It appeared unlikely last week that House-Senate conferees negotiating the final version of a bill to create a new Medicare drug entitlement would meet an October 17 deadline imposed on them by the Republican congressional leadership.
The entitlement is projected to cost about $430 billion over ten years-which is not quite as much as the fiscal 2004 budget deficit that CBO now estimates will run to $480 billion (after the federal government also spends all of $164 billion in anticipated surplus Social Security revenues).
Meanwhile, President Bush met with Republican congressional leaders on October 14 and made a pitch for passage of the not-yet-seen drug entitlement bill.
On October 1, the first day of the new fiscal year, HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso asked members of Congress if the United States could afford to create a huge new entitlement program when it is running a $480-billion deficit.
The CBO is projecting a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning today. That is after spending the whole $164 billion in Social Security surplus.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R.-COLO.): That counts that?
Counting that.
TANCREDO: You sure its over $400?
Yes, it's like $600-some billion.
TANCREDO: Exactly. And then you'll throw in this $87 billion we're going to do-
-on top of that, actually so you are actually, you're right???
TANCREDO: $700 something?
So can Congress afford to create any new prescription drug entitlement whether it is on the cheap or on the. . .
TANCREDO: No, absolutely not. It can't do that. It can't do half of the things it's doing and be fiscally responsible. But that doesn't stop us. Fiscal responsibility is not a clarion call for us around here. . . .Our responsibility, contrary to what most people believe here, is not to educate the children of America, not to provide welfare for the people of America, not even to provide roads for the people of America, it is to protect and defend. And we shirk that responsibility while pursuing these others while they are sexier and will buy more votes.
Given a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year starting today-and that's after all the Social Security surplus is spent-is there room for Congress to create a prescription drug entitlement?
REP. KATHERINE HARRIS (R.-FLA.): I don't think it is an entitlement. I think it's important we have a prescription drug benefit. We have to figure out we can fiscally do that and do so responsibly. But I don't think its responsible that we aren't addressing that prescription drug situation. So, there are many other budgetary issues besides prescription drugs that we need to take a look at.
CBO is now projecting a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning today and that's after spending the $164-billion Social Security surplus. Can Congress afford to create a prescription drug entitlement for senior citizens?
REP. STEPHANIE TUBBS-JONES (D.-OHIO): You know what, my position is that senior citizens are entitled to a prescription drug entitlement even if it means increasing the deficit. We are . . . increasing the deficit to fight a war in Iraq, to rebuild Iraq, to rebuild Afghanistan and my parents are 82 and 83 years old. And they have paid and so have all these other seniors. Darn it, let's create a deficit and give a prescription drug benefit. Though I don't like the one that is being proposed, I think they are entitled to a prescription drug benefit.
Will there be any specific other area in the budget that you would want to cut to make room for that?
JONES: What I would want to do is repeal the tax cut to pay for our senior prescription drug benefit.
Given that that looks kind of unlikely, would there be any other program or agencies that you might say 'you know we don't necessarily need the government-'
JONES: You know, I'm not prepared to make that kind of a statement. I'd have to think about that.
CBO is predicting a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year starting today. That's after the Social Security surplus is spent, and before the $87 billion for Iraq. Can Congress afford to create a new prescription drug entitlement with that kind of fiscal environment?
SEN. PETER FITZGERALD (R.-ILL.): Well, we certainly need to get the revenues back up. I think revenues will be coming up by the time our prescription drug benefit is implemented. Even if we were to pass a bill tomorrow it wouldn't be implemented for a while. And I think that if the economy starts to turn around you will start to see government revenues come up. Obviously, to the extent you get seniors taking prescription drugs that they otherwise are not taking then we might save on the hospitalization portion of Medicare. So I think that it may not be as expensive as predicted but we have to get the bill right so that it cant be set up so it is wasting money, a very serious issue.
CBO, for the fiscal year beginning today, projects a $480-billion deficit, that is after spending the entire $164-billion Social Security surplus and before the $87 billion for Iraq. With a deficit like that, can Congress afford to create a prescription entitlement for senior citizens?
SEN. ELIZABETH DOLE (R.-N.C.): We are moving forward on the prescription drug entitlement, we'll get it as soon as possible. The thing is, the deficit, obviously there are times of emergency, if there is a war, if there is a recession. . . . The way you get out of a deficit is to grow the economy, and obviously I am for creating as much growth as possible. I think our tax cuts are one way certainly to do that and I believe the President has laid down a package that will ensure that we get this economy moving. The way you create jobs is to provide more opportunity for businesses to spend to be able to buy the equipment they need, to be able to expand, upgrade their plants.
CBO is projecting a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year starting today. That is after spending all the Social Security surplus-$164 billion-and that is before the $87 billion that you are dealing with right now. Can Congress afford to pay for a new prescription drug entitlement for senior citizens?
SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R.-IDAHO): It's very hard to see how they can. I think that the budget impacts of that are one of the most difficult aspects of that entire debate.
Is there any specific thing you would have in mind to cut out of the budget-even though you're not in support of the entitlement-but just to avoid $700-or $800- billion deficits in the future?
CRAPO: My approach historically has been across the board reductions. I've noticed that when you go in and try to cut specific programs there's always a constituency that is able to stop it and so my preference when we've got to balance the budget is cross the board reductions.
CBO is projecting a $480-billion deficit for the fiscal year beginning today, and that's after eating up all the $164 billion in Social Security surplus and before spending the $87 billion that you are dealing with for Iraq. Given that, can Congress afford to create a new entitlement for prescription drugs?
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D.-N.J.): Even if we wanted to the President's structure would be virtually impossible . . . because either we come up with something that is so limited in cost or you take it from someplace that this majority is unwilling to accept.
Where would you prefer to take it from?
LAUTENBERG: I prefer to take it from a tax reduction and roll back the tax cuts.
Given that that is not going to happen because of the [Republican] Senate majority, are there any other parts of the budget where you might [eliminate or reduce] any agencies or programs that come to mind specifically?
LAUTENBERG: Given the deficit and starvation of the programs go together, we are in a terrible spot. And we keep going. We who would like to see a prescription drug benefit have to recognize that a large part of [that] will be going to Iraq, for reconstruction. A lot of the people who would like to see an improvement in the way we are funding education have to recognize that that it is going to go to Iraq for reconstruction. You have to recognize also that borrowing from Social Security is going to make it weaker over the period of time.
