Congressman Brecheen speaks on House floor about the gravity of our national debt

Congressman Josh Brecheen Speaks on the Gravity of our National Debt During First House Floor Speech

This text has been adapted from Congressman Josh Brecheen’s first House floor speech. You can watch the full speech here, or below.

Cong. Brecheen reacts to CBO report: "We must course correct as economic security is key to national security"

Congressman Josh Brecheen Reacts to CBO’s Baseline Report; “We Must Course Correct as Economic Security is Key to our National Security”

Washington, D.C. (Feb. 16th) – Congressman Josh Brecheen issued the following statement after the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its Budget and Economic Outlook report for FY2023 to FY2033.

“These numbers are a siren, warning the American people to get our fiscal house in order. The CBO is projecting that our national debt will increase by an additional $22 trillion over the next 10 years with average annual deficits expected to be $2 trillion. At our current trajectory, we will be spending almost $3 trillion above what we bring in revenue at the end of this 10-year window and our annual interest payments on the debt will exceed total spending on national defense. We must course correct as economic security is key to our national security,” said Congressman Josh Brecheen.

Key Facts from the Report:

• FY 2023 Deficit: This year’s deficit is projected to be $1.4 trillion, making it the fourth highest figure in American history. The FY 2023 deficit is equivalent to 5.4 percent of GDP, well above the 50-year average of 3.6 percent.

• Interest Rates: The true cost increase for interest payments on the debt will be $183 billion above the prior year and will continue to grow at an alarming pace. Almost one-fifth of a trillion dollars will be lost to annual interest payment increases spurred on by inflationary consequences. The projected interest rate on 10-year Treasury notes for 2023 has increased from 1.5 percent when President Biden took office to 3.9 percent in CBO’s latest projection, compared to 3.0 percent in 2022. The 10-year average interest rate projection is 3.8 percent.

• Deficit Projections: Our annual deficits will double within ten years. The annual deficit projection will be $2.9 trillion (7.3 percent of GDP) in 2033.

• Debt Projections: Gross federal debt is projected to increase from $30.8 trillion (123.3 percent of GDP) in 2022 to $52.0 trillion (132.3 percent of GDP) in 2033.

• Spending Projections: Annual spending is projected to be $6.2 trillion (23.7 percent of GDP) in 2023. Annual spending is projected to grow to $9.9 trillion (25.3 percent of GDP) in 2033. Over the 2024-2033 period, spending is projected to total $80.0 trillion.

• Mandatory Spending: Projected to increase from $3.8 trillion (14.6 percent of GDP) in 2023 to $6.1 trillion (15.6 percent of GDP) in 2033. Over ten years, mandatory spending is projected to amount to $48.2 trillion.

• Inflation: The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is projected to increase by 4.0 percent in 2023, 2.4 percent in 2024, and about 2.0 percent each year thereafter.

Rep. Hern introduces bill to restore CBO scoring of legislation

Rep. Hern introduces legislation that requires CBO to utilize dynamic scoring on legislation

WASHINGTON, DC – Representative Kevin Hern introduced HR 4959, the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, to the House of Representatives this week.

“Dynamic scoring isn’t a new concept. It used to be the standard, but it was written out of the House rules at the start of this year, to the detriment of Congress,” said Rep. Hern. “When I look at new bills, I don’t just look at how it fits into our federal budget. I like to see how it will impact our economy, how it will contribute to the jobs market, and what kind of an effect it will have on the bottom line for everyday Americans. Fiscal responsibility should be a top priority in the legislative process. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act will help provide that information so that every Member of Congress can see the full picture of a bill before voting on it.”

The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act has strong support among Rep. Hern’s colleagues already, with 16 original co-sponsors, including Budget Committee Ranking Member Steve Womack.

Rep. Womack said, “When considering legislation, Congress should have a full and clear analysis of a policy’s impact. That means understanding the initial and long-term effects on the federal budget, economy, job creation, and hardworking taxpayers. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act would implement dynamic scoring to prioritize fiscal responsibility and give policymakers a detailed picture of a bill before casting a vote. I’m proud to cosponsor this commonsense proposal and thank Representative Hern for his leadership on this issue.”

Support for the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act:

"By requiring the CBO to dynamically score major legislation, Rep. Hern's Pro-Growth Budget Act will provide a clear picture of the real economic impact of legislation that would affect all Americans. The act is a strong step on the path to fiscal sanity and fiscal certainty, and all Members of Congress should support this commonsense legislation." – Tim Chapman, Executive Director of Heritage Action for America

"National Taxpayers Union (NTU) applauds Representative Kevin Hern (R-OK) for introducing the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act, which would restore dynamic scoring requirements for major legislation after the House repealed those rules in the 116th Congress. Dynamic scoring, or macroeconomic impact analysis, is a critical tool that helps lawmakers understand the impact legislation will have beyond just the spending and revenues of the federal government. It is both prudent and sensible to ask the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to produce a dynamic score for legislation that would have an impact of $40 billion or more. NTU hopes that the House will quickly advance this legislation, and that lawmakers will frequently use this valuable process to consider the full economic impact of major bills." – National Taxpayers Union

“The legislation proposed by Representative Kevin Hern (R-OK) is a welcome step toward tax and spending reform at a time when lawmakers rarely consider the long-run consequences of their policy proposals. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act would incorporate dynamic scoring into the legislative process, ensuring that members of Congress understand the full benefits of pro-growth fiscal policies. Research has shown that lower taxation and spending increases revenue for decades after policies become law, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance supports putting this compelling evidence at the front-and-center of debates on Capitol Hill.” – David Williams, President of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance

“Congress should not approach legislation without realizing the potential impact the proposals will have on the economy. Static scoring provides an incomplete picture of the potential impact of revenues and spending, and it does not account for how a particular bill may impact jobs, investment, and gross domestic product. The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act provides the data Congress needs when it considers the benefits or consequences of legislation. We applaud Rep. Kevin Hern for introducing this bill and urge members to co-sponsor it.” – FreedomWorks

“Rep. Kevin Hern is doing a great service for taxpayers by introducing the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act (PGBA).  Requiring the Congressional Budget Office to produce a dynamic score of legislation will more accurately measure its impact on major economic indicators, including GDP, interest rates, investment, and jobs.  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste urges all members of the House of Representatives to support this important bill.” – Tom Schatz, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

“Evidence-based policymaking has been gaining steam in Congress. This act would provide legislators with more data to consider before they vote yea or nay." – Kevin R. Kosar, Ph.D., Vice-President of Policy, R Street Institute


Original cosponsors include:
Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
Rep. Steve Womack (AR-03)
Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04)
Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11)
Rep. Jim Banks (IN-03)
Rep. Ralph Norman (SC-05)
Rep. Greg Murphy (NC-03)
Rep. Dan Meuser (PA-09)
Rep. Fred Upton (MI-06)
Rep. Warren Davidson (OH-08)
Rep. Chip Roy (TX-21)
Rep. Mike Kelly (PA-16)
Rep. Mike Johnson (LA-04)
Rep. Lance Gooden (TX-05)
Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14)
Rep. Mark Green (TN-07)
Rep. John Joyce (PA-13)

Background Information:

Macroeconomic impact analysis, also known as dynamic scoring, measures how legislation can change the economy in terms of jobs, GDP, investment, labor supply, interest rates, and other major economic indicators. A requirement for macroeconomic impact analysis for all major bills will provide lawmakers with more context and data, beyond just the required cost to the U.S. government of bills considered by Congress.

This requirement was previously included in House rules, but was repealed at the start of the 116th Congress.

HR 4959 requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to produce a macroeconomic impact analysis (dynamic score) for committee-reported major legislation that explains how the bill could affect the U.S. economy.

This will enable a more accurate analysis of how legislation affects the economy. The analysis would be in addition to the budget cost estimate that CBO produces.

The macroeconomic analysis would be required for any legislation with an effect on revenue, spending, deficits or debts that exceeds 0.25 percent of current projected U.S. GDP ($40 billion).

The House Budget Committee Chairman and Ranking Member both may request a macroeconomic impact analysis, even if the legislation does not have an impact which exceeds 0.25% of GDP.

You can read the full text of the bill here.

Coburn, Parman: Medicaid 'rebalancing' plan is Obamacare by another name

Coburn, Parman: Medicaid 'rebalancing' plan is Obamacare by another name

by Tom Coburn and Larry Parman

The Oklahoma Health Care Authority's Medicaid “rebalancing” plan is being considered by lawmakers. The plan is simply Obamacare Medicaid expansion rebranded. As conservatives concerned about fiscal responsibility, we urge lawmakers to reject it.

The rebalancing scheme is a policy that expands the scope and size of the federal government and increases dependency on government programs. It removes one more state barrier that separates us from a single-payer system in the United States. And of course it would further balloon state taxpayer spending by $1 billion (at a minimum) over the first 10 years and would increase the federal debt by $10 billion.

According to OHCA, the plan would add some 175,000 to the Medicaid rolls while promising to shift a similar number to the flawed Obamacare private market in the future (though it's quite unlikely that portion of the plan will ever happen). Yet one study suggests that half or more of those targeted for expansion are already covered by job-related health insurance.

As the Congressional Budget Office noted, this creates an incentive not to work. The 175,000 targeted by OHCA are able-bodied adults. The proposal would increase from 27 percent to 33 percent the number of Oklahomans dependent on health care entitlements in addition to Medicare.

A core element of the OHCA proposal is qualifying for Obamacare funds that would require gutting the Insure Oklahoma program by removing enrollment caps, work requirements and accountable cost sharing. This plan would simply force more Oklahomans onto the welfare rolls. Can anyone sensibly suggest that our strapped state or federal budget can afford another vast entitlement program?

Nor can OHCA provide reliable cost estimates. The numbers keep increasing, meaning our liability is open-ended and guaranteed. Not one state using a similar plan has seen a reduction in costs to the state. All have increased.

In fact the OHCA proposal is similar to an unfunded pension liability, except that the cost will have to be funded each year. Oklahoma has finally taken steps to address that pension budget hole; the state can't afford to open the spigot for yet another costly program.

Supporters argue this is not expanding Medicaid because participants would be insured by private carriers. That's somewhat disingenuous because the funding mechanism — and more important, the financial responsibility — will be that of state and federal taxpayers.

Oklahoma rejected the Obamacare exchange grant, saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars in state-based exchange cost overruns being experienced by other states. Now we're being urged to accept funds from the federal government along with their requirements to run a health care program, according to their rules.

Gov. Mary Fallin had it exactly right in her 2014 State of the State address: “We cannot plunge this nation further into debt, or place Oklahoma on a fiscally unsound path, by expanding Medicaid. Both the president's plan and alternative proposals that rely on federal dollars in the Affordable Care Act amount to the same thing: a dramatic growth in unsustainable government spending.”

Coburn, a former Republican U.S. senator from Muskogee, has served thousands of Medicaid patients as a medical doctor. Parman, an attorney, has served as secretary of state for Oklahoma and secretary of commerce.

Senate passes fiscal cliff bill; House yet to act

At 1:39am New Year's morning, the U.S. Senate passed a "compromise" deal on the fiscal cliff -- with nearly all of the compromise coming on the part of the Republicans.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the deal to raise tax revenue by $620 billion, while cutting only $15 billion in spending (which is off-set by increased spending elsewhere). That's $41 in higher taxes to every $1 cut. Additionally, only two billion dollars in cuts will take place during 2013 -- which means that when it's all said and done, not a penny will be cut. We've been down this road many times already.

Here are some details from RedState:

The bill raises income tax rates for those taxpayers with incomes more than $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. These higher income taxpayers will also pay higher rates on investment income, with rates on dividends and capital gains rising from 15 percent to 20 percent. Add the 3.8 percent ObamaCare surcharge on investment income — another tax that takes effect in January, and the top rate on investment income would rise to 23.8 percent for those high-income households.

The bill also raises taxes on couples earning more than $250,000 a year and single people earning more than $200,000 by limiting personal exemptions and itemized deductions.

Estates taxes will also be increased, with the top rate raised to 40 percent, with the first $5 million in value exempted for individual estates and $10 million for family estates.

The bill also delays the automatic $1.2 trillion draconian sequester spending cuts for sixty days. The sequester cuts, evenly split between defense and certain domestic discretionary spending, were scheduled to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2013. The $24 billion cost of the sequester delay is allegedly made up with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues from rules changes on converting traditional individual retirement accounts into Roth IRAs.

Worse, the bill actually increases the deficit by including:

• A permanent fix for the alternative minimum tax.
• A five-year extension of tax credits for college tuition and the working poor, which were enacted as part of Obama’s failed 2009 stimulus.
• A one-year extension for unemployment benefits, affecting two million people.
• The long-term unemployed could count on receiving emergency benefits for another year, at a cost of about $30 billion.

The bill passed 89-8. Three Democrats voted no: Sens. Bennett (CO), Carper (DE), and Harkin (IA). Only five Republicans voted no: Sens. Grassley (IA), Lee (UT), Paul (KY), Rubio (FL), and Shelby (AL). 40 Republican senators voted for the measure, including Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn.

As of this moment, the House has yet to act on the bill.

One thing is for certain - Republicans in both houses of Congress need new leadership. Far too often have GOP leaders in D.C. betrayed the trust that grassroots conservatives have placed in them.