“I have long said that Washington’s method of budgeting from crisis to crisis is no way to run a business, much less the federal government. That kind of short-term, band-aid budgeting was at the root of October’s government shutdown and it certainly isn’t the best way for Congress to responsibly manage taxpayer dollars.
“That’s why I was encouraged that Republicans and Democrats were able to sit down and negotiate a long-term budget agreement that actually makes tough choices. A two-year plan provides predictability during uncertain times, but the details of how we get there are just as important.
“This proposal asks too much from the men and women of our military, who would be forced to sacrifice thousands of dollars from their retirement funds. One estimate says that a 42-year old retiring as an enlisted E-7 could lose over $70,000 and a 42-year old retiring at the rank of Lt. Colonel would lose nearly $110,000. These heroes defend our freedom day after day and we shouldn’t ask them to sacrifice even more.
“I’m also skeptical about the way this plan structures new spending and savings. We will see two years of new spending up front offset by savings spread over a decade. That makes it all too easy for Congress to undo those measures a few years down the road after the new spending is already out the door. Without any guarantee that those savings will actually materialize, the price tag for this proposal can easily increase.
“I’m encouraged by the willingness we’ve seen from both sides to sit down and negotiate a budget agreement for the first time in years, but the details of this plan make me unable to support it.”
