Taxes, Budget, and Fiscal Responsibility

Due, at least in part, to the reckless spending and tax policies of the Bush Administration and a fiscally-irresponsible Congress in 2001, and the escalation of the costs of the war in Iraq, the federal government is currently running a substantial budget deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit will continue well into the next decade and promises to burden future generations with a repayment obligation or "debt tax" of more than $30,000 per person.

Overview

• I believe that it is immoral to burden future generations with the obligation to repay our debt, especially when the accumulation of debt is unnecessary.
• We must take action to reduce wasteful spending at the federal level. I believe we can do so by increasing the transparency of and accountability of Congressional earmark spending, and by enacting a constitutionally sound version of the line-item veto.
• I also support a tax policy that is simplified and fairer to Middle-income Americans, including eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

It is immoral to burden future generations with the obligation to repay our debt, especially when the accumulation of debt is unnecessary. It is possible to eliminate the budget deficit through a bipartisan commitment to balancing the budget with tax and expenditure policies that are fair to American families and workers, but it will not be easy or painless.

The first priority must be to bring an end to the war in Iraq that is costing nearly $2 billion every week. This burden on our economy will haunt generations to come.

Second, I believe our tax policy should be simplified and fairer to Middle-income Americans. That is why I have long supported eliminating the so-called "Alternative Minimum tax" that punishes middle-income wage earners. That is also why I have supported those portions of the 2001 tax cuts that were not reckless—and still enjoy bipartisan support, including voting in favor of:

• ending the marriage penalty that required married Americans to pay more income taxes after marriage than they were required to pay individually;
• permanent extension of the special 10% tax bracket that provides tax relief to the taxpayers who need it most;
• permanent extension of the $1000 child credit;
• to provide a tax credit for adoption; and
• revision of the estate tax for individuals by setting the top rate at 35% and exclude estates worth less than $5 million (indexed for inflation) - this would protect more than 100,000 families from the inheritance tax.

I am also a cosponsor of the Middle Class Opportunity Act (H.R. 2902) and the Right Start Child Care and Education Act of 2007 (H.R. 2021). Both pieces of legislation would make changes to the tax code that would help working families. The Middle Class Opportunity Act would: (1) increase the child tax credit for the first year of eligibility; (2) allow the use of the dependent care tax credit to care for family members not residing with the taxpayer; and (3) increase the maximum qualifying income for an exemption from the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Right Start Child Care and Education Act would: (1) increase the rates and maximum allowable amount of the tax credit for employer-provided child care; (2) increase the dollar limit on the child care tax credit; and (3) allow a $2,000 tax credit for certain child care providers.

Third, I believe it is time to take action to stop the fiscal abuses resulting from congressional earmark requests. Congressional earmarks have directly benefited Colorado in the past-including providing funding for expansion of our light rail transit system and grants for our world-class research institutions. However, it has become increasingly clear that the earmark process lacks the oversight, transparency, and accountability needed to stop Members of Congress from requesting wasteful spending projects. The continuing failures of the system are unconscionable at a time when the national debt has reached an astronomic al $9.4 trillion and a time when most Americans are facing the effects of a serious economic slow down. As a result, I have declared a one-year earmark moratorium. I believe that a moratorium will help focus Congress on the need to fix this broken system and will help restore the faith of the American people that we are committed to fiscal responsibility and securing our economy.

In addition to the moratorium on earmarks, I have consistently supported reforms that would help eliminate the unnecessary and wasteful spending often requested through earmarks. I am a cosponsor of the Stop the Omnibus Pork (STOP) legislation, H. Res. 283, which would prohibit combining individual appropriations bills into a single spending bill or "omnibus" bill. The STOP legislation would ensure that these earmarks are exposed to legislative scrutiny and force Members of Congress to approve or deny the measures through the vote.

I have also repeatedly introduced the Stimulating Leadership in Cutting Expenditures (SLICE) Act. The SLICE Act would authorize the President to identify specific items of federal spending that he thinks should be cut. Unlike the version of the line-item veto that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998, the SLICE Act is constitutional because it requires Congress to approve each of the President's proposed cuts. I was the chief Democratic sponsor of similar legislation in 2006, H.R. 4890 the Legislative Line-item Veto Act. This legislation passed the House in 2006, and I was credited with leading the effort to organize Democratic votes. I regret to say that I have not been successful in convincing the new Democratic majority in Congress to pass similar legislation, but I will continue to work for it because a line-item veto makes sense.

And fifth, I believe our future fiscal solvency depends on taking a comprehensive look at current government spending. To accomplish this goal, I have co-sponsored legislation (the SAFE Act (H.R. 3654) that would create a 16-member bipartisan commission tasked with addressing: (1) the imbalance between our long-term spending commitments and projected revenues, (2) the lack of national savings, (3) the implications of foreign ownership of U.S. government debt, and (4) the changes in the budget process to increase emphasis on long-term fiscal issues.

Formation of a blue-ribbon commission along these lines would not absolve Congress of the responsibility to act, but would elevate the debate and force politicians in both parties to acknowledge the need for policy reforms. I believe putting a public spotlight on fundamental issues like savings and foreign investment would be another good step in getting America's fiscal house in order.