This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Feb. 15, 2011 - WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama's effort to find some bipartisan support for his $3.7 trillion budget blueprint Monday didn't get far among Missouri GOP lawmakers.
"Simply put, the president's budget does not do nearly enough, quickly enough," said U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., in a statement. "The long-term savings in this budget over the next decade are still less than this year's deficit," he said.
The White House budget plan would cut back or end more than 200 federal programs next year -- with the most trimming in specific areas of defense, heating assistance and the environment -- while also adding funding for innovation, scientific research and aspects of education that Obama views as important to keeping U.S. competitiveness.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate and a member of the White House's bipartisan fiscal commission, said he regarded Obama's budget as an important step in reducing future debts while promoting some job creation.
"America owes over $14 trillion to our creditors. At the same time, 13.9 million Americans are still searching for work," said Durbin. "The president's budget addresses this reality by making a down payment on reducing our deficits while investing in our economic competitiveness."
The White House proposal for more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade has about three-quarters coming from spending cuts and the rest from various tax increases or ended deductions. There is also a five-year federal spending freeze for discretionary programs unrelated to national security. "The budget would reduce projected deficits by more than $1 trillion and spur long-term economic growth, which will help Americans get back to work," Durbin said.
But the budget blueprint did not satisfy many Republican lawmakers, who want to see deeper spending cuts and no tax increases. U.S. Rep. Todd Akin, R-Town and Country, a member of the House Budget Committee, said Obama's budget proposal "reflects an unwillingness to deal with fiscal reality. Instead of facing our fiscal crisis, the president's budget would further stifle job growth with government spending, tax hikes and a third straight trillion dollar-deficit."
In a statement, Akin said Obama "has stated that we must invest in our children's future, but this budget does not face the dire reality that threatens that very future. It is imperative that we address the unsustainable growth in entitlement spending and debt service, which is now eating up the entirety of government revenue. If we fail to address those facts, we will be facing a total economic meltdown."
Other than Durbin, who is a member of the Senate leadership, Democrats in the regional delegation were slow to address the budget blueprint on Monday -- saying that they were studying the details and trying to gauge its potential impact on Missouri and Illinois.
Congressional offices confirmed that the budget does not include a line item for funding to expand and improve the Gateway Arch grounds, although lawmakers said they were not expecting specific funding in this year's budget.
Rep. Jerry Costello, D-Belleville, said, "There are things in this proposal that are positive and things that cause concern. This is the first step in the process, and Congress needs to examine the proposed plan closely, but I do believe the president is on the right track."
Costello said he would support painful but necessary cuts in some programs, saying that the budget "emphasizes cuts that are smart and reduce waste, while also including targeted investments in education, innovation and infrastructure. These investments will create American jobs and ensure that our workforce continues to develop the skills necessary to compete in the global economy."
A spokesman for Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-St. Louis, said Carnahan had concern about reduced funding for the State Revolving Fund, which has helped pay for water and sewage improvements in the region. Obama's budget plan calls for reducing funding for the fund by about $947 million, from last year's total of nearly $3.5 billion.
"The (fund) has contributed $250 million in construction projects in the St. Louis metro area alone," said a Carnahan spokesman. One example: About 80 percent of the cost of the Lower Meramec Treatment Plant was paid for by the fund. "If the SRF budget is reduced significantly, the cost will be passed on to the consumer," the spokesman said.
Urban areas could be hurt
The White House budget plan would reducing spending on various housing programs by about $1.1 billion, including a $300 million cut in the Community Development Block Grant program, which provides federal grants to states and cities for affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, economic development and other projects. (A Republican plan being considered would make far more drastic cuts in the CDBG program.)
However, $200 million would be included in the budget for a new program that aims to provide housing for more low-income tenants by helping qualified developers get funding to renovate apartments, provide vouchers for tenants and create housing developments for a mix of residents with different incomes.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-St. Louis, expressed doubts about proposed reductions in the block grants program. "Reducing the deficit needs to be done in an equitable way that does not focus all of the pain on lower-income Americans and urban areas," Clay said in a statement to the Beacon. He said he regarded cuts in block grants and changes in the Pell Grant programs for college students as "penny wise but pound foolish." For example, he said, cuts in block grants "would weaken already struggling urban communities who have suffered much higher rates of unemployment and foreclosures."
In his blog, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, a Democrat, said that "cuts -- or elimination -- of the Community Development Block Grant program . . . would be terrible news for St. Louis."
"The CDBG program has been a success for nearly 40 years," Slay wrote. "Without continuing CDBG funding, many organizations that provide services to low- and moderate-income people will be forced to go out of business. Since 2001, the city of St. Louis has lost roughly 30 percent of its CDBG funding, placing a strain on our ability to support these services and engage in revitalization of our neighborhoods."
Instead of further reducing or eliminating CDBG funding, Slay said, the federal government "would do better to look at increasing it -- and at streamlining the program so that more of the limited funds available can go into services and 'bricks and mortar.' Cities such as St. Louis throughout the country have suffered from decades of disinvestment. We need flexible funding, like CDBG, to address our own unique needs in ways that we can target to meet them."
The head of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Elizabeth Kautz in Burnsville, Minn., said the organization "is disappointed with the administration's proposal to cut by 7.5 percent Community Development Block Grants and eliminate the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants, which reaches cities and counties, large and small, in the U.S., and is specifically targeted to local needs."
However, Kautz said in a statement that the mayors' group is pleased that Obama's budget "proposes significant boosts to programs that impact MainStreet America, because investment in cities and metropolitan areas makes for a strong national economy. Specifically, we welcome the administration's clear commitment to public transit, high-speed rail and an infrastructure bank, the doubling of COPS hiring grants, and increased funding for homelessness assistance and child-nutrition programs."
Put Everything on the table
Congressional Republicans were in no mood to increase federal programs. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Cape Girardeau, a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said that Obama's budget "strikes the wrong chord for the American people." She said the blueprint "would continue funding for job-destroying regulations, such as EPA's greenhouse gas regulations and implementation of new health-care regulations."
Emerson said in a statement that she favored the House Republican alternative -- being debated this week on the House floor -- that "would cut federal spending by $100 billion in the current fiscal year." The nation's economy "deserves the certainty and confidence provided by a federal government willing to follow the lead of the American people and tighten their belts," Emerson said.
Blunt said that, "using this budget plan, the president will have doubled the national debt from the time he took office through the end of 2012." He added that Obama's plan "to freeze current spending levels simply does not go far enough. Everything must be on the table if we're going to ensure our federal government is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible."