While I don’t recall exactly when, it was within the last three to four weeks that I used the contact form on Senator Claire McCaskill’s Web site to share my concerns with her about President Obama’s proposed budget.

I didn’t save a copy of my message to her, but its central point was that — while I had voted for both her and the President and was generally supportive of many things the President is doing or has suggested doing — I found his proposed budget and budget projections worrisome, in particular the OMB’s and CBO’s estimated multi-year deficits and their collective impact on the national debt. I then expressed my desire that she work to curtail such excesses.

Her office sent a reply this week, offered in its entirety below the fold.

No doubt, this is a political missive. But it impressed me as more direct/forthright and perhaps better balanced than other such missives. I also have to give Sen. McCaskill’s office props for responding at all; many offices don’t.

————————-
From: Senator McCaskill
Date: Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Subject: From the Desk of Senator Claire McCaskill
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Abel:

Thank you for contacting me regarding our nation’s finances. I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

There has been a lot of controversy about the budget. “The budget” itself is not as significant as some people think it is. The budget resolution is an internal document to the Congress. The President does not sign it and it does not become law. It sets procedural rules about how much money the Congress can allocate for federal government spending, which covers everything from paying federal employees to paying for our national defense, and it provides guidance on how that money should be allocated. (Congress makes the actual decisions about what money should be spent when it considers what are called “appropriations bills.”)

You should know that we made some hard choices in this budget. The budget resolution the Senate passed in April cut non-defense discretionary spending by $15 billion from President Obama’s request. It will hold discretionary spending growth to 5.3 percent. That includes the largest veterans increase ever in a budget as well as one-time costs like the Census, which the Constitution requires be conducted every ten years. Most programs are going to see much smaller increases or effective cuts, where agency budgets do not keep pace with inflation. By comparison, the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which I voted against, contained an 8 percent increase in discretionary spending.

Americans are right to be concerned about the way the federal government spends their money, and they need to know it is not being wasted. I have been hard at work in the Senate trying to root out waste. I am one of five Senators who do not request “earmarks” (funding for specific projects selected by legislators), and I have voted to strip earmarks from several spending bills, including the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill and the 2008 transportation appropriations bill. I have introduced a bill, Senate Resolution 63, that would help the public track earmarks that lawmakers request. I joined with Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to introduce another bill that would make it easier to remove earmarks from spending bills. I have been working to reduce waste in other areas as well. For instance, I lead a Senate subcommittee that investigates abuses in federal contracting. I have also voted to establish “sunset commissions” to identify and eliminate government programs that are no longer effective.

Even if we reduce wasteful spending, though, we will need to walk a fine line between spending too much and investing too little. We are facing serious deficits and mounting debt, but we are also facing an economic crisis, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, rising health care costs, and more. I am doing my best to walk that line. I voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, to provide a vital boost to the economy during the worst economic crisis in generations. (For the record, the recovery package did not contain any earmarks. Even anti-earmark groups like Taxpayers for Common Sense acknowledge that.) However, I voted against the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which will fund regular operations in the government through September 2009, because it contained too many earmarks (over 8,000), increased spending too much, and did not coordinate that spending with spending in the recovery package.

As your Senator, I am working hard to make sure that we manage taxpayer dollars wisely. I will continue to fight wasteful spending, and I am committed to reducing deficits while providing resources for important priorities. I appreciate your input, and I will keep your thoughts in mind when considering budget and spending bills going forward.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope you will continue to reach out in the future with your thoughts and advice.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill