The Budget, Jon Tester, And The Truth

<a href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75033">Tester Would Boost Budget by $89.4 Billion, Burns by $1.2 Billion, NTUF Study of Candidates' Platforms Shows</a><br />n<br />n<blockquote>As Montana Senate candidates Jon Tester and Conrad Burns court voters down the final campaign stretch, taxpayers can look to their platforms for real distinctions: that's the assessment of a study released today by the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF), which found that roughly $88 billion separates the federal budget agendas of the candidates.<br />n<br />n"Scripted debates and political platitudes abound during most campaigns, but voters still care about the bottom line, their tax dollars," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst and study author Demian Brady. "Now citizens have hard data to evaluate the candidates' stances on federal spending."<br />n<br />nIn preparing his analysis, Brady used the campaign websites and news reports of the two leading contenders in the Montana U.S. Senate race to gather information on proposals that could impact federal spending. He then verified these items against independent sources like the Congressional Budget Office. Brady also cross-checked items through NTUF's BillTally system, which since 1991 has computed a net annual agenda for Members of Congress based on their sponsorship of bills. Among the findings:<br />n<br />n– State Sen. Jon Tester has offered a total of 26 separate proposals that would affect federal spending, 9 of which would raise federal outlays and only one of which would reduce them: a bill to re-import prescription drugs from Canada that the government scores as a $220 million savings. If enacted simultaneously, these items would result in a net overall annual spending hike of $89.4 billion (16 provisions have an indeterminate price).<br />n<br />n– Sen. Conrad Burns's agenda of 11 budget-related items constitutes a net yearly spending increase of at least $1.2 billion, driven by his support for medical malpractice and health insurance reform that would result in $931 million of yearly taxpayer savings. Like Tester, Burns's blueprint has proposals whose cost cannot be identified (a total of three), though Brady notes that four of Burns's 11 policies would drive outlays upward.</blockquote><br />n<br />nTo start with I'm sure the National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has an agenda it's following. They say they are non-partisan and I don't have time to delve into it. I take no responsibility for the agenda of what is being reported.<br />n<br />nThey do bring up a very good point though. Jon Tester has been beating on Burns for not balancing the federal budget and spending "like a drunken sailor" but I've never heard how he plans on fixing the budget problems if he were elected. He has all these ideas on how to spend more of our taxpayer money but he never says where the money for his ideas is going to come from. <br />n<br />nShouldn't he inform us of how he is going to raise this money for his plans? Shouldn't he tell us how he plans on balancing the budget? At least Burns makes no bones that he is spending money and the budget is screwed up. A person might not like the position but he has the gonads to stand up and tell us the truth.<br />n<br />nI would like to see some truth out of Jon Tester on this one. How are you going to pay for for an additional $89.4 billion dollars in spending you have proposed? The truth sir, not mealy mouthed platitudes, I would appreciate it.<br />n<br />n<strong>The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives. Albert Einstein</strong>