[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18894-18895]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       DEMOCRATS' BROKEN PROMISES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would like to say to my colleagues who may 
be in their offices that were going to join me in a special order 
tonight that we're not going to be able to do it because of the late 
hour. So I'm going to take a 5-minute special order to talk about some 
of the issues we were going to discuss.
  Today, we discussed at length the war in Iraq. And that's probably 
the most important issue facing America today, and I'm glad we had that 
very thorough debate.
  But one of the things that's very, very important that we're not 
focusing enough attention on is transparency in government and the 
amount of money that we're spending and the taxes that are going to be 
raised.
  When this new Speaker and the majority came into power, they said 
this was going to be the most transparent House in the history of the 
country, in all respects. And just 2 weeks ago, the majority wanted to 
start talking about a Slush fund rather than debating each one of the 
earmarks that should have been debated on this floor. And they were 
going to take that Slush fund money and go to the conference committee 
and behind closed doors decide how that money was going to be spent. 
The American people don't want that. The American people want to hear 
these issues debated, the amount of money being debated for special 
projects, so they know where their tax dollars are going and what the 
purpose is.
  Not all earmarks are bad. Some of them are very, very good and very 
necessary, but they ought to be debated one by one on this floor so the 
American people know where their money is going.
  I would like to also say that the budget that was passed by the 
opposition is going to necessitate at least a $217 billion tax 
increase, and in all probability it will be more like $392 billion, 
which would be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. 
And that, at a time when we need to address some of the more pressing 
issues, like how we deal with the Social Security trust fund.
  The Social Security trust fund will go into deficit in 10 years. And 
at that point, we're going to see the American people starting to look 
at Social Security as a program that's going to be in the past, no 
longer something that we can rely on in the future.
  The young people in this country are going to have a terrible time 
planning for their retirement because there won't be any money in the 
Social Security trust fund in the future for these young people unless 
we start addressing the problem right now, and we're not doing it.
  As I said, the projected tax collections for Social Security and the 
spending for Social Security are going to be exceeded in 10 years. And 
after that, adjusting for inflation, the annual deficits for Social 
Security will reach $68 billion in the year 2020, $267 billion in 2030, 
and $331 billion in 2035.

[[Page 18895]]

Many of us won't be around to see that, but our kids and our grandkids 
will, and they will be saying, why didn't we address the issue of the 
deficits and Social Security when we had a chance?
  We can do that still today, but we're not focusing attention on that. 
And the people who are relying on Social Security and the Social 
Security trust fund ought to know that we're not addressing the 
problem. And the solvency of that fund, not for us, but for the future 
generations, is not going to be there, which means that we will have to 
either raise taxes or cut benefits. This is going to happen unless we 
address that issue.
  So I would just like to say to my colleagues tonight, we are 
concentrating on the major issues, the war in Iraq, and a lot of other 
issues that are very important, but we must not neglect the budget. We 
must not neglect transparency and bringing these issues to the floor 
for debate, and we must not neglect addressing the issue of Social 
Security reform, because if we don't do it, our kids and our grandkids 
aren't going to have a retirement program to rely on.


                      spending and accountability

  In order for the government to be held accountable to the taxpayers 
that fund it, the American people deserve truth in budgeting and have a 
right to know how federal dollars are spent.
  Two weeks ago, House conservatives--on behalf of taxpayers--led the 
charge to demand transparency in the Federal spending process.
  In stark contrast to the views they espoused during the 2006 campaign 
cycle Appropriations Committee Chairman Obey and the Democrat 
leadership proposed to leave lump sums of money without a specified 
purpose in the appropriations bills considered by the House, and later 
authorizing those funds for earmarks in closed door Conference 
Committee. In other words, the very people who promised America: ``We 
will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the 
use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership 
they deserve.'' (Pelosi Press Release 12/11/2006)
  Instead they proposed to create a secret slush fund for earmarks--to 
be funded by the largest tax increase in American history. Make no 
mistake about it; the budget passed by House Democrats includes what 
will likely become the largest tax increase in history. Though they try 
to claim otherwise, the truth is in black and white in the language of 
their own bill; and the truth is that it will raise taxes by at least 
$217 billion and in all likelihood $392 billion.
  Conservatives were successful in stopping the slush fund and bringing 
transparency to earmarks; bringing them into the light of day where 
they can be debated and voted on by Members of this House.
  Not all earmarks are bad things, but not all earmarks are a Federal 
priority. But we should respect the American people enough to stand up 
and debate this issue. The simple argument that, ``it's a good 
project'' should never be enough to justify spending taxpayer dollars 
on it in lieu of a more pressing national priority, or returning the 
money to American families.
  Achieving transparency is only half the battle, as conservatives we 
now need to push accountability; because without enforcing 
accountability, transparency doesn't mean much. Accountability in 
Federal spending can be achieved through an open and honest debate 
about America's priorities.
  Tonight, I want to talk about a priority--a crisis that my Democrat 
colIeagues are ignoring in their rush to raise your taxes and spend 
more money on entitlement programs; namely the impending bankruptcy of 
Social Security.


                    social security surplus spending

  A safe, secure, and stable retirement is part of the American dream. 
Yet time and again, Washington has proven itself incapable of managing 
Americans' hard earned Social Security dollars. There is no longer a 
debate about whether Social Security faces a problem or whether it 
needs to fixed.
  There is something fundamentally wrong when more young Americans 
believe in the existence of UFOs than believe that their Social 
Security benefits will be there for them when they retire. Why do young 
Americans feel this way? Because they can see the obvious--that 
Washington has been spending taxpayer dollars that have already been 
promised to help make their retirement more sustainable.
  Taxpayers have the right to receive back each and every dollar--and 
more--that they entrust to the government for their retirement. Social 
Security money collected from Americans for Social Security should not 
be used for anything other than Social Security. Ensuring a stable 
retirement is not a Republican or Democrat obligation, it is an 
American obligation.
  Despite passing the largest tax increase in American history, the 
Democrat majority failed to stop raiding the Social Security surplus. 
In fact, they fail to address entitlements at all. In contrast budget 
offered by Congressman Paul Ryan protected the surplus.
  Since 1984, the Federal Government has collected more money in Social 
Security taxes than it pays out in benefits. Instead of using this 
money to shore up the program's solvency, the government squandered 
these tax payer dollars on other programs, and earmarks.
  Each year that Congress fails to protect the Social Security cash 
flow surplus, and squanders its money on other programs, it jeopardizes 
the stability of this vital government program and hastens its date of 
insolvency.
  By controlling and prioritizing government spending, the FY 2008 
Republican budget creates surplus of $99 billion in 2012, stopping the 
raid on Social Security in 2012--and did it without raising taxes. This 
gives the taxpayers the accountability that they deserve.
  Social Security owes $6.8 trillion more in benefits than it will 
receive in taxes. That number includes $2.0 trillion, in net present 
value terms, to repay the bonds in Social Security's trust fund.
  Today's Social Security is not sustainable and will implode. Social 
Security spending will exceed projected tax collections in 2017. These 
deficits will quickly balloon to alarming proportions. After adjusting 
for inflation, annual deficits will reach $67.8 billion in 2020, $266.5 
billion in 2030, and $330.9 billion in 2035.
  The year when Social Security begins to spend more than it takes in, 
2017, is extremely important. From that point on, Social Security will 
require large and growing amounts of general revenue money in order to 
pay all of its promised benefits. Even though this money will 
technically come from cashing in the special issue bonds in the trust 
fund, the money to repay them will come from other tax collections or 
borrowing. The billions that go to Social Security each year will make 
it harder to find money for other government programs or require large 
and growing tax increases.
  A second important year is 2009. Starting in just 2 years, the annual 
Social Security surpluses that Congress has been borrowing and spending 
on other programs will begin to shrink. From that point on, Congress 
will have to find other sources to replace the money that it borrows 
from Social Security or shrink spending. By 2017, Congress will have 
about $100 billion less to spend annually.
  Compared to these two dates, 2041--the year that the Social Security 
trust fund runs out of its special issue bonds--has little importance. 
Even though the end of those bonds will require a 25 percent benefit 
reduction, Congress would have been paying over $300 billion a year, in 
2007 dollars, to repay those bonds for about 7 years by the time the 
trust fund runs out. Congress will have to do this through some 
combination of other spending cuts, new taxes, or additional borrowing. 
These are the same choices Congress would face without the trust fund.
  Bad news for younger workers. Unfortunately, younger workers have a 
great deal to worry about. Even though their parents' and grandparents' 
benefits are safe, theirs are not. Any worker born after 1974 will 
reach full retirement age after the trust fund is exhausted. Unless 
Congress acts, younger workers can look forward to paying full Social 
Security taxes throughout their careers but only receiving 75 percent 
or less of the benefits that have been promised to them. In addition, 
they will have to repay the Social Security trust fund, an expense that 
will total almost $6 trillion by the time the trust fund is exhausted 
in 2041.
  Democrat's delay is deadly for Social Security. Each year, there is 
one less year of surplus and one more year of deficit. Once those 
deficits begin in 2017, the Trustees Report shows that they will never 
end. Each year, with the disappearance of another year of surplus, 
reforming Social Security gets more expensive.

                          ____________________