ``It's in the best interest
of our country and our nation's seniors for the Trustees to
release a full and honest assessment of the fiscal impact of
the health care law on the viability of the Medicare program.
One of the most dishonest claims about this new law is its
magical ability to use Medicare money not only for Medicare,
but also for hundreds of billions in new entitlement
spending. That's an outrageous accounting gimmick and
everyone knows it.''
``We need a full and accurate picture concerning Medicare's
unfunded liabilities,'' said Senator Gregg. ``For example,
Medicare savings should not be used as a piggy bank to
finance new entitlement spending. The Democrats are counting
Medicare savings twice--once to partially offset the cost of
a new health care entitlement and argue that bill does not
increase the deficit, and then again to claim they have
improved Medicare's solvency. This is an undeniable budget
gimmick. As we continue to wrestle with the historic debt and
deficits facing our nation, Congress should receive a
projection of Medicare's condition based on the reality that
these savings can only be used once, despite the wishful
thinking of the majority.''
In a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Labor
Secretary Hilda Solis, Health and Human Services Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius, and Social Security Commissioner Michael
Astrue, who serve as the Medicare Trustees, the Senators
wrote, ``It is our sincere hope that the Trustees Report will
give every American an accurate and complete assessment of
the fiscal challenges facing the Medicare program and the
federal government. Failure to do so would be a tremendous
disservice to the American people and our nation.''
Specifically, the Senators requested:
The Trustees produce a separate report, in conjunction with
the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Actuary,
outlining Medicare's unfunded liabilities, taking into
account the real cost of fixing the broken Medicare physician
payment system. The Senators point out that the Trustees
report is based on current law, and while Democrats ignored
the physician payment issue during the health reform debate,
the Trustees should consider the long-term cost of Congress
continuing to delay these scheduled cuts in Medicare
reimbursement.
The Trustees estimate the year when Medicare's Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted, reflecting the fact
that Medicare cuts and payroll tax increases in the new
health law are used to finance new spending outside of
Medicare and therefore cannot simultaneously be available to
pay for more future spending out of the Medicare program.
The Medicare Trustees release an annual report on the
solvency and health of the Medicare program, which is
required by law to be submitted by April 1. The Trustees
decided to delay the report this year because the two health
care laws were enacted in late March.
Below and attached is the full letter that Senators Gregg
and Hatch sent to the Medicare Trustees today:
Hon. Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary of the Treasury, Department of Treasury,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hilda L. Solis,
Secretary of Labor, Department of Labor, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kathleen Sebelius,
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Department of Health
and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security, Social Security
Administration, Washington, DC.
Dear Honorable Trustees: As Congress and the American
people await the release of the 2010 Annual Report of the
Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and
Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds (the 2010
Medicare Trustees Report), we are writing to request
supplementary information in an accompanying document so that
the public can accurately assess the impact of the new health
care law on the Medicare program.
The 2009 Medicare Trustees Report laid out a grim
assessment of the financial status of the Medicare program.
Fueled by an aging population and rising health care costs,
Medicare expenditures, according to that report, would rise
from 3.2 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008 to
11.4 percent of GDP in 2083. The 2009 Trustees Report
estimated that Medicare's unfunded liability is $38 trillion
over the next 75 years and that its Hospital Insurance (HI)
Trust Fund is expected to become insolvent in 2017.
For Congress to effectively address the critical challenge
of Medicare solvency, it must have a complete and accurate
assessment of the program's fiscal position. We would like to
request that you provide to Congress, contemporaneous with
the release of the 2010 Medicare Trustees Report, a report
that addresses the two following issues.
In recent years, the Trustees have noted an important
limitation regarding the report's projections for Medicare
Part B expenditures from the Supplementary Medical Insurance
(SMI) trust fund. While the Trustees' projections are based
on the assumption that current law will continue unchanged,
the law's scheduled reductions in Part B payments to
physicians under the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) provisions
have not occurred after 2002--the only time a decrease was
allowed to take effect; since 2003 Congress has consistently
enacted changes in law to defer the reductions. The 2009
Medicare Trustees Report warned that projections of Part B
expenditures under current law (which assumes the deferred
large reductions will eventually occur) thus are ``likely
understated and should be interpreted cautiously.''
As a result of this divergence between the unrealistic
projections and the level of payments to physicians that
Congress actually enacts, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS) Actuary started producing a supplement to the
Trustees Report. The most recent supplemental memorandum,
Projected Medicare Part B Expenditures under Two Illustrative
Scenarios with Alternative Physician Payment Updates (May 12,
2009), contains estimates of a range of Medicare expenditures
based on scenarios where Congress prevents the scheduled
reductions in physician payments. Relying on the same two
illustrative scenarios, an analysis (by former Public Trustee
Thomas R. Saving) concluded that, over the next 75 years,
Medicare's unfunded liability could be as much as $1.9
trillion more than the Trustees projected in the 2009 report.
We request that the CMS Actuary produce a report similar to
the May 12, 2009 supplement, and that, related to the 2010
Medicare Trustees Report, the Trustees provide projections
for Medicare's unfunded liability
[[Page S79]]
over a 75-year horizon under the two alternative scenarios
for physician payments that will be included in the
supplement produced by the CMS Actuary.
Our second request relates to an issue raised in the
memorandum released by the CMS Actuary on April 22, 2010,
titled Estimated Effects of the ``Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act,'' as Amended, on the Year of Exhaustion
for the Part A Trust Fund, Part B Premiums, and Part A and
Part B Coinsurance Amounts. That memo stated the following
about the impact of health reform on the HI trust fund for
Medicare Part A:
The combination of lower Part A costs and higher tax
revenues results in a lower Federal deficit based on budget
accounting rules. However, trust fund accounting considers
the same lower expenditures and additional revenues as
extending the exhaustion date of the HI trust fund. In
practice, the improved HI financing cannot be simultaneously
used to finance other Federal outlays (such as coverage
expansions under the PPACA) and to extend the trust fund,
despite the appearance of this result from the respective
accounting conventions.
According to CMS, PPACA contained $575 billion in net
Medicare savings, including $63 billion in Medicare payroll
tax increases over fiscal years 2010-2019. However, as the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) previously indicated in a
letter on December 23, 2009, these dollars cannot both offset
new spending under PPACA and then also extend the life of
Medicare's HI trust fund. CBO concluded:
The key point is that savings to the HI trust fund under
PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they
cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and,
at the same time, pay for current spending on the other parts
of the legislation or on other programs . . . To describe the
full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the
government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and
financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially
double-count a large share of those savings and thus
overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal
position.
We request that the Trustees provide a projection for the
date of exhaustion for Medicare's HI trust fund assuming that
all the estimated Medicare savings under PPACA are not set
aside to pay future Medicare benefits but instead are used to
finance new spending (outside of Medicare) in the new health
care law.
We trust that you will provide a response to our request
concurrent with the release of the 2010 Medicare Trustees
Report. It is our sincere hope that the Trustees Report will
give every American an accurate and complete assessment of
the fiscal challenges facing the Medicare program and the
federal government. Failure to do so would be a tremendous
disservice to the American people and our nation.
Sincerely,
Judd Gregg,
U.S. Senator.
Orrin Hatch,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. HATCH. A clear pattern has emerged with respect to Democratic
rhetoric on the budget. They speak loudly about deficit reduction,
while continuing to write checks that this Nation cannot cash.
Consider the last debt limit increase bill, which included the much
ballyhooed statutory pay-go scheme. My friends on the other side speak
of it frequently.
But they have also been the most frequent violators of both the
spirit and letter of statutory pay-go.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee analyzed all of the spending
offsets and other budget restraints rejected since statutory pay-go was
adopted.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this analysis be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
DEFICITS PILED ON BY SENATE DEMOCRATS SINCE STATUTORY PAYGO*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deficit
impact, 2010- Link to CBO
Bill Bill No. 2020 ($ Floor action Date score
billions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Temporary extender bill...... H.R. 4691..... 10.3 Vote to kill 2-Mar........ http://bit.ly/
Bunning bill w/ cJIN6B
offset.
Vote to pass
bill w/o offset.
Baucus Tax Extenders bill H.R. 4213..... 98.6 Vote to keep 3-Mar........ http://bit.ly/
(v1.0). emergency ahe9JI
designation.
Reid HIRE Act............... H.R. 2847..... **45.9 Vote waive PAYGO 17-Mar....... http://bit.ly/
Vote to pass b8Nlgq
bill w/o offset.
Temporary two-month extender H.R. 4851..... 18.2 Vote to keep 14-Apr....... http://bit.ly/
bill. emergency cgrGHT
designation.
2010 Emergency Supplemental.. H.R. 4899..... 59.0 Vote to kill 27-May....... http://bit.ly/
Coburn #1 w/ cOITUC
offset.
Vote to kill
Coburn #2 w/
offset.
Vote to pass
bill w/o offset.
Dodd-Frank FinReg Reform H.R. 4173..... *** Vote to waive 15-July...... http://bit.ly/
Conf. Rpt. the Budget 9Owy05
rules.
Continuing Extension Act (tax H.R. 4213..... 33.9 Vote to pass the 21-July...... http://bit.ly/
extenders shell). bill w/o aVU7Ys
offsets.
Education/FMAP (in FAA H.R. 1586..... 12.6 Vote to pass 05-Aug....... http://bit.ly/
reauth. shell). bill w/o offset. bo4391
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................... .............. 278.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* Statutory PAYGO was included in H.J. Res 45 (P.L. 111-139), which passed February 12, 2010. For more detail
about PAYGO and how it operates, refer to the CRS summary: http://bit.ly/aOgf9m.
** The CBO score of the HIRE Act shows it lowers the deficit by $1 billion and $657 million, but CBO does not
score the $47 billion in authorized transfers from the Highway Trust Fund to the General Fund even though they
will be borrowed. The scores above reflect the combined effects of the bill as scored by CBO with these
authorized transfers. See this document from the Budget Committee for more background: http://
budget.senate.gov/republican/pressarchive/2010-02-0BHwyExtPlan.pdf.
*** CBO estimates that the act would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the
four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021 (beyond the budget window).
Mr. HATCH. Total it up and you will find that the cost of Democrats
end-running their own pay-go rule meant almost $280 billion in
additional deficit spending.
I think this point needs to be very clear.
Senate Republican attempts to force our friends on the other side to
abide by the letter or spirit of their own pay-go rule were rebuffed
for almost all of last year. This was not some academic exercise. And
now the American taxpayers are on the hook for roughly $280 billion,
courtesy of Democrats purportedly committed to spending restraint.
Still, we are heartened that Democrats are at least claiming a
commitment to deficit reduction.
Talking tough is a necessary--though not sufficient--step toward
getting our fiscal house in order.
Similarly, it is a positive development that the President has
endorsed passage of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. Maybe the
administration is waking up to the importance of our pending trade
agreements for our exports and the workers who make them.
But the proof of his commitment to our exporters must go beyond the
Korea FTA. We can no longer let our trade agreements with Panama and
Colombia languish as we lose competitiveness and allow other countries
to seize these markets for their workers.
Talking about trade does not produce jobs. We need the President to
take action and submit these agreements to Congress. And we need that
action now. The U.S. worker cannot afford to wait.
Passage of these trade agreements can boost our economy and our
competitiveness without additional spending. They are important tools
that we must put to work. If the President chooses this route, I
believe he will find an important ally in Congress.
I look forward to President Obama's proposals for prioritizing
deficit reduction. There is no issue more critical to this Nation's
future.
And I expect we will hear quite a bit about it in the State of the
Union Address.
The President can count on applause from our side of the aisle if he
presses for reductions in out-of-control spending. But merely
relabeling new spending as investments will not make our deficits go
away, and it will do nothing to tackle our escalating debt.
The President must give serious attention to the legitimate arguments
and concerns of conservative citizens if he wants to achieve anything
more than a pleasant sounding rhetorical flourish.
President Obama did inherit a serious budget deficit. And our friends
on the other side will, once again, applaud that line. They will cheer
the assertion that they merely inherited deficits. They will spin the
convenient tale that Republicans alone bequeathed the deficit to
President Obama. But that is certainly not the case. And the record is
clear. A Democratic Congress and a
[[Page S80]]
Republican President created this deficit from bipartisan policies they
jointly developed.
To those Democrats who claim Republicans have no right to discuss
deficits, they need look no further than their own actions. Take a look
at the fiscal effects of the stimulus bill they crafted 2 years ago.
Take a comprehensive look at the real deficit impact of ObamaCare.
Take an honest look at the appropriations bills that piled on double-
digit increases in spending.
American families don't have the luxury of 84 percent or 24 percent
increases in their spending. They have made their priorities and
restrained their spending.
If American families can prioritize, deleverage, and live within
their means, I hope the President will push his allies in Washington to
do the same.
All of us in Congress await the arrival of President Obama's third
budget.
The American people are demanding that he make deficit reduction a
priority. And they are asking Congress to approach this subject in an
intellectually honest fashion.
We need to acknowledge that when it comes to the budget, the road to
fiscal ruin has been paved with good intentions. In the name of fixing
the economy, the Democrats' stimulus bill has imposed both short-term
and long-term costs on American taxpayers, jeopardizing economic growth
and, with it, liberty and opportunity. That damage has been expanded
with un-offset extensions of what we were told were temporary
provisions.
As we start writing a budget, let's do it with all the fiscal cards
on the table. Let's remove the political blinders and deal with the
fiscal facts. And that means being realistic about expiring tax relief,
its merits, its economic growth effect, and its political popularity.
This is not a problem that we can tax our way out of. Getting our
fiscal house in order is going to require hard decisions on spending.
We need to put our shoulders to the wheel. We owe it to the people who
sent us here.
There is an old saying that applies here. I am not the first person,
nor will I be the last, to reference it in the context of our fiscal
troubles. The saying is: When you find yourself in a hole, stop
digging. We need to use our shovels to fill this fiscal hole, not dig
it deeper.
I look forward to this debate on spending. It will not be an easy
one. But the American people have demanded that Congress take up this
cause, and I fully intend to.
Ultimately, I am confident that we will achieve meaningful deficit
reduction. Yet I go into this debate with my eyes open.
President Reagan, in the foreign policy arena, reminded us to trust,
but verify.
As we await the President's State of the Union speech, Republicans
trust that Democrats will make a nod toward deficit reduction, but we
need to verify whether they are serious about getting this problem
under control.
Democrats do not have a great track record when it comes to cutting
spending. But hope springs eternal.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________