Radio Address to the
Nation on the Federal Budget and the Congressional Elections
My
fellow Americans:
Today
we learned that there will be no Gramm-Rudman-Hollings sequester this year.
With that in mind, I'd like to take a moment to talk about one of
As
Congress prepares to leave town, many of its liberal leaders are congratulating
themselves about their handling of the budget. And, yes, at least Congress
didn't repeat its budget performance of last year: one desperation bill called
a continuing resolution passed over 2 months late rather than the 13 regular
appropriations bills required by law. Congress heard my warning that if that
happened again I'd use my veto pen, even if it meant shutting down the entire
Government.
So,
we stopped Congress from once more saying, ``The dog
ate my homework,'' when its budget assignment was due; and we got them to cut
spending enough so that we'll meet the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings targets this year.
But left to its own devices, Congress would not have
done this. You see, Congress is still controlled by liberal big spenders. And
no matter when they hand in their homework, they still call every paper ``tax
and spend.''
You
may have heard a lot of campaign talk from our liberal friends recently about
the Federal deficit and Federal debt. What you don't hear them say is that the
President can't spend one dime of the Government's money without congressional
appropriations. Only Congress can decide how much the Government spends. Only
Congress can pass spending bills. Only Congress can determine
how big the deficit will be, or if we're to have a deficit at all. In
fact, it is against the law for the President to spend a penny more or a penny
less than Congress directs him to spend. The President can't add to the
deficit. He can't subtract from it either. That's Congress' job.
And
how many of us have stopped to think that our liberal friends have had a
majority in the House of Representatives for 52 of the last 56 years and in
both Houses of Congress for 46 of those 56 years? And in all that time, there
were only 8 scattered years in which the budget was balanced; the last time was
1969.
Over
the years, I've asked Congress for many spending cuts that Congress with its
liberal leadership has rejected. Add them all up, and they come to more than
this year's entire budget deficit. Think of it: We could have wiped out a year
of deficits if our liberal friends in Congress were as dedicated to reducing
government spending as we are.
Of
course, the liberal big spenders in Congress will tell you that they're for
reducing the deficit and even for reducing spending. But somehow for them
reduced spending always comes down to reduced defense spending. And time and
again, when they've cut defense spending, it's just been a cover for spending
more on their special interest programs. In 6 years, the liberal leadership in
Congress cut defense spending authority by over $125 billion. And for every
dollar they cut from defense outlays, they added $2 to domestic spending.
I've
called on our liberal friends in Congress to admit their addiction to big
spending and to give the President more tools to help him help them kick the
habit. And that's why I've wanted a balanced budget amendment: to require them
to live within their means. And it's why I've wanted a line-item veto for the
President: so the President can go through the budget, lift out bad spending,
item by item, and make Congress vote on it out in the open, not hidden with
thousands of other items. That way, if the spending really is bad, you'll know
about it, and your representatives will have to answer to you when they go home
and ask for your vote.
You
can see why the liberal congressional leadership is dead-set against the
balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto. They like things just as they
are, although they act as if the first chance they get they'll find a way out
of the discipline of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I'm sorry to say that the Congress'
liberal leadership still has one answer to everything: raise your taxes. And if
they stay in control of the Congress, they just might find a way to raise them.
In
the next 4 weeks, as you're thinking over how you'll vote this year, I wish
you'd consider something else as well: Since we must ride two horses, Congress
and the President, across every stream, shouldn't they both be going the same
way? Why should we have a President who says no more taxes, and Congress have a
liberal leadership that wants to tax and spend? Why should we have a President
who's for a line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment, and Congress have a
liberal leadership that's against both? If we don't want a tax-and-spend
liberal in the White House, shouldn't we give the President we do want a
Congress that will work with him? And when it comes to giving the next
President a more receptive Congress, I hope you'll remember: If your
Representative and Senator aren't part of the answer, you can be sure they're
part of the problem.
Until
next week, thanks for listening, and God bless you.
Note: The President
spoke at