Roe: Congress Needs a Budget that will Bring Relief to our Families and Small Businesses
WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Congressman Phil Roe, M.D. (TN-1) opposed the Conference Report to S.Con.Res.13, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010, because it would further burden American families by taxing too much, spending too much and borrowing too much. This is essentially the same budget that Roe opposed when it was first considered in the House on April 2, 2009.
This budget would set the federal government's budget policies over a five-year window between Fiscal Years 2010 and 2014, with a total five-year cost of $18.258 trillion. Under this budget, spending never falls below 22 percent of gross domestic product. From 2001 to 2008, spending never exceeded 21 percent of GDP and averaged 19.9 percent. This budget raises taxes $1.5 trillion over 10 years and allows a $1.233 trillion deficit in Fiscal Year 2010 alone. Under the Democrats’ plan, deficits never fall below $500 billion. Furthermore, nondefense discretionary spending will increase 8.9 percent in FY 10 to $529 billion.
“Families and small businesses across our nation and in the First District are struggling and many are looking for ways to hang on through these troubling economic times,” said Roe. “This bill threatens to worsen the economy and destroy more American jobs. I want to see folks in East Tennessee obtain relief, but the priorities in this budget will move our country in the wrong direction – it spends too much, it taxes too much and it borrows too much from our children and grandchildren.”
Additionally, the Democrats are using the budget to ram through health care reform with a smaller number of votes in the Senate instead of working to build bipartisan consensus. By including reconciliation instructions that allow a public (or government-run) insurance plan to compete against private insurers, Democrats will no longer need the normal 60 votes to move major legislation.
“The Democratic leadership is also misusing the budget process to ram health care reform through Congress with less debate, fewer amendments, and ultimately, almost no alternative ideas for consideration. Health care should not be handled fast, but it should be handled right. Why is the leadership trying to suffocate debate? Why stifle ideas? What are they afraid of?”