I received this by way of reply from Lamar Smith

Dear Acmejack,

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the federal budget process. I appreciate knowing of your interest in this issue.

The Budget Act of 1974 established the reconciliation process to give Congress a means of addressing mandatory spending which, unlike discretionary spending, is not subject to regular annual review. This year's deficit reduction measures mark the first time in almost a decade that Congress has used the reconciliation process to control federal spending that now outpaces both the economy's growth and the increase in federal revenue. This pace cannot be sustained without cuts in other programs, increasing taxes or more debt financing.

H.R. 4241, the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2005," passed the House by a vote of 217-215 on November 17, 2005. It provides $53.9 billion of savings over five years. This legislation slows the growth of mandatory spending, which now consumes about 54% of the total budget, and will rise to 62% by 2015 if left on its current path. The bill reforms federal entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient and excessively costly. These programs include Medicaid, food stamps, and student loans.

Medicaid provides health insurance for those most in need. Unfortunately, it has expanded so much over the years that it is unsustainable in its current form. Between 2002 and 2005, 38 states reduced eligibility and 34 states reduced benefits. The bipartisan National Governor's Association (NGA) has told Congress that Medicaid will bankrupt the states unless some reasonable, common-sense reforms are enacted.

Endorsed by the NGA, the Deficit Reduction Act reforms the Medicaid program and yields over $11.8 billion in savings. This will ensure that the Medicaid program can continue to protect our nation's most vulnerable citizens while allowing greater flexibility for states to change one-size-fits-all benefit packages to fit the diverse needs of Medicaid beneficiaries.

The bill also addresses the food stamp program. Funding for food stamps has doubled in the past five years, rising from $17.7 billion to over $35 billion. The proposed savings for the food stamp program account for about a half of one percent of the 2006 total food stamp budget. Even with the proposed reforms, food stamp funding is still expected to increase by more than $250 million over current levels by 2010.

Specifically, food stamp provisions in the bill reform automatic eligibility requirements for recipients of non-cash Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) assistance, and tighten eligibility for immigrants, with exceptions for certain persons with citizenship applications pending or who are over age 60. Immigrants' sponsors sign an agreement that they will not become a "public charge." This legislation also ensures eligibility for free school lunches for any child whose household receives, or is eligible to receive, non-cash TANF assistance.

Finally, with respect to student loans, the bill generates $14.5 billion in savings over the next five years by reducing program waste and inefficiency. The changes will also place higher education programs on a more stable financial foundation to ensure they remain viable well into the future. Most importantly; however, the bill reduces profits and benefits for private lenders and gives the resulting savings directly to the students themselves. Any student currently eligible for federal student financial aid will still have the same, if not more, access to the federal student loan program.

The bill increases loan limits to $3,500 for first year students, $4,500 for second year students, and $12,000 per year for graduate students; maintains the 8.25% interest rate cap; also preserves the existing variable interest rate structure under which students currently enjoy a 4.7% interest rate; and eliminates several practices that allow student loan providers to collect subsidies in excess of their guaranteed minimum rate of return.

Under this revised federal student loan program, students will see $1.585 billion in new spending over 5 years through the increased loan limits, $2.250 billion in new spending over 5 years based on cuts to their origination fees, and an increase in Pell Grant funding from $4.9 billion in 1996 to $13.4 billion in 2006.

Since 1965, the federal government has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in higher education. These reforms to the student loan system build on that tradition and enable students to experience the maximum benefit possible while allowing more students more access to higher education.

The Deficit Reduction Act curbs the relentless growth in federal spending. I was a member of the House Budget Committee when we achieved the first balanced budget in over twenty years. That remains my goal. Now is the time to determine what steps we need to take to get our fiscal house in order.

Sincerely,

Lamar Smith Member of Congress

I was infuriated as the letter did not answer a single question I originally asked. I sent a reply to Lamar:

Congressman,
While I certainly appreciate the explanation of the various entitlement programs and the issues posed by the growth of the mandatory spending budget, I was already aware of the the intent of the various programs, their implementation and the various other data you were so kind as to include in your reply to my letter.

I remain interested in obtaining your explanation of these draconian actions in the face of TAX CUTS which, as you know, benefit the richest of Americans almost exclusively.

I am certainly eager to hear the justification for letting our sick and old suffer and die to save a few dollars, so that they might be lavished on crony contractors with no bid contracts.

I definitely wish to be provided with the rationale for gigantic give aways to the energy companies at a time when they are experiencing record profits.

I must insist upon justification of the sheer brutality of this needless "reconciliation process" of which you supported while lavishing our tax dollars on the aforementioned and other needless (visualize Alaskan bridges) spending.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Most Respectfully,
Acmejack

in a rational manner?
HA!!!
But good response from you

We sent a letter to Congressman Rogers and we got a 2 page letter back and it did not even touch on any of our issues. It was a waste of postage and paper.

so you can imagine the meaningless form letters I get in reply to my questions and comments.