Economy
The United States is facing an urgent financial crisis that threatens our fiscal and economic stability. Our government is currently borrowing about 50 cents for every dollar we spend. Common sense says you don’t pay off borrowed money with borrowed money. Medicare is already paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes and Social Security is expected to do the same in less than five years. The total unfunded liabilities for the United States are $60.6 trillion, which exceeds the net worth of America. Paying off this liability, would require every American to write a check to the Treasury Department for $198,000.
The “solution” President Obama and the liberal leadership in Congress are pursuing is more spending and higher taxes. They have exploded the national debt to over $13 trillion, setting a record deficit of $1.8 trillion for 2009 – four times larger than the previous high. Never before have so few spent so much in so little time.
Recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation shows that District 7 residents will bear the brunt of the tax increases in President Obama’s budget. Our district ranks 9th out of 435 congressional districts in total projected tax increase in the country. District 7 is projected to be taxed over $779 million more under President Obama’s budget. This is not the only cost to our district. The outstanding public debt of the United States is currently over $13 trillion, and each District 7 resident owes $36,900 as their individual share of the debt.
As a staunch fiscal conservative, I strenuously opposed these epic spending increases regardless of who occupied the Oval Office. I voted against $2.3 trillion under the Bush Administration and against $7 trillion under the Obama Administration. We are a nation in debt and cannot continue writing checks when our bank account is overdrawn. I am an original cosponsor of the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would amend the Constitution and force the federal government to live within its means – just as American families do.
In addition to the Balanced Budget Amendment, I supported a budget alternative that would cut taxes and reduce spending. It is time to let Americans keep more of what they earn and for the government to spend less. It is time to start trusting and empowering individual Americans instead of the federal government. By taking these steps, our economy will see the growth and prosperity that have defined America for generations.
I have supported the following legislation in the 112th Congress that would help create American jobs and put our fiscal house back in order:
• H.R. 872, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 – passed the House on March 31, 2011.
• H.R. 910, Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 – passed the House on April 7, 2011.
• H. J. Res. 37, Net Neutrality – passed the House on April 8, 2011.
• H. Con. Res. 34, House Republican Budget – passed House on April 15, 2011.
• H.R. 1230, Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act – passed House on May 5, 2011.
• H.R. 1229, Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act – passed House on May 11, 2011.
• H.R. 1231, Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act – passed House on May 12, 2011.
• H.R. 2021, Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011 – passed House on June 22, 2011.
• H.R. 2018, Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 – passed the House on July 13, 2011.
• H.R. 1315, Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011 – passed House on July 21, 2011.
• H.R. 1938, North American-Made Energy Security Act – passed House on July 26, 2011.
You have done tremendous good for Houstonians, specifically the I-10 construction in record time. Your telephone town halls are the kind of transparent and accessible goverment we can be pround of. No other official is willing to listen to and respond to their constituents like that, that I am aware of. I want to keep you there so we can keep all the good you do. But my savings are disappearing. My friends and relatives are losing jobs. The private sector has money but inadequate demand to invest in. When you talk of cutting spending, balancing the budget (a limitation on us that does not restrain our enemies, natural disasters, and other demands on public services) and cutting taxes, it is easier to see how those efforts will harm than how those effots will help. Why can’t we delay austerity measures until after the economy returns? Conservatives throughout history have altered course during extreme economic events, including Eccles, Keynes. I’m willing to pay higher taxes if that will help.
+1
It’s hard to say what I might be inclined to do if I were in your place. Maybe it’s just as well that I’m not. That said, it appears to me that political leadership in the US as well as in Europe possibly views our present list of economic and financial problems as having a recurring cyclical nature rather than a more deep and possibly long-lasting structural nature. Clearly, as you have written, our federal government has grown faster than the economy that supports it. What I see forthcoming in the way of policy response sounds like incomplete and short-sighted “hope and prayer” which 9even when pared down a bit) falls far short. Structural reforms are necessary.
Social Security is $8+ trillion short of being able to repay to those covered by it, the constant dollar value of dollars they and their employers have paid in related taxes. The system is a black hole that will begin to permanently reduce our standard of living. It gets worse with each one-second tick of the clock and cannot be repaired. Our policy response is denial and obfuscation.
By my barometer(s) the major “reasons to fear” (bond / stock / real estate / employment) markets is that politicians in US and Europe (while Asia is slowing) are not ahead of problems and they are not communicating the current depth and potential severity of continued problems to the public.
I would like to see comprehensive solutions. These inevitably produce austerity via lowered consumption and much higher personal savings rates that are needed across all sectors and most geographic regions in order to rebalance major developed economies in the US and Europe (which are reasonably well correlated) and replace depleted risk-reserves.
To K. Stockberger’s comment “I’m willing to pay higher taxes if that will help.” Higher taxes will not help, they would make the problem worse. Spending and unfulfillable promises to spend are the problem.
Unless promised benefit payouts from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are substantially lowered, funding these programs will, all by themselves, sink the the US economy – forget about funding all the other stuff we need or want government to do.
Spending or investing decisions by individuals tend to be based on what they believe will make themselves more wealthy, thereby creating and inducing other to create wealth – a portion of which is always redistributed to those in need of benefits. Spending by government tends to be based on political, economically inefficient considerations, thereby destroying wealth – which inevitably reduces the wealth which would otherwise be available to redistribute to the needy.
In short, raising taxes won’t help. Raising taxes would ultimately reduce the amount of benefits that can be paid. The country is already paying more benefits than it can afford, and benefits are projected to grow much faster than the economy is projected to grow. Increasing taxes will exponentially reduce the time between now and the time the economy hits the wall.
It’s shameful that politicians who know this to be true do not do their part to educate the public.
You have done tremendous good for Houstonians, specifically the I-10 construction in record time. Your telephone town halls are the kind of transparent and accessible goverment we can be pround of. No other official is willing to listen to and respond to their constituents like that, that I am aware of. I want to keep you there so we can keep all the good you do. But my savings are disappearing. My friends and relatives are losing jobs. The private sector has money but inadequate demand to invest in. When you talk of cutting spending, balancing the budget (a limitation on us that does not restrain our enemies, natural disasters, and other demands on public services) and cutting taxes, it is easier to see how those efforts will harm than how those effots will help. Why can’t we delay austerity measures until after the economy returns? Conservatives throughout history have altered course during extreme economic events, including Eccles, Keynes. I’m willing to pay higher taxes if that will help.
To your comment: “Recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation shows that District 7 residents will bear the brunt of the tax increases in President Obama’s budget.”
My comment: I don’t doubt this is the case….and as such, I’m happy to contribute an increased share. My needs are simple, and as a middle aged, middle income/assets taxpayer accept the reality of changes needed to lower the deficit without gutting the social systems that are safety nets for retirees and lowest income class.
Mr. Culberson,
I urge you to work with all members of Congress to find a compromise on raising the debt ceiling. I agree with the effort to restrain future expenditures; however, legislation has already been passed which authorizes many ongoing projects and agencies. Those obligations should be met. Now that the debate over federal spending has been fully engaged, I urge you and your fellow House members to push on to a longterm solution. But pay the current monies owed as promised.
Sincerely,
Jim Bulla