Senate Budget Committee

Chairman Conrad's Opening Statement During Floor Debate on Republican Budgets

Wed, 16 May 2012 01:30:00 EST

Senate Budget Committee Analyses of Toomey and Paul Budgets

Tue, 15 May 2012 04:00:00 EST

The Senate Budget Committee Majority staff has released brief analyses of the budgets proposed by Senators Toomey and Paul.

Senate Budget Committee Analyses of Toomey and Paul Budgets

Tue, 15 May 2012 04:00:00 EST

The Whole Story: Video Responding to Republican “No Budget” Claims

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:00:00 EST

Chairman Conrad's response to Republican claims that the Senate has not passed a budget.

The Whole Story: Chairman Conrad's Response to Republican “No Budget” Claims

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:00:00 EST

The Whole Story: Chairman Conrad's Response to Republican “No Budget” Claims

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 04:00:00 EST

The Whole Story: Chairman Conrad's Response to Republican “No Budget” Claims

April 30, 2012

The following is a transcript of Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad’s (D-ND) “The Whole Story” video responding to Republican claims that the Senate has not passed a budget:

Hello. I’m Senator Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

You’ve heard the Republicans say the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than a thousand days. They’re not telling you the whole story.

Last year, instead of a budget resolution, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, an actual law.

That law is the budget for this year and next. The Budget Control Act states clearly that it “shall apply in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.”

This new budget law set strict spending limits for the next 10 years, far more than the one year usually set in a budget resolution. Those spending caps will result in $900 billion in cuts.

The Budget Control Act also created a Special Committee to reform Medicare, Social Security, and the tax system.

But because that Special Committee did not reach agreement on reform proposals, there will be an additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts, starting in January. That’s the so-called sequester.

So do the math. The Budget Control Act brings more than $2 trillion of total spending cuts. It’s the biggest package of cuts in the history of the United States. And it’s already the law of the land.

A law is much stronger than any budget resolution. A budget resolution is purely an internal Congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. A law, on the other hand as you know, is passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. That’s what the Budget Control Act is – it’s a law.

When someone says the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than a thousand days, what they’re not telling you is that something else was done. An actual law was passed that is much stronger than any budget resolution.

So, there you have it; the whole story. Now you are armed with the truth.

Thank you for listening.

Chairman Conrad's Floor Speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:30:00 EST

Budget Control Act Contained Budget for 2012 and 2013

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:30:00 EST

Chairman Conrad's Floor Speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Chairman Conrad delivered a floor speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan.

Conrad Floor Speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Related Materials

Chart Used During Speech

Transcript

I rise today to discuss what I did in the Budget Committee yesterday, why I did it, and where we are headed.

I have heard people say repeatedly that the Senate has now gone for some 1,000 days since passing a budget resolution. What they are not telling people is that last year, instead of a budget resolution, the Senate and the House and the President signed a budget control law.

The occupant of the chair knows very well, being a former attorney general, that a resolution is purely a congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act we passed last year, while it is true it is not a resolution, it was a law signed by the President of the United States, and that law -- the Budget Control Act -- said we are going to set the budget for this year and next, but beyond that we are also going to put in place 10 years of spending caps, saving $900 billion.

On the question of whether the Budget Control Act represents or takes the place of a budget resolution for this year and next, let me read from the text because I think it makes it abundantly clear. It says: “The allocations, aggregates, and levels set in the Budget Control Act shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.”

That is pretty clear. This law, the Budget Control Act law, is to serve in the same manner as a budget resolution for 2012 and 2013, and it sets out the spending limits for those years. But it even goes further and sets spending caps for 10 years -- something that, in my time here, has never been done in a budget resolution. Never in a budget resolution, while I have been here, has there been the setting of 10 years of spending caps, but that is what was done in the Budget Control Act last year.

But that law went even further than that. It also created a special committee and empowered that committee to come up with a proposal to reform the entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare -- and reform the tax system of the United States, and it told that special committee that if it came to an agreement, that legislation could come to the floor without fear of filibuster -- without fear of filibuster. Extraordinary powers were granted in that Budget Control Act to reform Social Security and Medicare and the tax system as well.

That special committee did not agree, and the Budget Control Act said: If you don't agree, there are consequences, and the consequences are another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion of spending restraint that was in the underlying act.

So the special committee didn't agree, and now we have the prospect of a sequester imposing another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts on top of the $900 billion of spending cuts in the underlying act, for a total of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. That is the biggest spending cut package, as far as I know, in the history of the United States. Yet the other side suggests repeatedly that nothing has been done to set spending limits when they know full well what the Budget Control Act, passed last year, does. Yes, it wasn't a resolution; it was a law. Boy, that is sort of civics 101, that a law is stronger than a resolution.

I said several days ago I would go to markup in the Budget Committee and I would lay out a long-term plan because while it is true that we have in place for the next 2 years a budget under the Budget Control Act, what we don't have is an overall long-term plan. The Budget Control Act limits discretionary spending for the next 10 years, but we also need a program that outlines what we are going to do about entitlement programs -- Medicare, Social Security -- and what we are going to do to reform our tax system, which is badly broken.

So several days ago I said I would lay before the Budget Committee the Bowles-Simpson plan, which is the only bipartisan plan that has emerged. It was supported by 11 of the 18 Commissioners. I was proud to be one of five Democrats, five Republicans, and one Independent.

Eleven of the 18 voted to support that Bowles-Simpson package. Unfortunately, it took a super supermajority for that plan to come to the floor of the House and the Senate; it required 14 of the 18 members to agree. Eleven of 18 did, which is more than 60 percent. Even in Washington, usually 60 percent carries the day, but it didn't with respect to the Bowles-Simpson recommendations.

So I said several days ago I would put before the body the Bowles-Simpson plan. I did not suggest we would complete action on it at the beginning of the markup. Why? Because we already have in place the spending limitations for this year and next. What we don't have is a longer term plan. We don't need that longer term plan right at this moment, but we need it before the end of the year because at the end of the year all of the Bush-era tax cuts are going to expire, and at the end of this year we are going to face that sequester I mentioned that is in the Budget Control Act law that we passed last year instead of a budget resolution.

Why do we need this longer term plan? Well, because we are borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar we spend, and that is unsustainable. It has to change. I have warned repeatedly of where we are headed if we don't change course.

And here is where we are headed. This chart shows the gross debt of the United States if we stay on the trajectory we are on. We can see we are here in 2012. At the end of this year, the gross debt of the United States will be 104 percent of our gross domestic product, headed for 119 percent on our current trajectory. That shouldn't be permitted to happen, and under the plan I laid before our colleagues yesterday, it won't happen.

If we look at the underlying cause of these deficits and debt, we can see it is the relationship between spending and revenue. The red line is the spending line, the green line is the revenue line of the United States looking back to 1950, and what one sees is that spending is at or near a 60-year high. Actually, we have fallen back somewhat from the 60-year high we reached 2 years ago. Revenue is at or near a 60-year low. Actually, we can see it bumped up to a 70-year low back in 2010. But still we see a very wide gap between revenue and spending. As a result, there is a very large deficit -- a deficit of $1.2 trillion.

Now, I could have gone before the Budget Committee yesterday and laid out another partisan plan, because that is what is happening. Congressman Ryan, to his credit, laid out a plan, and in the House they passed his plan. I give him credit for laying out a plan. I think the plan is a very bad plan for the country and completely lacks balance. It is all done on the spending side of the equation, which leads him to truly Draconian cuts -- dramatic changes in Medicare, for example, dramatic changes in Medicaid, dramatic changes in the whole structure of services the government provides people in this country. And the American people don't want a plan that is just a partisan plan. They do not want a plan that lacks balance. They do not want a plan that is just on one side of the ledger.

As I showed in the previous chart, we have a problem on both sides of the ledger -- on revenue and on spending. We have to work on both sides of the ledger. And the American people believe that as well. When asked in the Pew Research Center poll last year in November, "What is the best way to reduce the Federal budget deficit?" 17 percent said just cut major programs -- only 17 percent, 1-7. On increasing taxes, 8 percent said just increase taxes. And 62 percent said a combination of both. I think the American people have it right. They are pretty smart. They are pretty smart.

In 2010 we had the Bowles-Simpson Commission, the so-called fiscal commission. Eighteen of us were named to serve. It was created by the President after a legislative attempt, led by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire, a Republican, and myself, failed here. We got a majority but we didn't get a supermajority. So our attempt to form a commission legislatively was thwarted. President Obama showed leadership and named a Presidential commission in order to take on the subject, and in December of 2010 that commission reported their conclusion, with 11 of the 18 of us agreeing to the recommendations.

Here are the principles and values the fiscal commission used to guide their efforts: that it is a patriotic duty to make America better; that we shouldn't do anything that would disrupt the economic recovery; that we ought to cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America competitive; that we ought to protect the truly disadvantaged; that we ought to cut spending we cannot afford, with no exceptions; that we ought to demand productivity and effectiveness from Washington; that we ought to reform and simplify the Tax Code; that we shouldn't make promises we can't keep; and that the problem of deficits and debt are real and the solution will be painful.

Let's be honest. When you are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar you spend, you are not going to solve this in a way that doesn't affect anyone. All of us are going to have to participate in the solution.

The last principle that was used to guide the commission was that we should do things to make America sound over the long run.

So what does the fiscal commission plan I laid out do? It puts in place $5.4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years, including savings that have already been enacted in the Budget Control Act.

It lowers the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2012 to 2.5 percent in 2015 and down to 1.4 percent in 2022. So because of the reductions in deficits, it stabilizes the debt and begins to bring it down. In fact, it stabilizes the gross debt by 2015 and lowers it to 93 percent of GDP by 2022.

Remember my previous slide? Here is the quiz. What did it say the debt would become by 2022 if we don't do anything as a share of GDP? It said it would become 119 percent if we didn't act. Under the proposal I laid before the Budget Committee yesterday, it would bring down the debt to 93 percent of GDP -- the gross debt to 93 percent of GDP by 2022 instead of 119 percent if we fail to act.

The plan I laid out reduces overall spending to 21.9 percent of GDP by 2022, discretionary spending to 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022, a record low -- a record low. In fact, this overall spending level is lower than the average spending level during the Reagan administration.

Our colleagues on the other side are always eager to embrace Ronald Reagan's policies. The proposal I laid out yesterday has a lower average spending as a share of our national income than did President Reagan during the entire period of his Presidency.

The plan I laid out also builds on health care reform with additional health care savings and fully funds the doc fix. What is the doc fix? That is the measure to prevent the doctors who treat Medicare patients from taking a cut of more than 20 percent.

The plan also calls for Social Security reform that ensures the 75-year solvency of Social Security, with the savings only to extend solvency, not for deficit reduction. In other words, Social Security reform, those savings are not used for deficit reduction. They are only used to extend the solvency of the program itself. The plan I laid out includes fundamental tax reform; makes the Tax Code simpler, fairer, more efficient, while raising more revenue to reduce our deficit and debt.

This chart shows the deficit as a percentage of GDP under the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan I laid before our colleagues yesterday. We can see, it takes the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP this year -- which is down, by the way, substantially from 10 percent, which is where it has been -- down to 1.4 percent in 2022. The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan reduces the deficits below the 3-percent-of-GDP level that is considered sustainable by economists, and it does that by 2015.

Again, the gross debt under the plan I put before colleagues that comes from the fiscal commission work, the Bowles-Simpson plan that was concluded and recommended in 2010, would take the gross debt down to 93 percent of GDP from the 104 percent it is now and, as I indicated earlier, an even more dramatic improvement compared to what the debt would be if we failed to act.

As I indicated, the spending level under the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan is about 21.8 percent of GDP. During the Reagan administration, spending was 22.1 percent of GDP. So we have lower overall spending as a share of the national income than was the case during the Reagan administration. In fact, discretionary spending goes to an all-time low of 4.8 percent by the end of the 10-year plan.

We can see, discretionary spending -- that is distinct from mandatory spending. Mandatory spending are things such as Social Security and Medicare. Discretionary spending are things such as defense and national parks and law enforcement and education. We can see, discretionary spending as a share of our national income is dropping very sharply under this plan.

What is happening on the other side of the spending ledger is the 800-pound gorilla, which is health care. That is the thing that threatens to swamp the boat around here because we can see what is happening. Back in 1972 Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health spending was about 1 percent of our gross domestic product. If we don't take further steps by 2050, it is going to be 13 percent of our gross domestic product, from 1 percent to 13 percent. Right now in this country, 18 percent of our GDP is going to health care. One in every six dollars in our whole economy is going to health care -- more than $1 in every $6. So that is something we have to focus on like a laser, and in the fiscal commission plan, we do focus on it like a laser. It doesn't open the health care reform debate that we just concluded, but it does provide an option to phase out the tax exclusion for health care that economists tell us would be one of the most effective things we could do to change the direction of health care expenditure.

It fully offsets the cost of the so-called doc fix, so our doctors treating Medicare patients don't face this huge cut that is currently in the law. We have additional savings proposals with Medicare beneficiary cost sharing, payments to health care providers being reformed, eliminating State gaming of the Medicaid tax, and providing the Medicaid drug rebate for those who are duly eligible in Medicare. This would save hundreds of billions of dollars.

While the fiscal commission did make a recommendation on Social Security, those numbers are not included in the proposal I put before our colleagues yesterday because I am precluded from doing so by the law. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibits the inclusion of Social Security in deficit totals of a budget resolution. So I did lay out the proposal from the fiscal commission on reforming Social Security; but I could not include it in the numbers because I am precluded from doing so by the law.

Here are the recommendations from the fiscal commission that I included in my proposal to our colleagues but that are not in the numbers for the reason I have given: calls for Social Security reforms to make it solvent, not for deficit reduction; restores 75-year solvency and puts it on a stable path beyond 75 years; strengthens the safety net by enhancing the minimum benefit for low-wage workers and by giving an actual bump up in benefits for the oldest seniors and the long-time disabled. One of the things we know, people who live a long time run out of their benefits. So in the fiscal commission we proposed to actually give them a little bump up after they have been in retirement for an extended period of time.

We also provided a hardship exemption for those who are unable to work past the age of 62. One of the things we know is a person can take early retirement at age 62 -- and we are going to have to increase the retirement age of Social Security over time, over a very long time, by the way. In this proposal, we increase the retirement age to 69 over decades.

We have to increase also the maximum level of wages that are taxed for Social Security because the traditional standard is no longer being followed. We are not taxing 90 percent of wages. That doesn't mean the tax is 90 percent, by the way. It means 90 percent of wages is being subjected to the tax. What has been happening over years is we have been getting a reduced amount of taxable wages to apply the Social Security tax to. That is one of the reasons we have a shortfall over time.

Under this plan, we raise the retirement age -- but only very gradually -- reaching 69 by 2075. This is 2012. So we don't raise the retirement age to 69 until 2075. That is 63 years from now. But make no mistake, that is important because people are living longer. In fact, people are living much longer.

We also have a need for tax reform. The Tax Code is out of date, it is inefficient, and it is hurting U.S. competitiveness. The complexity imposes significant burden on individuals and businesses. The expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. We are hemorrhaging revenue to the tax gap, to tax havens, to abusive tax shelters.

Many times on this floor I have shown a picture of a little building down in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. Ugland House claims to be the home to 18,000 corporations. A little 5-story building down in the Cayman Islands claims to be the home to 18,000 companies. Are all those companies doing business out of that little five-story building? No. The only business they are doing down there is monkey business, and the monkey business they are doing is ducking their taxes here and shoving the burden onto all the rest of us who pay our taxes. That is not right.

We have to go after these tax havens, these abusive tax shelters, and we can do it. We need to restore fairness. The current system is contributing to growing income inequality, and our long-term fiscal imbalance, the deficits and debt we talked about, must be addressed.

The CBO Director, Mr. Elmendorf, talked about the economic benefits of tax reform in a hearing before the Budget Committee. He said: “I think analysts would widely agree that reform of the Tax Code that broadened the base and brought down rates would be a positive force for economic growth, both in the short term and over a longer period.”

Tax reform has to be part of the agenda of this Congress. Here is what is happening to income disparity in America. Look at what is happening. The top 1 percent -- and I am all for the top 1 percent doing well. I want everyone to do well in America, but look what is happening. Since 1979, the top 1 percent, their incomes have gone up almost 300 percent. Look at what has happened to those in the middle and those at the bottom. Their incomes have stagnated. They have been about stable -- gone up a little bit but not very much. The top 1 percent has gone up like a rocket.

One of the reasons is the Tax Code of the United States has dramatically reduced for the wealthiest in our country the tax burden they shoulder. They will show us, oh, their taxes have gone way up. Sure, they have because their incomes have gone way up. What has gone down -- what has gone way down is the effective tax rate they pay. The top 400 families, the wealthiest 400 families in America, have had their effective tax rate almost cut in half since 1995.

Again, I am not one who is against success. I come from a family who has succeeded. I come from a family who has done well, and I am deeply appreciative. I am grateful for the opportunity this country has provided to my family. But do you know what. What is fair is fair. What is fair is fair. We have to ask everybody to help pull this wagon out of the ditch. We are in the ditch, and let's get serious about getting out.

If we broaden the base of our tax system, the people who will be most affected are the wealthiest among us because look what happens. Here is the increase in aftertax income, on average, from tax expenditures in this country; that is, the loopholes, the deductions, the credits, the exclusions that are in the current Tax Code. The average benefit for the top 1 percent is $219,000 a year. The middle quintile, their benefit is $3,000. If we reform tax expenditures, which we should do, that will put some additional burden on those who are the wealthiest among us.

By the way, not everybody who is doing well is treated the same way under this Tax Code. There are many people who are doing well who are paying a tax rate that is very close to the top rate of 35 percent. There are others who are paying at a level one-half as much; the same income but paying much less in taxes. Why? Because they have set up their affairs in a way that they especially benefit from the credits, the exclusions, the deductions, and all the rest of the tax gimmicks that riddle the current Tax Code.

Here is what one of the most conservative economists in the country said about reducing tax expenditures. This is Martin Feldstein, professor of economics at Harvard, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan. This is what he said about cutting tax expenditures: “Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending.... [E]liminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment or risk-taking. It would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions. And eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. In short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue.” That, from one of the most conservative economists in the country.

Our colleagues on the other side say wait a minute, we should not have revenues more than 18 percent of gross domestic product because that is, on average, what it has been over the last 30 or 40 years. The problem with their analysis is the last five times we have balanced the budget the revenue has not been 18 percent of GDP. The last five times we have balanced the budget, revenue has been at 19.7, in 1969; 19.9, in 1998; 19.8 percent of GDP in 1999; 20.6 percent of GDP in 2000; and 19.5 percent of GDP in 2001. If people want to be serious about balancing the budget, we are going to have to have a revenue level, based on what we see historically, that is more than 18 percent of GDP.

The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, does this with respect to tax reform. It eliminates or scales back those tax expenditures we were discussing but lowers tax rates. You can lower tax rates and get more money if you broaden the base, if you reduce some of these tax expenditures that frankly go disproportionately to the wealthiest among us and have grown like Topsy in the Tax Code.

We can promote economic growth and improve America's global competitiveness, we can make the Tax Code more competitive, we can have what was included in the fiscal commission, an option, a reform plan that calls for three rates for individuals: 12 percent, 22 percent, and 28 percent. The top rate now is 35 percent. A corporate rate of 28 percent. The corporate rate now is 35 percent.

The fiscal commission plan called for capital gains and dividends to be taxed as ordinary income. Instead of having a differential for capital gains and dividends, they were taxed at ordinary rates. But the fiscal commission also said if you want to have a differential, you have to pay for it by buying up the top rate. For those who believe strongly you need to have a differential for cap gains and perhaps dividends, you can do that, but then you have to have a higher top rate than 28 percent.

The fiscal commission plan reforms the mortgage interest and charitable deductions, it preserves the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit, and completely repeals the alternative minimum tax.

Under this plan, revenues grow to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2022. In fact, the revenue under the fiscal commission plan during the 10 years of the plan averages 19.7 percent. That is right at the level that has been required the last five times we have balanced the budget. That is very close to the revenue level during the Clinton administration, the last time we did balance the budget. By the way, that was a Democratic President.

Some say that is a big tax increase you are talking about, Senator. No, it is not a big tax increase. It is additional revenue of $2.4 trillion compared to roughly current policy, what is happening right now. But compared to current law it is actually a $1.8 trillion tax cut because all of the tax cuts that were put in place in the Bush administration are about to expire. So if you compare it to that law, this proposal represents a $1.8 trillion tax cut. It is more revenue than we would get under current policy but less revenue than we would get under current law.

The fiscal commission plan I laid before colleagues yesterday, the so-called Bowles-Simpson plan, also had certain process changes to tighten things up around here, to become more disciplined. It set discretionary spending caps through 2022 enforced by a 60-vote point of order and sequester; firewalls between security and nonsecurity spending so money could not be diverted between the two; a separate cap for war funding with annual limits proposed by the President; more rigorous emergency designation procedures and annual budgeting for disasters; a fail-safe to pressure Congress to maintain a stable debt-to-GDP ratio starting in 2015; more accurate inflation adjustments for indexed programs -- that is the so-called chained CPI, a more accurate measurement for inflation adjustment; and a process to ensure more reliable and timely extended unemployment insurance benefits.

I have heard from my colleagues repeatedly that the President showed no leadership. I don't believe that. I think the President showed extraordinary leadership. He averted a depression -- and make no mistake, that is where we were headed when he came into office. When he came into office here is what was happening. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month in the private sector. That is what he walked into. He did not create the conditions that led to losing 800,000 jobs a month, he inherited that.

Look at the progress that has been made. Since 24 months ago we have seen jobs in the private sector on the positive side of the ledger -- 4 million jobs created. That is after he was in a situation in which we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. In the last 4 months we have been averaging 200,000 jobs created. That is pretty good leadership. That is a dramatic turnaround.

The same is true of economic growth. When he came into office the economy was shrinking at a rate of almost 9 percent. Now it is growing at a rate of about 3 percent. That is pretty good leadership. That is a dramatic change from what he inherited.

When I hear that the President did not show leadership -- oh, yes? I would say he showed pretty good leadership. He stopped the hemorrhaging. He got us going back in the right direction. It is not everything we hoped for, but my goodness, what a remarkable turnaround. Two of the most distinguished economists in this country said if we had not taken the actions that were taken by the Federal Government at the end of the Bush administration and during this administration, we would be in a depression.

We are not in a depression. In fact we are growing. We are growing modestly but we are growing. We are creating jobs in the private sector. The private sector is growing. It added 4 million jobs since this President got things turning around. This President named the fiscal commission. There would not be a Bowles-Simpson commission had the President not appointed it. The Bowles-Simpson commission plan is what I put before our colleagues yesterday.

Some have criticized me to say: You didn't vote on it. That is right. We are not going to vote on it until we believe there is the best possible chance to actually get results. If you go back to the Bowles-Simpson commission approach, what you saw is they did not time the vote until after the 2010 election. What I am saying to colleagues is I think we ought to follow their good example. That is because the truth is, people are not likely -- all sides are unlikely to get off their fixed position right before a national election.

Let me end as I began. We have a budget for this year and next. It is contained in the Budget Control Act, a law that was passed last year. When my colleagues say there was no budget resolution passed, what they are not telling you is instead of a budget resolution, we passed a budget control law. A law is stronger than any resolution. A resolution is purely a congressional document and never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act passed the House and the Senate and was signed by the President of the United States.

It says in part: “The allocations, aggregates and levels of spending set in this act shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.”

What could be more clear? This law is in place of a budget resolution. It is stronger than any resolution because it is a law.

Next time somebody tells you there has been no budget resolution for 1000 days, ask them, but did they pass a law that set spending limits? That set the budget for this year and next? That set 10 years of spending caps that saved $900 billion, that gave a special committee the ability to change Social Security and Medicare and the tax system of the United States and not face a filibuster? And if they did not succeed, there would be another $1.2 trillion of cuts? And because they did not agree, that additional $1.2 trillion of cuts is now in law and will begin to be imposed at the beginning of next year?

That is a total of more than $2 trillion of spending cuts in the Budget Control Act passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and in force today. That is the biggest spending cut package in the history of the country.

If anybody suggests to you no spending limits have been put in place, ask them: What about the Budget Control Act? Didn't you vote on that? Because it passed the House. The Republican-controlled House, they passed it. It passed the Senate and it was signed by the President of the United States. It is the law. A law is stronger than any resolution.

###

Private Sector Jobs Picture Jan 2009 to Jan 2012

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:00:00 EST

Charts appeared in: Chairman Conrad Floor Speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (Apr. 19, 2012)

Economic Performance 2008 to 2011

Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:00:00 EST

Charts appeared in: Chairman Conrad Floor Speech on the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (Apr. 19, 2012)

Chairman Conrad's Opening Statement at Markup of Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:30:00 EST

Read Chairman Conrad's opening statement at the markup of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan.

Chairman Conrad's Opening Statement at Markup of Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:30:00 EST

Opening Statement

Listen to audio of this statement (This is a large file and may take a minute to load)

The Markup will come to order. I want to welcome everyone to the Senate Budget Committee today. The Committee meets today to begin consideration of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2013. I will have a statement. Then I will recognize the Ranking Member for his statement. Then the Chair will recognize other Members of the Committee, in seniority order, alternating between the sides, as members of different parties are available. And Members will be recognized for statements of five to seven minutes. Amendments will not be in order today. The Mark will not be before us, as is the tradition of this Committee, until the end of our opening statements today.

I did break from tradition, by providing the Ranking Member yesterday, roughly 24 hours in advance – I think it was a little less than that as it turned out – the Mark that I will be releasing later today, so that hopefully Members will have a better idea of what they are talking about with respect to their opening statements. So, we did break from tradition by giving the Ranking Member the Mark yesterday.

As I announced yesterday, I am going to lay down as my Chairman’s Mark the bipartisan Fiscal Commission plan, also known as the Bowles-Simpson plan. It is a plan which I believe represents the best blueprint from which to build a bipartisan deficit reduction agreement.

What I am proposing is not partisan. I am trying to break from ‘business as usual,’ that has gone on for too long. I am hoping that my Senate colleagues will be open to finding a path forward that can bring us together before we face the expiration of all the tax cuts from the Bush era and before we face the imposition of the sequester. The only way this can happen is if we find some way to come together. And I know it is difficult.

I want to emphasize that we already have a budget in place for this year and next. So we are in a different position than we usually are with respect to a budget resolution.

Last year, instead of a budget resolution, Congress passed the Budget Control Act, which is an actual law. It states very clearly that the Budget Control Act “shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget” for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. So we have spending limits in place for 2012 and 2013.

The Budget Control Act also provided for 10 years of spending caps, providing $900 billion in savings over that period. And it created a Special Committee to reform Medicare and Social Security and the tax system. And the Budget Control Act said that if the Special Committee did not succeed, there would be another $1.2 trillion of spending cuts imposed at the beginning of next year, the so-called sequester.

Because the Special Committee did not reach an agreement, those additional cuts are now in the law. So a total of more than $2 trillion of spending cuts was provided by the Budget Control Act. That is the biggest package of spending cuts that I could find in the history of our country. And all of those cuts are now in law.

And a law is much stronger than a budget resolution. As all of us know here, a budget resolution is purely a Congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. A law, like the Budget Control Act, is passed not only in the House and Senate, but is signed by the President. So it is the law.

What we do not have is – and the reason why I think it is important that we find a way to negotiate a long-term budget agreement – is that we don’t have a long-term budget plan. That is what we must now work to achieve.

The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan, which I am presenting today, provides a comprehensive and balanced deficit reduction framework to build upon. It is not perfect, but it does represent a middle-ground. It brings the deficit down from what it would otherwise be, and it brings the debt down from what it would otherwise be. And it does so in a responsible, fair, and balanced way. It protects the most vulnerable. It phases in changes to avoid harming the economy. And it includes savings from across the budget, including from entitlement reform and from tax reform that raises revenue while lowering rates.

I recognize adjustments will have to be made to that plan, because what I am putting before the body is the original Bowles-Simpson plan. Obviously, things have happened in the last two years, for instance the Budget Control Act. So, we know adjustments will have to be made. That is going to take time. And those adjustments will have to be negotiated, and those negotiations, I think, will have to take place before we get to the end of this year when will face the expiration of all of the Bush tax cuts and the imposition of the sequester.

I intend to give Members of the Committee an extended period to evaluate my Mark. And as they review this plan, I hope to hear back from Members on how they think we can maximize our chances of successfully reaching a bipartisan agreement.

There is nothing I would want more than to reach agreement on a long-term plan right now. And it could be that outside events, such as a crisis overseas, will drive us to come together sooner than we might otherwise. I would certainly be open to reaching conclusion sooner, if that is possible. But I am a realist, and I recognize the chances of that are slim.

Many have suggested we will not be able to reach conclusion until after the election. It may be that both sides will find it difficult to move off their fixed position before a national election. I wish that weren’t the case, but it probably is the case. By we are going to have powerful motivating factors pushing us toward resolution – the expiration, as I have indicated, of all of the Bush era tax cuts and the potential imposition of the sequester.

Let’s remember that the original Fiscal Commission panel was structured to have a vote after the 2010 election. It was structured that way for a reason. Senator Gregg and I believed it was critically important to have the vote and the votes when there was the greatest prospect of actually getting a result. And we concluded the best chance right after an election.

That is what I am hoping to replicate now. By presenting the Fiscal Commission plan as a budget resolution, I would hope we could be ready with a bipartisan plan later this year. It is going to take an enormous amount of work. All those who served on the Commission, all those who served on the Special Committee, all of those who served on the Group of Six, what is now the Group of Eight, I think know, these things can not be done in a matter of weeks. The ground has to be plowed now.

We are borrowing almost 40 cents of every dollar we spend. That is the hard reality we face as we meet here today. That is not sustainable.

Gross federal debt is expected to reach 104 percent of our Gross Domestic Product this year, and then continue rising to 119 percent of GDP by 2022. Many economists regard anything above the 90 percent threshold as the danger zone. And the long-term debt outlook is even more dire.

The reality is that we face both a spending and a revenue problem. Spending is near its highest level as a share of the economy in more than 60 years. And revenue is at or near a 60 year low as a share of our national income. Both sides of the ledger, I believe, are part of the problem and will have to be part of the solution.

We also know that the American people support a balanced approach to deficit reduction. In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in November, people were asked, “What is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit?” Seventeen percent supported cutting major programs only. Eight percent supported increasing taxes only. And 62 percent said we should do a combination of both.

The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan does just that. It cuts spending and it raises revenue through tax reform. It does exactly what the American people are asking us to do. It is the kind of plan, I believe the American people, when fully briefed on it, will support.

The Guiding Principles and Values of the plan, as they were outlined in the original Fiscal Commission Report, were as follows:

We all have a patriotic duty to make America better off tomorrow than it is today.
That we shouldn’t disrupt the fragile economic recovery.
That we should cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America competitive.
That we should protect the truly disadvantaged.
That we should cut spending we cannot afford – no exceptions.
We should demand productivity and effectiveness from Washington.
That we should reform and simplify the tax code.
That we shouldn’t make promises we can’t keep.
That the problem is real, and the solution will be painful.
And we should keep America sound over the long run.

Here is an overview of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan that I am putting before the body today. It includes $5.4 trillion of deficit reduction over 10 years, including savings from last year’s Budget Control Act. It lowers the deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2012 to 2.5 percent in 2015 and 1.4 percent in 2022. So it takes the deficit down well below the 3 percent of GDP level that is widely viewed as sustainable. It stabilizes gross debt by 2015 and then lowers it to 93 percent of GDP by 2022 – putting debt on a clearly downward trajectory. It reduces overall spending to 21.9 percent of GDP by 2022. And it reduces discretionary spending to an historic low of 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022. It builds on health care reform, but adds additional health savings. And it fully offsets the “Doc fix,” preventing a dramatic drop in Medicare payments to physicians who treat Medicare patients. It calls for Social Security reform that ensures the 75-year sustainable solvency of Social Security. And it calls for Social Security savings to be used only to extend the program’s solvency, not for deficit reduction. Finally, it includes fundamental tax reform – tax reform that will make the tax code simpler, fairer, and more efficient, while raising additional revenue.

This next chart shows the deficit trajectory under the plan. As I noted, it brings the deficit down to 1.4 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, well below the 3 percent level that is viewed as sustainable.

It stabilizes the debt, as I indicated, by 2015, and begins to bring it down steadily after that.

Over the ten years of the plan, spending averages 21.8 percent of GDP, which is actually below the level we experienced during the Reagan Administration.

The plan brings discretionary spending – those funds appropriated by Congress each year – down from 8.4 percent of GDP in 2012 to an historic low of 4.8 percent of GDP by 2022.

But I think we all acknowledge that health care spending is the 800 pound gorilla. Although the health care reform law adopted in 2010 made progress in changing health care incentives and bending the cost curve, rising health costs remain the single largest factor contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal imbalance.

In 1972, Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health spending totaled 1.1 percent of GDP. By 2050, that federal health spending could grow to more than 13 percent of GDP. And we can see that Medicare represents the fastest growing portion of that spending. Of course, it is important to remember that rising health care costs are a problem in the private sector as well. This is not just a Medicare- or Medicaid-related problem.

Like the original Fiscal Commission plan, the plan I am presenting today does not re-open the health care reform debate. Instead, it builds on health care reform by providing additional health savings. It provides an option to phase out the tax exclusion for health care – a step the Congressional Budget Office has said would be one of the most significant steps we could take to bend the cost curve on health care spending. As I noted before, it fully offsets the cost of a “Doc fix. To offset these costs, it includes savings proposals, such as: Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing; reforming payments to health care providers; eliminating state gaming of the Medicaid tax; and extending the Medicaid drug rebate to “dual” eligibles in Medicare Part D.

While the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan calls for the same Social Security reforms as the original Fiscal Commission plan, it does not include in its numbers the savings from those Social Security proposals. That is because, as everyone on this Committee knows, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 – the law that established the budget process – prohibits the inclusion of Social Security in the deficit totals of a budget resolution. So Social Security reforms will have to be considered separately.

However, the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan does include a policy statement that supports the original Fiscal Commission recommendations regarding Social Security. It calls for Social Security reform that reforms Social Security to make it solvent, not for deficit reduction. All the savings from reforming Social Security go to extending the solvency of Social Security, not for deficit reduction. It restores the 75-year solvency of Social Security and puts it on stable path beyond 75 years. It strengthens the safety net with an enhanced minimum benefit for low-wage workers, a bump up in benefits for our oldest seniors and long-time disabled, and a hardship exemption for those unable to work past 62 – all of these were part of the original Bowles- Simpson proposal, and I’ve carried them through to this proposal. It gradually increases the maximum level of wages taxed for Social Security; and raises the retirement age, but only very gradually – reaching age 69 by 2075.

With respect to the enhanced minimum benefit provision, I received a commitment during the Fiscal Commission discussions that it be better targeted to protect low-income beneficiaries. And I am committed to seeing that provision improved.

The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan also includes the kind of fundamental tax reform that was included in Bowles-Simpson. The need for tax reform could not be more clear. The state of the tax code is simply indefensible. It is out of date, inefficient, and hurting the competitive position of our country. As everyone who has been filing taxes in recent days knows, the complexity of the tax code imposes a significant burden on those required to file returns. Expiring provisions create uncertainty and confusion. The tax code is also hemorrhaging revenue from the tax gap, tax havens, and abusive tax shelters. We also need to restore fairness to the tax code. The current system is contributing to the growing income inequality in the country. And finally, we need tax reform to help address the long-term fiscal imbalance. Revenue is part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

Adopting comprehensive tax reform will spur economic growth and allow us to compete better in the global marketplace. Here is how our CBO Director, Mr. Elmendorf, described the economic benefit of tax reform in his testimony before this Committee. And I quote him: “I think analysts would widely agree that reform of the tax code that broadened the base and brought down rates would be a positive force for economic growth, both in the short term and over a longer period.”

Tax reform can also help address the growing income inequality in the country. In recent years, we have seen that gap grow. Since 1979, the real after-tax household income for the top one percent has grown about 275 percent. Over the same time period, the income for the middle quintile has grown about 35 percent.

Our tax system, I believe, is contributing to this income inequality. It is not the only factor, there are many others, globalization and others. But I think we have to acknowledge, the tax system is part of it. Tax expenditures – the countless preferences, credits, deductions, and exclusions that have been added to the code over the years – are disproportionately benefitting those at the very top.

In 2011, the top one percent of taxpayers received an increase in after-tax income of almost $220,000 from tax expenditures. In comparison, the middle quintile received about $3,200 from tax expenditures.

By scaling back some tax expenditures – and by the way, tax expenditures are now more than all of the appropriated accounts – by scaling some of them back we can simplify the tax code, vastly improve the economy’s efficiency and competitiveness, and help restore fairness.

Here is how conservative economist Martin Feldstein, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, described the benefit of reducing tax expenditures in an oped in the Wall Street Journal. And I quote from Martin Feldstein: “Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending....” Let me just repeat that. “Cutting tax expenditures is really the best way to reduce government spending.... [E]liminating tax expenditures does not increase marginal tax rates or reduce the reward for saving, investment or risk-taking. It would also increase overall economic efficiency by removing incentives that distort private spending decisions. And eliminating or consolidating the large number of overlapping tax-based subsidies would also greatly simplify tax filing. In short, cutting tax expenditures is not at all like other ways of raising revenue.”

We also know that we need more revenue. Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that revenue should not exceed 18 percent of GDP, the average over the last several decades. But on the five occasions when the budget was in surplus since 1969, revenues have ranged between 19.5 percent and 20.6 percent of GDP. And we will likely need an somewhat higher revenue level in the future, because the country faces an unprecedented demographic situation with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

The Fiscal Commission Budget Plan includes the kind of fundamental tax reform that I believe needs to be adopted. It eliminates or scales back tax expenditures, and lowers tax rates. It promotes economic growth and improves America’s global competitiveness. It makes the tax code more progressive.

Notably, the Commission’s report included an “illustrative” tax reform plan that demonstrates how eliminating or scaling back tax expenditures can simplify the code while lowering rates. Instead of six brackets, it includes just three – 12 percent, 22 percent, and 28 percent. The corporate rate would also be reduced from 35 percent to 28 percent. Capital gains and dividends would be taxed as ordinary income. That is part of the original Bowles-Simpson plan. Although a differential could be maintained if it were bought up with a higher top rate. The mortgage interest and charitable deductions would be reformed, better targeting these tax benefits. The Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit would be preserved to help working families. And the Alternative Minimum Tax would be repealed.

Overall, the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan would increase revenue to 20.5 percent of GDP by 2022.

Over the ten years, revenue under the plan would average 19.7 percent of GDP, roughly the same level seen during the Clinton Administration, when we experienced the longest period of uninterrupted economic growth in the nation’s history, and 24 million jobs were created.

In dollar terms, compared to the alternative baseline provided in the plan, it includes $2.4 trillion in new revenue over the ten years. Compared to a current law baseline, it represents a $1.8 trillion tax cut. So, compared to the alternative baseline, it represents an increase in revenue of $2.4 trillion. Compared to current law, it represents a tax cut of $1.8 trillion.

Like the original Fiscal Commission proposal, the plan includes a number of process changes to improve budget procedures and help enforce fiscal discipline. These include: discretionary spending caps through 2022 enforced by a 60-vote point of order and sequester; firewalls between Security and Non-Security funding through 2015; a separate cap for war funding with annual limits proposed by the President; a more rigorous emergency designation procedure and annual budgeting for disasters. Let me just say with respect to a more rigorous emergency designation procedure, Senator Crapo has done an enormous amount of work on trying to close down the emergency designation loophole that has been so abused in the past. Some of those provisions are provided here; all of which were in Bowles-Simpson. A failsafe to pressure Congress to maintain a stable debt-to- GDP ratio starting in 2015; more accurate inflation adjustments for indexed programs; and a process to ensure more reliable and timely extended unemployment benefits.

So that is the plan. It is comprehensive. It is balanced. It is fair. And it represents the best blueprint we have from which to build a bipartisan agreement.

But I recognize it is not perfect. And I recognize adjustments will have to be made before anything like this can hope to be adopted. Those adjustments will have to be negotiated, and those negotiations will take time. Those of us who were involved in the Commission certainly know that.

I intend to give Members time to evaluate my Chairman’s Mark. And then I hope to hear back on how you think we can best maximize our chance of getting a result. How can we best maximize the chance of actually getting a result?

We are facing a fiscal train wreck at the end of this year. The expiration of all of the Bush era tax cuts, the sequester. I don’t think anybody thinks that would be a good place to go.

It is time to move off of our fixed positions. I understand that is probably unlikely right before an election, but before the end of the year, we are going to have to find a way to come together.

This Fiscal Commission Budget Plan represents, I believe, a blueprint to begin that conversation.

Additional Remarks

Listen to audio of these remarks (This is a large file and may take a minute to load)

I thank all of my colleagues today.

Let me indicate my own view, because everyone else has expressed themselves on this question. When I hear colleagues say there’s been no budget put in place for 1,000 days, I just don’t think that is correct. I really don’t.

We passed last year the Budget Control Act. The Budget Control Act is not a resolution. The Budget Control Act is a law.

A resolution is purely a Congressional document. It never goes to the President for his signature. The Budget Control Act passed both Houses of the Congress and went to the President for his signature.

The Budget Control Act not only set the budget for this year and next. And I just read the language from the Budget Control Act: “...the allocations, aggregates and levels...shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2012.”

That exact same language is repeated in the next paragraph for 2013. The Budget Control Act law “shall apply in the Senate in the same manner as for a concurrent resolution on the budget.”

To suggest we have not put in place spending limits or spending restraint, I think is misleading to people who are listening. I believe it is very clear in the Budget Control Act that we passed a law that put in place spending limits, not only for two years, but quite extraordinarily, spending caps for 10 years. I have been here 26 years. I have never seen a budget resolution put in place spending caps for more than three years. The Budget Control Act put in place spending caps for 10 years.

In addition, the Budget Control Act created a Special Committee with the obligation to come up with a plan for reforming Social Security, Medicare and the tax system, and told them if you are able to agree, you will be able to bring that proposal to the floor of the Senate and not face a filibuster, be able to pass reforms to those programs on a simple majority vote. And it further said if you can’t agree, there will have to be an additional $1.2 trillion of cuts put in place in the so-called sequester.

Because the Special Committee did not agree, the $900 billion of savings under the Budget Control Act are law, as are the additional $1.2 trillion of spending cuts created by the fact that the Special Committee could not agree on reforming Medicare, Social Security and our tax system. That is a total package of over $2 trillion of spending cuts. That is more than any package of spending cuts or spending restraint in the history of our country.

Where I do agree is that we don’t have a long-term plan. We do have a budget for this year, and next. Spending restrictions in place for those two years. But what we don’t have is a long-term plan. That’s why I spent a lot of time trying to figure out what I would take before this Committee.

At the end of the day, I decided to do what I deeply believe. And I deeply believe Bowles-Simpson, however imperfect it is, and there are lots of things there that I strenuously disagree with. I told my staff, I’ll never forget the morning of the vote on Bowles-Simpson, the only thing worse than being for this is being against it. Because at least it gets our debt under control and begins to bring it down. And it does it in some kind of balanced way. I would be the first to acknowledge we have got to make adjustments to it, because things have happened in the interval.

I would say this also to you, and I say this with sincerity. I don’t believe that this is going to get resolved, I don’t believe that all parties are going to get out of their fixed positions, before an election. I wish we could. I wish we would. I don’t see any evidence in my 26 years that that is going to happen.

In fact, budget resolutions have not been done for a decade – no matter who was in charge of the Senate – in an election year. The only time it has happened was when I last became Chairman – in 2008, I was able to get, in an election year, a budget resolution. That’s one reason I insisted that in the Budget Control Act we did put in place spending limitations for the next two years, and the enforcement mechanisms, and spending caps for the next 10.

I tell you I believe as deeply as anybody in this Committee that we have got an obligation and a responsibility – Senator Johnson, you said it well, a responsibility, a deep responsibility – to get this country back on track. I am willing to work with anyone in these coming months to figure out what adjustments would need to be made to the Mark I have laid down. I will dedicate myself to trying to find a way to come together so at the end of this year, before we face the expiration of all the tax cuts that are in place, and before we face the sequester that I do believe would cut too much on national defense, that we find an alternative. I am absolutely committed to trying.

With that, the Committee will stand in recess. We’ll distribute the Mark. I thank all Members for participating.

###

Materials:

Charts used in the description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Concord Coalition Commends Sen. Kent Conrad for Budget Plan Based on Simpson-Bowles Proposals

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 07:00:00 EST

April 18, 2012

WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition today commended Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad for proposing a comprehensive fiscal reform plan based on the recommendations of a bipartisan majority of the Simpson-Bowles commission.

“The easy course for Senator Conrad would have been to simply lay out one more partisan budget plan for Washington to argue over,” said Robert L. Bixby, Concord’s executive director. “Instead, he is doing something far more valuable. He is laying down a nonpartisan marker that was supported by a bipartisan majority on the President’s commission and a bipartisan group of House members, and encouraged by a bipartisan group of 64 in the Senate. This ambitious deficit-reduction plan would put the country on a more responsible course without jeopardizing the economic recovery. It puts everything on the table, dealing with defense, regular domestic spending, the entitlement programs and tax reform.”

President Obama and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan have proposed budgets this year that have some positive elements but fall short of what is needed, as Bixby explains today in an op-ed in Politico. In addition, the plans put forth by Obama and Ryan appeal only to their respective parties. While that approach may please the party faithful, it won’t enable the country to meet the difficult fiscal challenges it faces in the years ahead.

“The shortcomings and lack of bipartisan support for the Obama and Ryan budgets illustrate exactly why we need the Simpson-Bowles plan,” Bixby says. “Senator Conrad’s proposal shows that he clearly understands this. What we need now is for more of his colleagues – some of whom have indicated an interest in Simpson-Bowles -- to follow his leadership in pursuing legislation that reflects the commission’s work.”

As Conrad realizes, Congress must take constructive action soon. The budget is on an unsustainable long-term track, largely as the result of an aging population and rising health care costs. Even in the shorter term, compromise and legislative action are needed because large tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year, sharp new “automatic” spending cuts are supposed to begin next January, and the federal debt limit will likely need to be raised again at about the same time.

Ideally, Conrad’s plan would have proceeded rapidly, following the traditional budget resolution timetable. However, voting on the plan by the end of the year -- as Conrad has set as a goal -- would still give Congress a responsible way forward given the impending fiscal deadlines.

A copy of this press release is available at: http://www.concordcoalition.org/press-releases/2012/0418/conrad-coalition-commends-sen-kent-conrad-budget-plan-based-simpson-bowles-

###

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to fiscal responsibility.

CBO Director Elmendorf on Economic Benefits of Tax Reform

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:30:00 EST

Chart appeared in: Description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (April 18, 2012)

The Need for Tax Reform

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Chart appeared in: Description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (April 18, 2012)

Fiscal Commission Guiding Principles and Values

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Chart appeared in: Description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (April 18, 2012)

Social Security Policy Statement in Fiscal Commission Budget Plan

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Chart appeared in: Description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (April 18, 2012)

Economist Feldstein on Need to Reduce Tax Expenditures

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:00:00 EST

Chart appeared in: Description of the Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (April 18, 2012)