BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me during the budget debate that something was missing from the debate. As my colleagues across the aisle offered their various amendments through the course of the day and into the evening, it occurred to me that the President's budget had not been offered as an amendment by the Democrat Members of the House Budget Committee, and that as we were getting information about which amendments were being offered here today on the floor as amendments to the overall GOP budget, it occurred to me that, again, that same oversight had taken place.
Clearly, it must be an oversight. Clearly, my colleagues meant to offer the President's budget as an amendment and simply failed to do so. And so in a pique of bipartisanship, I thought I would help my colleagues across the aisle out a little bit and offer the President's budget, which is exactly what this amendment is.
This amendment is the President's budget as analyzed, not scored, but analyzed by the CBO, nothing more and nothing less. It has a lot in here that I imagine my colleagues would like. It has, for example, $1.9 trillion in new taxes. It has new taxes on income, new taxes on the giving of gifts, new taxes on gasoline, and even new taxes on dying.
It has $1.5 trillion in new spending, spending on welfare, spending on unemployment, and spending on green energy. The term ``Solyndra'' comes to mind, I would imagine. In fact, it has so many new taxes and new spending, it seems to be bringing the phrase ``tax-and-spend liberal'' back into fashion here in Washington, D.C. So, clearly, it must simply be an oversight that has not been offered by my colleagues.
But that's not all. The budget that the President offered and that is contained in this amendment never balances--never balances. It is a balanced approach to reach a never-balancing budget. It also fails to deal completely with our entitlement problems.
So, again, I say, Mr. Chairman, I think there's a lot here for my colleagues to like. I look forward to their defense of the President's budget. And in many ways, I would suppose this is a landmark document for the Democrats as we go into this election year.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULVANEY. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I hear my good friend from Maryland. I understand he thinks it's a charade. I got the same press release that he got from the White House. They called it a gimmick, he calls it a charade. And they go on to talk about how they lack any details.
I've got the same stack that my colleague from Maryland has. I have the President's budget here. But we also have what we used to formulate the amendment, which is the analysis of the President's 2013 budget from the Congressional Budget Office. In there, if you take the time to review it, you'll find a summary of the way the President treats the 2001 2003 tax reductions, the alternative minimum tax, limiting deductions and exclusions, modifying estate and gift taxes, other revenue proposals, more tax provisions, OCO, the automatic procedures in the Budget Control Act, the President's cap on deductions and exclusions, deals with initiatives that will widen the deficit, transportation, Medicare, Medicaid, the Build America Bonds Program. The President's budget does not include reductions, and increases mandatory outlays.
It goes on to talk about overseas contingency, disaster relief, $2 billion for a program, integrity initiatives. The details are here. The details are here. Let's make no mistake about what we're voting on. This is the President's budget.
Again, I got the White House memo and it says, you know, we encourage Democrats to vote against our own budget--that's what the President said today--because what could be in this amendment is raising taxes on the middle class.
It could be in here, Mr. Chairman, but only if it's in here. They go on to say that this amendment could include severe cuts to important programs, and I guess, in theory, it could, but only if it's in here.
Let's make one thing and one thing extraordinarily clear. This is the President's budget. This is the CBO, the nonpartisan analysis of what the President gave us of what I guess, several millions of dollars, of tax dollars, were spent in preparing. We spent an entire day debating this and examining this in the Budget Committee.
It's not a charade. It's not a gimmick unless what the President sent us is the same.
We are voting on the President's budget. I would encourage my Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I'll be voting against it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULVANEY. I thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Brady) for the opportunity.
There is so much we could talk about here tonight, and it is unfortunate we only have a few minutes to talk about each of these budgets. But one of the things that I heard the gentlelady from New York mention earlier in her presentation was that the budget that we've offered as the Republican Party is noteworthy mostly for its austerity.
I would disagree with that. I think it's noteworthy mostly for the fact that it balances. It balances. It does something the President's budget does not do. It does something that I would expect the Democrat offering later on this evening does not do. It balances.
It's a word that our colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Chairman, like to use from time to time. They want an approach that balances. I used to think that the word ``balance'' would actually mean that the budget would balance. They would have us believe that what it really means is they want to maybe sort of raise taxes and sort of cut spending.
The truth of the matter is, though, that every single budget that they've offered has only increased taxes and increased spending. That's true of the President's budget, which we'll be taking up later this evening. I imagine it's true of Mr. Van Hollen's budget, which we will be taking up later this evening.
And I think it's important to look at what would actually work. We're not the first country to go through this situation. In fact, if you look at other countries that have had debt crises like we are facing now, which you can see that some of them have managed to get out of it, and they have managed to get out of it mostly by cutting spending. In fact, a ratio of roughly seven-to-one on spending cuts versus tax increases is what actually works. And you can do better than this. You can point to other countries that have managed to save themselves without raising taxes by a single penny. You cannot point to a single country that has done it by raising taxes on even a one-to-one basis, as we'll take up tonight with Simpson-Bowles.
But again, the President's budget, the Democrat budget doesn't even come close to this. We couldn't even put it on the graph because it both increases taxes and increases spending, not even coming close to what has worked in every other developed nation that has tried to do exactly what we are trying to do with our budget tonight.
Look, I spend a lot of time back home, and I know that folks back home might be willing, under certain circumstances, to pay more taxes. They might do that, for example, if they could trust us not to waste the money. They might be willing to do that if they could trust us to actually put the money towards the debt and deficits. But we don't do that. What have we always given them, mostly from my colleagues across the aisle but also from my party in past years? New spending now and new waste now in exchange for a promise of spending reductions someplace down the road that never come.
I think it's time for us to acknowledge that our colleagues are trying to sell us a definition of the word ``balance'' that doesn't make any sense. It's time for us to reclaim the definition of that word and say, look, we are the ones offering a balanced budget. We are the ones who are offering a balanced approach. We are the ones that are offering a way to pay off the debt.
I think it's a fair question to ask: The money that we borrowed yesterday, do we ever really intend to pay it back?
The Ryan budget allows us a way to do that. The GOP budget allows us a way to do that. The President's budget never moves to surplus.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT