MORE HONESTY NEEDED IN ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET

The Administration's three trillion dollar budget is not only huge, it is an unrealistic assessment of the future, fails to meet the needs of rural states like Nebraska and it could be bad news for the middle class working families of America.

MIDDLE CLASS WORKERS

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was passed almost 40 years ago to prevent the very wealthy from avoiding taxes, does not account for inflation. As a result, if left unchecked the AMT would hit more and more middle class workers each year. Fortunately, Congress has begun the practice of patching it yearly to prevent such an encroachment on families who were never intended to be subject to the AMT. Unfortunately, the President's budget assumes that it will be allowed to hit middle class families next year. This means that either the Administration is proposing a huge tax hike for middle class workers – including 90,000 Nebraskans – or he expects the AMT to be changed but fails to account for the cost of the change. Either way, the budget is based on unrealistic assumptions.

A FUDGET – NOT A BUDGET

The AMT assumption is one of several reasons why I have been referring to the Administration's budget as a "fudget" because it fudges the figures, and it fudges the future. It avoids coming to grips with reality not only as it affects middle class citizens but as it impacts war funding and rural America where it would eliminate dozens of programs that are important to our way of life.

RURAL AMERICA

Again this year, the Administration's budget has targeted rural America, and states like Nebraska, to shoulder the burden for years of fiscal mismanagement. Popular, efficient and effective programs like Community Development Block Grants and Byrne law enforcement grants are targeted for deep cuts or outright elimination. This budget request, as in years past, unfairly targets programs important to rural states and will no doubt be altered dramatically by Congress.

WAR FUNDING

The Administration's budget again raises my concerns about how funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been handled. The budget only included $70 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 and nothing beyond that. That amount of money will just barely get us through the end of this calendar year – it doesn’t even come close to what we will need for next year and beyond.

The rationale is that we will have a new president and that new person should be able to set priorities. I can understand that, in part. But this isn’t giving the new president more leeway; it's giving less leeway by forcing him or her to immediately focus on rounding up funds for two wars. It’s a deceptive bit of accounting. Furthermore, it goes against a pledge Defense Secretary Gates made to me that he would do everything possible to reflect true and accurate war costs in this budget. If this is doing the possible, I would hate to ask him to try something impossible.

I'll be working with my colleagues to pass a budget that provides for domestic priorities, fully funds our troops and works towards reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, our job will be complicated by the "fudget" that was sent to Congress.

###



	Column	February 15, 2008
MORE HONESTY NEEDED IN ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET The Administration's three trillion dollar budget is not only huge, it is an unrealistic assessment of the future, fails to meet the needs of rural states like Nebraska and it could be bad news for the middle class working families of America. MIDDLE CLASS WORKERS The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was passed almost 40 years ago to prevent the very wealthy from avoiding taxes, does not account for inflation. As a result, if left unchecked the AMT would hit more and more middle class workers each year. Fortunately, Congress has begun the practice of patching it yearly to prevent such an encroachment on families who were never intended to be subject to the AMT. Unfortunately, the President's budget assumes that it will be allowed to hit middle class families next year. This means that either the Administration is proposing a huge tax hike for middle class workers – including 90,000 Nebraskans – or he expects the AMT to be changed but fails to account for the cost of the change. Either way, the budget is based on unrealistic assumptions. A FUDGET – NOT A BUDGET The AMT assumption is one of several reasons why I have been referring to the Administration's budget as a "fudget" because it fudges the figures, and it fudges the future. It avoids coming to grips with reality not only as it affects middle class citizens but as it impacts war funding and rural America where it would eliminate dozens of programs that are important to our way of life. RURAL AMERICA Again this year, the Administration's budget has targeted rural America, and states like Nebraska, to shoulder the burden for years of fiscal mismanagement. Popular, efficient and effective programs like Community Development Block Grants and Byrne law enforcement grants are targeted for deep cuts or outright elimination. This budget request, as in years past, unfairly targets programs important to rural states and will no doubt be altered dramatically by Congress. WAR FUNDING The Administration's budget again raises my concerns about how funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been handled. The budget only included $70 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 and nothing beyond that. That amount of money will just barely get us through the end of this calendar year – it doesn’t even come close to what we will need for next year and beyond. The rationale is that we will have a new president and that new person should be able to set priorities. I can understand that, in part. But this isn’t giving the new president more leeway; it's giving less leeway by forcing him or her to immediately focus on rounding up funds for two wars. It’s a deceptive bit of accounting. Furthermore, it goes against a pledge Defense Secretary Gates made to me that he would do everything possible to reflect true and accurate war costs in this budget. If this is doing the possible, I would hate to ask him to try something impossible. I'll be working with my colleagues to pass a budget that provides for domestic priorities, fully funds our troops and works towards reducing the deficit. Unfortunately, our job will be complicated by the "fudget" that was sent to Congress. ###