[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 14073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE FEDERAL DEFICIT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, with very much fanfare yesterday, the 
President held a press conference to claim vindication for his economic 
stewardship and his fiscal policies. He announced, and I just now 
calmed down, that the United States Government would only have a $3 
billion Federal deficit for the fiscal year 2006.

                              {time}  1615

  By this administration's standards, this qualifies as a monumental 
achievement? $300 billion deficit and the President wanted applause for 
what he had done because after creating the three largest deficits in 
history, you are making progress if you do not set any standards or any 
records.
  This time it is only the fourth largest deficit ever in the United 
States. In the Nation's capital, the President's budget is becoming 
known as the ``World of Diminished Expectations.'' Let us go back a 
little.
  In 2001, President Bush inherited a surplus of $284 billion, and it 
was predicted by the year 2006 we would have a surplus of $516 billion, 
and they are only off by $800 billion. By Washington's standards, that 
is just a rounding error. So it makes sense to put away the champagne 
glasses for a while.
  In addition to celebrating the fourth highest deficit ever, the 
President touted the significance of his tax increases. What he did not 
know is, in his administration, we have added $3 trillion to the 
Nation's debt, $3 trillion in 5 years, the largest increase in the 
Nation's debt in the shortest period of time ever in American history, 
$3 trillion, and on the present course, with Iraq spending and spending 
by the Federal Government and the revenue structure, we are on course 
to add another $1 trillion in 5 years.
  Now, here is what Greg Mankiw, the President's former Chief Economic 
Adviser, said about the President's claim that his tax cuts can be paid 
for and actually help on the economy: ``There is no credible evidence'' 
that ``tax revenues rise in the face of lower tax rates.'' That is the 
President's own economic adviser. He went on to compare an economist 
who says that tax cuts can pay for themselves to a ``snake oil salesman 
trying to sell a miracle cure.''
  The Economist magazine recently wrote, ``Even by the standards of 
political boosterism, this is extraordinary. No serious economist 
believes President Bush's tax cuts will pay for themselves.''
  Not only have they not paid for themselves, they have left a huge 
burden on the middle class families and their children for generations 
to come to pay for.
  Let us look at what is also happening in the President's economic 
stewardship.
  In July of 2001, 5 years ago, under President Bush gas was $1.33 a 
gallon. Today, in Chicago, my district, it is $3.40. It has more than 
doubled. Health care costs have gone up 73 percent in premiums to 
$11,000 a year for a family of four. College costs for a 4-year college 
education at a public school is up 38 percent. And incomes, the median 
income in this country has declined 2.3 percent.
  So while college costs have gone up, energy costs have gone up, 
health care costs have gone up, the savings rates in this country are 
down in negative territory for the first time since World War II. 
Median incomes are flat, and the President wants your applause for a 
$300 billion deficit because it is so good.
  So while the prices have spiraled out of control for middle class 
families and the standard of living is coming under increasing pressure 
from the global economy, energy costs, health care costs, college 
costs, savings rates, incomes have not gone up, in fact they are flat 
to declining. The American people need a raise. It is that simple.
  Now, the well-to-do are doing well. It is time we make sure that this 
government is working on behalf of the American people, not the 
American people working on behalf of their government. We do not have 
to go back so far as to remind people what happened in the past when we 
had an economic strategy that put our fiscal house in order and 
invested in the education, health care and energy independence of this 
country. We created 22 million jobs in the 1990s, record unemployment. 
We had low inflation, below 2 percent, a balanced budget and a surplus 
3 years in a row, and we began to pay down the debt. Welfare rolls 
declined. Poverty went down. Children's health care coverage went up. 
All the while we also provided the middle class a tax cut so they could 
send their kids to college known as a HOPE scholarship and the lifetime 
earning credit. Anytime you want to go back to college, you got a tax 
cut to do so. So you had the skills and the capability to do what you 
needed to do to compete in a global economy.
  That is when your government is putting its fiscal house in order, 
being responsible for your dollars and investing in education and 
health care independence. It is time for new economic priorities. It is 
time for a change. It is time to put the government back on the side of 
the American people.

                          ____________________