The writer is chairman of the Douglas County Democratic Party.
I think most Nebraskans can agree with U.S. Rep. Lee Terry's recent essay that the Founding Fathers were right in creating a republic where the will of the majority could be expressed while protecting the rights of the states.
I admire the attempt by Rep. Terry to take a long view of history. However, in this case, I believe his July 19 Midlands Voices commentary missed the trees for the forest. A more accurate assessment would be an analysis of the past 15 years.
It is disingenuous for Rep. Terry to claim a dedication to fiscal responsibility given the progression of his career in Washington. When he was first elected in 1998, our government announced its first budget surplus since 1969. At $70 billion, this represented six years of concerted effort to get our fiscal house in order.
By the time Rep. Terry was running for re-election in 2000, the surplus had reached a rec- ord $230 billion. According to a joint report from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and Budget, our total national debt had reached $5.7 trillion.
One would hope that this surplus would be used to pay down this debt, but, alas, this was not to be.
After the 2000 elections, "fiscal conservatives" like Rep. Terry controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Instead of "getting our fiscal house in order" by paying down the national debt, we inexplicably saw our nation become the first in history to cut taxes while at war.
In 2011, we have reached a point that our national debt has exceeded our national GDP. I agree wholeheartedly with the motives of Rep. Terry but disagree most strenuously with his methods.
One needs look no further than Rep. Terry's support of Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal. This policy would end Medicare as we know it, slashing benefits for future generations while further cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.
Moreover, the Terry/Ryan plan would hit seniors immediately by reopening the Medicare prescription "donut hole." That alone would cost Nebraska seniors $16 million more in drug costs in 2012.
Rep. Terry claims allegiance to a balanced-budget amendment, but take note that he didn't introduce one until the 111th Congress, the first Congress convened during the Obama administration and with a Democratic Senate.
The balanced-budget amendment includes much more than just balancing the budget. It would require a two-thirds super-majority to close any tax loopholes, including those for Big Oil companies and corporate jet owners.
Moreover, the Ryan/Terry plan would fall short of balancing the budget by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. This means that without additional revenue, we would need $400 billion in additional cuts beyond the already draconian measures proposed in this bill. Furthermore, even if it were to pass, it would not be ratified by the necessary 38 states until at least 2013.
When dealing with a problem of this magnitude, we cannot simultaneously tie our hands with an amendment. Tying this type of amendment to the debate over the debt ceiling is also disingenuous. The debt ceiling does not cover future spending but, instead, funding already allocated by the Congress. It absolutely must be increased.
Rep. Terry has put the economic recovery at tremendous risk by refusing to pay bills that he has racked up as a member.
Now is a time for tough decisions and true leadership in Washington. Rep. Terry has proven through his 13-year career that if we want someone capable of tackling our toughest fiscal issues, we need someone else.
Nebraskans can no longer afford his go-along, get-along attitude; he's just too late to the party.
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
