I routinely communicate my support, or opposition, of positions espoused by my elected representatives. Following is an exchange with Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, representing Georgia's 3rd District.
Spoiler alert: Westmoreland reveals himself to be a sycophantic douchebag!
First this piece from Westmoreland's April 17, 2011 newsletter:
House Passes Budget Cutting $6.2 Trillion in Federal Spending
The House of Representatives today passed a budget for the 2012 fiscal year, which will run from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012. The legislation will cut $6.2 trillion in spending from President Obama’s budget proposal over the next ten years and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion. It puts the nation on a path to actually paying off our more than $14 trillion in debt and drops federal spending to below 20 percent of the gross domestic product.
I am proud to have joined a group of my colleagues in the House and passed Congressman Ryan’s plan for 2012 and beyond. This budget truly puts us on the ‘Path to Prosperity.’ Not only does it dramatically curb federal spending, but it also encourages economic development, works towards ensuring programs like Medicare will be available to future generations, and does not irresponsibly raise taxes on American families and small businesses.
I know there have been some irresponsible public figures who have been using scare tactics and out-and-out lies to put fear and doubt in Americans about the impact of this budget, especially with regards to the changes to Medicare. So I would like to set a few things straight. First, this legislation does not create a voucher system for Medicare. What it does is allow individuals to pick a plan, just like federal employees and Members of Congress do now, and the government will pay for the plan rather than directly paying the doctor. We are not trying to end Medicare; we are trying to save it for the next generation. Without reform, Medicare spending will eclipse all other federal spending in the next decade and completely bankrupt our budget. This solution allows us to keep Medicare without dragging down our entire economy. Second, if you are age 55 or over, these changes will not affect you at all. Both your Medicare and your Social Security will remain exactly the same as it is now. So any comments made in the press about this budget ‘killing seniors’ or ‘ending Medicare’ are completely false.
I also know that there are those out there who feel these cuts are ‘extreme.’ However, the mess we have gotten ourselves into over the last few years is also extreme. Our national debt tops more than $14 trillion, almost equivalent to our entire economy. If we continue down President Obama’s path of ‘spend now, pay later,’ we would see the national debt double over the next ten years. This mentality is simply no longer sustainable and we must make some very serious changes to the way we operate here in Washington if we want to pass on a better country to our children and grandchildren.
My response follows:
Congressman Westmoreland,
Your April 17, 2011 update outlines your thoughts on the Ryan proposal, and the House passage of the 2012 budget.
There may indeed be steeper cuts in this budget proposal, but these appear to be at the expense of the old, the sick and the poor. I am shocked and disheartened to read of your pride and participation in this endeavor.
According to the CBO, the Ryan plan does not achieve any measurable surplus until 2040. If this plan becomes law, the spending levels for health care will be reduced far below historic levels relative to GDP. This sounds like it might be a good thing, but it’s not, as it comes along with these negative trade-offs:
- Increasing the age of Medicare eligibility
- Essentially privatizing Medicare
- Establishing Medical Savings Accounts for the poor. (Where are these people expected to come up with $7,800/yr.?)
- Excluding acute care. (What!)
- State programs will differ. (Who can predict the issues surrounding this?).
- Repeals to the Affordable Care Act will increase federal costs
- Repealing tax credits for small business employers offering health care. (Why?)
- Reinstating the donut hole
There are claims of revenue growth with no specificity. Raising taxes is not irresponsible. What is irresponsible is continuing the Bush tax cuts, primarily benefiting the wealthiest Americans and shifting the cost burdens of health care to the old and sick. There seems to be a significant lack of basic morality in the Republican positions on fiscal matters.
Despite your reassurances, it appears that you are indeed in support of ending Medicare as we know it.
The deficit path started with implementation of the Bush tax cuts. That was the “spend “now and pay later” moment. Roll back the tax cuts and we won’t need the Ryan plan. The scary deficit scenario is based on taxes being too low, not just spending being too high. It also assumes that discretionary spending will match the rate of growth of GDP, but a large part of the projected deficit comes from the revenue side of the equation, not just the spending side.
Ryan is selectively using CBO analysis and ignoring other pertinent opinions. Such as:
- Medicare beneficiaries bearing a much larger share of their health care costs than they would under the current program,
- Payments to doctors shrinking dramatically
- States having to pay substantially more for Medicaid and spending for programs other than Social Security
- Health programs would be reduced far below historical levels relative to GDP.
- Repeal of the health care law would lead to an increase in the deficit (Ryan does not explain the logic of this!)
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis claims the Ryan budget would result in a gusher of jobs. We should be wary when politicians rely on analyses from outside partisan groups, rather than respected government auditors.
The Heritage budget analysis model comes up with some numbers that seem rather strange — in fact, so strange that Ryan does not even claim them in his presentation.
For instance, the Heritage analysis claims that the unemployment rate would hit 2.8 percent in 2021, which is a rate that has never been achieved. The claim must have been even too much for Ryan, since his budget document only mentions a 4 percent unemployment rate in 2015 — which itself would be a neat trick.
In closing, the Ryan budget plan relies on dubious assertions, questionable assumptions and fishy figures. The ideas may be bold, but the budget presentation falls short of his claim that he is getting rid of budget gimmicks.
Sincerely,
Me
Lo and behold I received a response. Granted it is a form letter, failing to sufficiently address ANY of my specific complaints, but it is a response.
May 6, 2011
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.Con.Res. 34, the fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, also known as "The Path to Prosperity". I sincerely appreciate the benefit of hearing your views.
As you probably know, on April 15, 2011 the House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res. 34, which establishes the budget for the United States Government for FY 2012 (October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012) and sets appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021. Not only does this bill dramatically curb federal spending, but it also encourages economic development, does not irresponsibly raise taxes on American families and small businesses, works towards ensuring programs like Medicare will be available to future generations, and increases America's energy resources.
I know many people are opposed to the cuts to specific programs included in this bill; that is understandable. There was a recent poll released that showed that while a majority of Americans were in favor of cuts to federal spending in theory, they were opposed to cuts in projects, programs, or entitlements that would affect them. Unfortunately that mentality is simply no longer sustainable. Congress has to make some very serious changes in the way Washington operates in order to begin digging out from under our debt, and pass on a better country to our children and grandchildren. I truly believe we can reverse the destructive path we are currently on and save our country for future generations; but this will not be easy, and will not be overnight. However, as long as we are all willing to tighten our belts and continue to fight to reign in federal spending, then we will be successful.
The legislation cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget, and $5.8 trillion relative to the current-policy baseline. In addition, it eliminates hundreds of duplicative programs, reflects the ban on earmarks, and curbs corporate welfare, bringing non-security discretionary spending to below FY2008 levels. Overall the bill brings government spending to below 20 percent of the economy, a sharp contrast to the President's budget, in which spending never falls below 23 percent of GDP over the next decade. It does this by locking in savings with enforceable spending caps and budget process reforms, addressing not only what Washington spends, but also how tax dollars are spent.
With regards to our national debt and deficit, the Path to Prosperity reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion, compared to the President's budget over the next decade, and surpasses the President's low benchmark of sustainability – which his own budget fails to meet – by reaching primary budget balance in 2015 (where revenues = spending – interest payments). It also achieves a budget surplus by FY2040 and shows growing surpluses in the following decade.
Another important aspect of this legislation is the fact that it addresses taxes and our tax structure itself. It calls for a simpler, less burdensome tax code for households and small businesses, and lowers tax rates for individuals, families (brings the top rate from 35 to 25 percent), and businesses (lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent, which is the highest in the industrialized world, to a more competitive 25 percent). The bill keeps taxes low so the economy can grow by eliminating roughly $800 billion in tax increases imposed by the President's health care law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Public Law No. 111-148) and prevents the $1.5 trillion tax increase called for in the President's FY2012 budget. Just as important, it ends the taxpayer bailouts of failed financial institutions, reforms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and stops Washington from picking the winners and losers across sectors of the economy.
In addition, the budget plan creates nearly 1 million new private-sector jobs in 2012 and results in 2.5 million additional private sector jobs in the last year of the decade. This is done, in part, by consolidating the complex maze of dozens of overlapping job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships aimed at empowering American workers to compete in the global economy. These provisions will yield $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average $1,000 per year in higher income for each family, spur economic growth, and increase real GDP by $1.5 trillion over the decade.
One of the biggest ways the Path to Prosperity helps to get our overwhelming debt under control is by improving Medicare and Medicaid, not by terminating them, as some have argued. First, the Path to Prosperity does not create a voucher system for Medicare, but allows individuals to pick a health care plan, just like federal employees and Members of Congress do now. Payments from the government will go directly to the insurance plan selected by the Medicare beneficiary. This will not end Medicare as we know it; instead it will save it for the generations to come. Without reform, Medicare spending will eclipse all other federal spending in the next decade and completely bankrupt our budget. This solution allows us to keep Medicare without dragging down our entire economy. Second, and most importantly, these changes will not affect anyone age 55 or over, at all. Both Medicare and Social Security will remain exactly the same as they are now for those individuals, and information to the contrary is absolutely untrue. Medicaid is improved by ending its onerous, one-size-fits-all approach, and converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that gives states the flexibility to tailor their Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their residents.
On the energy front, the bill increases America's energy resources by removing barriers to safe, responsible energy exploration, and unlocks American energy production to help lower costs, create jobs, and reduce dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
Overall this budget plan is just that, a plan. And like everyone else I don't agree with absolutely everything in the Ryan Budget, however, of the five varying budgets we voted on (Democrat Budget, Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget, Republican Study Committee Caucus Budget, Congressional Black Caucus Budget, and the Paul Ryan (Republican) Budget), I felt the Ryan Budget, The Path to Prosperity, was the best choice available to guide us through the end of this economic downturn, right the economy, and get us out of debt. We don't have a revenue problem in this country, we have a spending problem. Maintaining the status quo on government spending and on entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid is simply not sustainable. Hard choices had to be made when we were working on this budget, but in the end I voted in favor of this bill since it represents a realistic approach to solving our nation's fiscal crisis. Is it a magic bullet which will fix all our problems overnight? No. But we did not get into this situation overnight, so it's going to take time to get us back to where we need to be, where we should be.
Again, I would like to thank you for contacting me regarding the FY2012 federal budget. Hearing the views of all Georgians gives me the opportunity to better understand how important issues could impact the people of Georgia and the future interests of the nation. In that regard, your input is most helpful.
Sincerely,
Lynn A Westmoreland
Member of Congress
I just thought you should know. You can thank me later.
