Response from Grassley; not sure I ever emailed him.

[rurallib]

I have gotten an email response from Chuck Grassley about once a month for a while. I really can't remember the last I emailed his office. There is no reason to. He is as in the pocket of corporations as they come.
But his responses are comical (or scary) in a way. They are a repeat of various RW talking points that are so generic they could be used to answer almost any email to his office.
I can almost see his office glancing at an email and say 'email back #10. This one will get #7. Here's a #2.'
If you have ever sent Grassley an email, you may have already seen this response.
================================================================================================================================

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you.

I appreciate hearing your thoughts on government spending, and the ever-increasing federal debt. Without a doubt, Congress is going to need to make tough decisions over the coming weeks and months to get our financial house in order. Our nation is facing challenging economic times that have led to rising unemployment, businesses struggling to stay afloat, and reduced revenue flowing into the U.S. Treasury. At the same time, we have seen an unprecedented increase in government spending. In fact, during the two-year period of 2009 and 2010, non-defense discretionary spending increased by 24 percent. This level of spending is simply unsustainable.

Even worse, much of the money spent by the federal government is borrowed. Today, of every dollar spent, 40 cents is borrowed. The Congressional Budget Office recently projected the deficit for fiscal year 2011 will exceed $1.5 trillion. This represents the third year in a row that the federal deficit is larger than $1 trillion. At nearly 10 percent of our national income (GDP), the 2009, 2010, and 2011 deficits are the largest since World War II.

In order to overcome the staggering deficits facing our country, we need to follow pro-growth policies to strengthen the economy and hold the line on unnecessary spending. Attempting to spend our way out of the current downturn will only threaten future economic growth and job creation through higher debt and higher taxes. The reality is, you can't raise taxes high enough to satisfy the appetite of Congress to spend money.

Economic growth results from working, saving, and investing. Every dollar spent by Congress must first be taken out of the economy, either through issuing more debt to the public, raising taxes, or through printing money and driving up inflation. In the end, this means fewer resources for the private sector to make investments, expand production, and create sustainable jobs. We need to follow pro-growth policies to strengthen our economy and hold the line on unnecessary spending.

One of the biggest challenges facing our long-term financial outlook is the growth in entitlement spending. If Congress fails to take action, entitlement spending will explode over the coming years. Currently, half the budget is dedicated to entitlement spending - mandatory programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that the government has committed itself to in previous budgets. Without reform, these programs will consume the entire budget within 30 years.

As for discretionary spending, Congress must impose binding limits on spending in future years. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for a five-year freeze at 2010 levels of non-defense discretionary spending. The President claims that this freeze will save $400 billion over ten years. However, his budget proposal for 2012 will add $12 trillion over the next ten years to our $14 trillion debt. Saving just $400 billion is just a drop in the bucket. I support freezing non-defense related discretionary spending at fiscal year 2008 levels for 10 years. This freeze would save nearly $1 trillion.

I've also cosponsored a resolution that proposes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress as well as the approval of three-fourths of state legislatures. I've supported a balanced budget amendment going back to my service in the House of Representatives. In the Senate, I cosponsored the resolution proposing the amendment the last time it was brought up, in March 1997, when it failed by just one vote.

I'm also a cosponsor of the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act. This bill would let the President single out specific spending items in bills that land on his desk. Congress would have to hold an up-or-down vote on the spending items within 10 days of the President's sending them back, as long as the President sends them within 45 days of signing the bill. Any and all funds that are rescinded would go to reducing the deficit, under this proposal.

All of this and more should be done to reduce the deficit and rein in the federal debt. To reduce the deficit, rein in out of control entitlement spending, and cut wasteful spending will require Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to work together. I am committed to holding the line on unnecessary spending and looking for solutions to ensure the long-term financial health of the United States. The debt will reduce opportunities for future generations, and the U.S. economy will continue to suffer the weight of a government that spends far more than it can afford. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in the Senate towards these goals.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing your views and urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Chuck

[cyberswede]

1. What a gasbag.

:eyes:

At least his emails don't stick it to the taxpayer like his drivel mailed using the franking privilege.