Denny replies!!

After my post about my letter to Denny, I had given up on hearing from him. Which kind of surprised me, that our elected representatives would be dismissive about a constituent's concerns.
Here is Denny's reply:

Thanks so much for communicating to me your thoughts and concerns about
runaway government spending. I have to admit, you're absolutely right
about the need for fiscal sanity, and especially about reasserting
fiscal responsibility as one of the "watchwords for the Republican Party" as
you rightly put it.

While it's easy to lose sight of this important principle, especially
after a pair of expensive natural disasters, I think you'll agree that
we can pay for the huge cost of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by trimming
our bloated government. As a member of the fiscally-conservative
Republican Study Committee, I'm working with House leadership to help craft a
plan that would offset disaster spending, as well as increase
reductions in mandatory spending from $35 billion to at least $50 billion and
eliminate duplicative, wasteful and unnecessary programs. It's something
Ronald Reagan told us twenty years ago that still rings true today,
when he called for "returning to the people and to state and local
governments responsibilities better handled by them."

While Katrina and Rita have certainly made many sit up and take notice
of runaway government spending, I have been beating the spending
reduction drum since being elected to Congress. I have pressed the House of
Representatives to adopt spending reductions until we get a handle on
our deficit. In your letter you mention "rain forest museums in Iowa" and
"bridges in Alaska" as evidence of the need to develop a set of
spending priorities for our nation. You'll be pleased to know that I not only
agree with your premise, but I've put it into action. I have joined a
group of fiscally conservative colleagues in an effort to persuade House
GOP leadership to agree to a moratorium on all non-defense related
spending "earmarks" for the coming fiscal year in order to give us the
opportunity to get our spending priorities straight. Additionally, as a
co-sponsor of the Family Budget Protection Act, I'm fighting to decrease
the limit on the public debt by $2 trillion. This legislation is
important because it also establishes a reserve fund for emergencies, while at
the same time setting up a commission to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse.

However, I can tell you, reducing spending is no easy task as there are
many in Washington who believe we aren't spending enough taxpayer
money. For example, a few of us in the House had to work overtime to defeat
several alternative budget proposals that would have increased spending
in 2006 alone by $78 billion, hiked taxes by almost $70 billion and, on
top of that, would have eliminated over $17 billion in spending
reductions. As you can see, fiscal conservatives not only have to push
initiatives to reduce deficits but we also have to ward off dramatic increases
in spending and taxes.

These, then, are a few of my thoughts about bringing fiscal sanity back
to the federal spending process. Thanks again for contacting me. Keep
in touch.

I had previously received a phone call from one of his assistants,and asked him to send Denny's reply in writing so that I could add it to the blog. During the phone call, his rep told me that the problem was that there are too many Democrats and liberal Republicans who were unwilling to constrain spending. That is just so much Bu**. In the House particularly, the majority can exercise its will with less impediment than in the Senate. Plus, I am tired of hearing excuses. When I was in the Army, the phrase was "When in charge, take charge." The Republicans are in charge, and they need to do something about out of control federal spending. If I wanted to have someone buy my vote, I would just vote Democratic. But because I see an obligation to my children, and protecting my country, I am not going to go with strict self interest.
I pointed out to the caller that Denny had to be moving up the ranks in seniority, and thus, should be able to influence the leadership more. He told me that Denny has only been in office for 6 years. True, with the incumbent protection act, otherwise known as campaign reform, he is not the most senior. However, One man with courage makes a majority. I am looking for the courageous majority to be elected.