The Daily Republic
Published Wednesday, April 22, 2009
U.S. Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., introduced legislation today that would require the secretary of the treasury to use taxpayer funds returned by financial institutions under the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to reduce the national debt, according to a news release from Thune's office.
From the release:
"Several financial institutions that received TARP funding have returned or expressed an interest in returning billions in taxpayer funding.
“'Congress is responsible for allocating taxpayer dollars and this legislation will prevent the Obama Administration from attempting to turn this money into a revolving slush fund,' said Thune. 'TARP was designed for the President to report back to Congress and seek approval for additional funding. This legislation ensures the returned funds are not reallocated by the administration for other priorities. Instead, this bill would work to reduce the size of the national debt in this country, something that seems to be a forgotten idea with the current Democrat leadership.'
"Recently, Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has indicated that he intends to spend these funds on additional TARP activities without Congressional approval."
Showing posts with label Stimulus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stimulus. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Top 10 States in Budget Trouble
Click here for the Top 10 States in Budget Trouble, as reported at Real Clear Politics and cross posted from Obama Alert blog.
Monday, February 23, 2009
After String of Quick Loans, Obama Plans to Shrink National Debt
The following was posted by Belinda Jackson at the personalmoneystore.com. I notice a lot of inaccuracies in it, which I will highlight below each section in red.
President says he’ll cut deficit by two-thirds
After he handed out billions of dollars in quick loans to banks, auto retailers and the nation as a whole, President Barack Obama’s next goal may surprise you. He plans to cut the annual deficit by two-thirds in the next four years.
It is going to be hard to cut the annual deficit by 2/3 in the next four years when you added tons of money to the debt and compound interest kicks in, which shrinks the available funds in the budget each year, as the interest on the National Debt is a mandatory expenditure. Unless severe spending cuts kick in, which I don't believe will happen with this administration, Obama will never be able to achieve that target.
Big plans
At the beginning of Obama’s presidency, the national debt was $1.2 trillion. That amount will rise to $1.5 trillion after initial spending from the quick loans and other programs in the economic stimulus package. However, Obama’s economic projections say that by the end of 2013, the deficit will be down to $533 billion.
At the beginning of Obama's presidency, the national debt was $10,628,881,485,510.23 according to the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt (www.treasurydirect.gov). This is a far cry from $1.2 trillion. We haven't had a $1.2 trillion debt since the 1980s. It is unclear as to how much the debt will rise due to compound interest, recurring deficits in the ensuing years, loss of GDP due to the recession and loss of tax revenue due to high levels of unemployment and shrinkage in business output.
How to slash a deficit
The major components of Obama’s plan are Iraq troop withdrawal and higher taxes on the wealthy. Obama says he’ll release his budget outline Thursday. This outline will also make clear how he intends to deliver campaign promises on health care and energy policy, according to the New York Times.
Funding the Iraq war has accounted for a huge percentage of the nation’s spending, and Obama says his troop withdrawal plan will save about $90 billion.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy will not result in a net gain of revenue for the government. Government revenue will actually DECREASE as the "wealthy" create and use tax shelters, park their money in tax free investments (municipal bonds instead of U.S. Treasuries) or just keep it in the bank.
The Iraq War money is a lot less than the interest on the National Debt. Since the beginning of FY 2009, the taxpayers were on the hook for $138,450,208,820.69, which is much larger than the $90 billion savings in his troop withdrawal plan. In FY 2008, taxpayers paid $451,154,049,950.63 in interest on the debt, which will only go up with the Bush-Paulson bank bailout, and Obama's Automotive Bailout and Stimulus packages.
A few new taxes
Obama proposes taxing income from investments in hedge funds and private equity partners at ordinary income tax rates. Right now those types of income are taxed like capital gains, at the rate of 15 percent. His policy would consider those funds income, and thus they could be taxed up to 35 percent, which is what the most wealthy pay in income tax.
See section above regarding taxation on the wealthy.
Fewer tax cuts
During Obama’s campaign, he said he would immediately get rid of the Bush tax cuts on income, dividends and capital gains. However, because of the economy crisis, he plans to instead let them lapse, as scheduled, after 2010 for individuals who make more than $250,000 a year.
Tax cuts stimulate economic growth. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will only make the recession worse due to a further slow-down in growth. That, along with the increased borrowing and spending could help push the current recession into a depression.
Spending cuts
Obama’s proposal will also include spending cuts. One program he proposes spending less money on is Medicare Advantage, which subsidizes insurance companies that cover seniors who could acquire health coverage directly from the government.
He plans to scale back spending on on private contractors. This type of spending went up considerably during the Bush administration. Many of the cuts Obama proposes include cutting spending on private contractors used for defense purposes.
The spending cuts are a starting point but definitely don't go far enough. The pork barrel spending in the stimulus plan would have been a better starting point. Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from ALL government agencies would go even further. I'll take the spending cuts as long as they are true cuts - not the political definition of a cut being a reduction in the increase in growth of a government program. If indeed, they are true cuts, I'll support them.
Campaign promises
During his campaign Obama said he would double the United States’ spending on foreign aid. However, given the stimulus package and the economic hardship the nation faces, Obama concedes he will have to scale back that promise.
The economy has been in a recession since shortly after he started campaigning. Why make these promises in the first place? I think foreign aid should be slashed until we get government spending under control.
Healthy promises
However, Obama will not scale back his promise to make sure the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance will be covered. He says he can achieve this promise without adding to the deficit thanks to cost-saving changes to health care and by raising revenues.
There are better ways that have been pointed out in the public debate, largely by the minority party. All President Obama has to do is embrace them and implement them. Government take over of health care will not solve the problem, it will make it worse. This will add billions more to the National Debt, which will not help his goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years.
Energetic promises
Obama says his energy policy will create new revenue by 2012. He plans to charge companies for permits for greenhouse gas emissions, which would be the main revenue generator. Obama assumes that companies will pass the cost of the permits on to customers, so he says the government will use most of the revenue to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would go toward developing alternative energy.
If Obama assume that companies will pass the cost of the permits on to customers, and he will use the government revenue to offset the higher utility bills, then it seems to me it is a waste of time and money. It sure doesn't solve any problems and creates more for both energy producers and consumers. He should leave well enough alone.
Closing arguments
Obama says is strategy is ”investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”
“We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control,” he added.
After all the quick loans being handed out, it’s nice to see some debt management kicking in.
He's right - we cannot generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control. That may be his rhetoric right now but his policies, starting with the $35 billion bailout package for the Big 3 automakers, $787 billion in the stimulus bill, further tax increases on the wealthy, increasing the tax on energy companies, and I'm sure he'll think of adding more to the already high 31% corporate income tax, it not getting deficits under control. Add in compound interest and we are going to have even a larger gap. Then what?
In conclusion, we only have to look at Iceland's Bankruptcy, the huge debt Spain incurred with the Spanish Armada, England's near economic collapse, the Weimar Republic in Germany after World War I and Japan's "missing decade" among others to see that these policies will not solve anything but make matters worse. It truly is time for some fiscal sanity.
President says he’ll cut deficit by two-thirds
After he handed out billions of dollars in quick loans to banks, auto retailers and the nation as a whole, President Barack Obama’s next goal may surprise you. He plans to cut the annual deficit by two-thirds in the next four years.
It is going to be hard to cut the annual deficit by 2/3 in the next four years when you added tons of money to the debt and compound interest kicks in, which shrinks the available funds in the budget each year, as the interest on the National Debt is a mandatory expenditure. Unless severe spending cuts kick in, which I don't believe will happen with this administration, Obama will never be able to achieve that target.
Big plans
At the beginning of Obama’s presidency, the national debt was $1.2 trillion. That amount will rise to $1.5 trillion after initial spending from the quick loans and other programs in the economic stimulus package. However, Obama’s economic projections say that by the end of 2013, the deficit will be down to $533 billion.
At the beginning of Obama's presidency, the national debt was $10,628,881,485,510.23 according to the U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt (www.treasurydirect.gov). This is a far cry from $1.2 trillion. We haven't had a $1.2 trillion debt since the 1980s. It is unclear as to how much the debt will rise due to compound interest, recurring deficits in the ensuing years, loss of GDP due to the recession and loss of tax revenue due to high levels of unemployment and shrinkage in business output.
How to slash a deficit
The major components of Obama’s plan are Iraq troop withdrawal and higher taxes on the wealthy. Obama says he’ll release his budget outline Thursday. This outline will also make clear how he intends to deliver campaign promises on health care and energy policy, according to the New York Times.
Funding the Iraq war has accounted for a huge percentage of the nation’s spending, and Obama says his troop withdrawal plan will save about $90 billion.
Increasing taxes on the wealthy will not result in a net gain of revenue for the government. Government revenue will actually DECREASE as the "wealthy" create and use tax shelters, park their money in tax free investments (municipal bonds instead of U.S. Treasuries) or just keep it in the bank.
The Iraq War money is a lot less than the interest on the National Debt. Since the beginning of FY 2009, the taxpayers were on the hook for $138,450,208,820.69, which is much larger than the $90 billion savings in his troop withdrawal plan. In FY 2008, taxpayers paid $451,154,049,950.63 in interest on the debt, which will only go up with the Bush-Paulson bank bailout, and Obama's Automotive Bailout and Stimulus packages.
A few new taxes
Obama proposes taxing income from investments in hedge funds and private equity partners at ordinary income tax rates. Right now those types of income are taxed like capital gains, at the rate of 15 percent. His policy would consider those funds income, and thus they could be taxed up to 35 percent, which is what the most wealthy pay in income tax.
See section above regarding taxation on the wealthy.
Fewer tax cuts
During Obama’s campaign, he said he would immediately get rid of the Bush tax cuts on income, dividends and capital gains. However, because of the economy crisis, he plans to instead let them lapse, as scheduled, after 2010 for individuals who make more than $250,000 a year.
Tax cuts stimulate economic growth. Allowing the tax cuts to expire will only make the recession worse due to a further slow-down in growth. That, along with the increased borrowing and spending could help push the current recession into a depression.
Spending cuts
Obama’s proposal will also include spending cuts. One program he proposes spending less money on is Medicare Advantage, which subsidizes insurance companies that cover seniors who could acquire health coverage directly from the government.
He plans to scale back spending on on private contractors. This type of spending went up considerably during the Bush administration. Many of the cuts Obama proposes include cutting spending on private contractors used for defense purposes.
The spending cuts are a starting point but definitely don't go far enough. The pork barrel spending in the stimulus plan would have been a better starting point. Eliminating waste, fraud and abuse from ALL government agencies would go even further. I'll take the spending cuts as long as they are true cuts - not the political definition of a cut being a reduction in the increase in growth of a government program. If indeed, they are true cuts, I'll support them.
Campaign promises
During his campaign Obama said he would double the United States’ spending on foreign aid. However, given the stimulus package and the economic hardship the nation faces, Obama concedes he will have to scale back that promise.
The economy has been in a recession since shortly after he started campaigning. Why make these promises in the first place? I think foreign aid should be slashed until we get government spending under control.
Healthy promises
However, Obama will not scale back his promise to make sure the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance will be covered. He says he can achieve this promise without adding to the deficit thanks to cost-saving changes to health care and by raising revenues.
There are better ways that have been pointed out in the public debate, largely by the minority party. All President Obama has to do is embrace them and implement them. Government take over of health care will not solve the problem, it will make it worse. This will add billions more to the National Debt, which will not help his goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years.
Energetic promises
Obama says his energy policy will create new revenue by 2012. He plans to charge companies for permits for greenhouse gas emissions, which would be the main revenue generator. Obama assumes that companies will pass the cost of the permits on to customers, so he says the government will use most of the revenue to offset higher utility bills and related expenses. The remaining revenues would go toward developing alternative energy.
If Obama assume that companies will pass the cost of the permits on to customers, and he will use the government revenue to offset the higher utility bills, then it seems to me it is a waste of time and money. It sure doesn't solve any problems and creates more for both energy producers and consumers. He should leave well enough alone.
Closing arguments
Obama says is strategy is ”investing in what we need, cutting what we don’t, and restoring fiscal discipline.”
“We can’t generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control,” he added.
After all the quick loans being handed out, it’s nice to see some debt management kicking in.
He's right - we cannot generate sustained growth without getting our deficits under control. That may be his rhetoric right now but his policies, starting with the $35 billion bailout package for the Big 3 automakers, $787 billion in the stimulus bill, further tax increases on the wealthy, increasing the tax on energy companies, and I'm sure he'll think of adding more to the already high 31% corporate income tax, it not getting deficits under control. Add in compound interest and we are going to have even a larger gap. Then what?
In conclusion, we only have to look at Iceland's Bankruptcy, the huge debt Spain incurred with the Spanish Armada, England's near economic collapse, the Weimar Republic in Germany after World War I and Japan's "missing decade" among others to see that these policies will not solve anything but make matters worse. It truly is time for some fiscal sanity.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Dave Ramsey's thoughts on the Obama Stimulus
For Dave Ramsey's thoughts on the Obama Stimulus package, click here. You will be redirected to the Obama Alert blog for the complete story.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Who voted for and against the Stimulus Bill?
Click here to see who voted on Friday Feb. 13th for the President's debt-busting stimulus package. Cross-posted from Obama Alert.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Democrats muscle huge stimulus to brink of passage
WASHINGTON (AP) — In a major victory for President Barack Obama, Democrats muscled a huge, $787 billion stimulus bill to the brink of final passage Friday night in hopes of combating the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The vote in the House was 246-183 for the package of tax cuts and federal spending that Obama made the centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery.
The Senate was following suit in a roll call that was without suspense but extended into the night. That was to allow time for Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown to fly back from Ohio, where his mother died earlier in the week. His was the decisive 60th vote for the bill.
Obama is expected to sign the bill soon.
Supporters said the measure would save or create 3.5 million jobs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer conceded there was no guarantee, but he said that "millions and millions and millions of people will be helped, as they have lost their jobs and can't put food on the table of their families."
Vigorously disagreeing, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio dumped a copy of the 1,071-page bill to the floor in a gesture of contempt. "The bill that was about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that's about spending, spending, spending," he said. No House Republican voted for the measure.
The legislation, among the costliest ever considered in Congress, provides billions of dollars to aid victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more. Tens of billions are ticketed for the states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments, and there is more than $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail.
Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.
In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs.
Also included were funds for two of Obama's initiatives, the expansion of computerized information technology in the health care industry and billions to create so-called green jobs the administration says will begin reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Asked for his reaction to House passage of the bill, Obama said "thumbs up" and indeed gave a thumbs-up sign as he left the White House with his family for a long weekend in Chicago.
Congress cast its votes as federal regulators announced the closing of the Sherman County Bank in Loup City, Neb.; Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast in Florida, based in Cape Coral; Corn Belt Bank and Trust Co. of Pittsfield, Ill.; and Pinnacle Bank of Beaverton, Ore. They raised to 13 the number of failures this year of federally insured banking companies and were the latest reminders of the toll taken by recession and frozen credit markets.
The day's events at the Capitol were scripted to allow Democratic leaders to fulfill their pledge to send Obama legislation by mid-February.
"Barack Obama, in just a few short weeks as president, has passed one of the biggest packages for economic recovery in our nation's history," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, anticipating final Senate passage.
The approval also capped an early period of accomplishment for the Democrats, who won control of the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress in last fall's elections.
Since taking office on Jan. 20, the president has signed legislation extending government-financed health care to millions of lower-income children who lack it, a bill that President George W. Bush twice vetoed. He also has placed his signature on a measure making it easier for workers to sue their employers for alleged job discrimination, effectively overturning a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority.
Obama made the stimulus a cornerstone of his economic recovery plan even before he took office, but his calls for bipartisanship were an early casualty.
Republicans complained they had been locked out of the early decisions, and Democrats countered that Boehner had tried to rally opposition even before the president met privately with the GOP rank and file.
In retrospect, said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the White House wasn't "sharp enough" in emphasizing the benefits of the bill as Republicans began to criticize spending on items such as family planning services, anti-smoking programs and reseeding the National Mall.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faced a different task _ finding enough GOP moderates to give him the 60 votes needed to surmount a variety of procedural hurdles. To do that, he and the White House agreed to trim billions in spending from the original $820 billion House-passed bill, enough to obtain the backing of GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
As the final compromise took shape in a frenzied round of bargaining earlier this week, it was trimmed again to hold the support of the moderates, whose opposition to a new program for federal school construction caused anger among House Democrats.
In the end, a compromise was reached that allows states to use funds for modernizing schools. But in a display of displeasure, Pelosi decided to skip the news conference last Wednesday where Reid announced a final agreement.
In addition to tax relief for individuals and businesses who purchase new equipment, lawmakers inserted breaks for first-time homebuyers and consumers purchasing new cars in an attempt to aid two industries particularly hard-hit by the recession. In response to pressure from lawmakers from Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere, the bill was altered at the last minute to permit the buyers of recreational vehicles and motorcycles to claim the same break as those buying cars and light trucks.
In the House, all 246 votes in favor were cast by Democrats. Seven Democrats joined 176 Republicans in opposition.
The vote in the House was 246-183 for the package of tax cuts and federal spending that Obama made the centerpiece of his plan for economic recovery.
The Senate was following suit in a roll call that was without suspense but extended into the night. That was to allow time for Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown to fly back from Ohio, where his mother died earlier in the week. His was the decisive 60th vote for the bill.
Obama is expected to sign the bill soon.
Supporters said the measure would save or create 3.5 million jobs. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer conceded there was no guarantee, but he said that "millions and millions and millions of people will be helped, as they have lost their jobs and can't put food on the table of their families."
Vigorously disagreeing, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio dumped a copy of the 1,071-page bill to the floor in a gesture of contempt. "The bill that was about jobs, jobs, jobs has turned into a bill that's about spending, spending, spending," he said. No House Republican voted for the measure.
The legislation, among the costliest ever considered in Congress, provides billions of dollars to aid victims of the recession through unemployment benefits, food stamps, medical care, job retraining and more. Tens of billions are ticketed for the states to offset cuts they might otherwise have to make in aid to schools and local governments, and there is more than $48 billion for transportation projects such as road and bridge construction, mass transit and high-speed rail.
Democrats said the bill's tax cuts would help 95 percent of all Americans, much of the relief in the form of a break of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples. At the insistence of the White House, people who do not earn enough money to owe income taxes are eligible, an attempt to offset the payroll taxes they pay.
In a bow to political reality, lawmakers included $70 billion to shelter upper middle-class and wealthier taxpayers from an income tax increase that would otherwise hit them, a provision that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would do relatively little to create jobs.
Also included were funds for two of Obama's initiatives, the expansion of computerized information technology in the health care industry and billions to create so-called green jobs the administration says will begin reducing the country's dependence on foreign oil.
Asked for his reaction to House passage of the bill, Obama said "thumbs up" and indeed gave a thumbs-up sign as he left the White House with his family for a long weekend in Chicago.
Congress cast its votes as federal regulators announced the closing of the Sherman County Bank in Loup City, Neb.; Riverside Bank of the Gulf Coast in Florida, based in Cape Coral; Corn Belt Bank and Trust Co. of Pittsfield, Ill.; and Pinnacle Bank of Beaverton, Ore. They raised to 13 the number of failures this year of federally insured banking companies and were the latest reminders of the toll taken by recession and frozen credit markets.
The day's events at the Capitol were scripted to allow Democratic leaders to fulfill their pledge to send Obama legislation by mid-February.
"Barack Obama, in just a few short weeks as president, has passed one of the biggest packages for economic recovery in our nation's history," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, anticipating final Senate passage.
The approval also capped an early period of accomplishment for the Democrats, who won control of the White House and expanded their majorities in Congress in last fall's elections.
Since taking office on Jan. 20, the president has signed legislation extending government-financed health care to millions of lower-income children who lack it, a bill that President George W. Bush twice vetoed. He also has placed his signature on a measure making it easier for workers to sue their employers for alleged job discrimination, effectively overturning a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority.
Obama made the stimulus a cornerstone of his economic recovery plan even before he took office, but his calls for bipartisanship were an early casualty.
Republicans complained they had been locked out of the early decisions, and Democrats countered that Boehner had tried to rally opposition even before the president met privately with the GOP rank and file.
In retrospect, said White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, the White House wasn't "sharp enough" in emphasizing the benefits of the bill as Republicans began to criticize spending on items such as family planning services, anti-smoking programs and reseeding the National Mall.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faced a different task _ finding enough GOP moderates to give him the 60 votes needed to surmount a variety of procedural hurdles. To do that, he and the White House agreed to trim billions in spending from the original $820 billion House-passed bill, enough to obtain the backing of GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
As the final compromise took shape in a frenzied round of bargaining earlier this week, it was trimmed again to hold the support of the moderates, whose opposition to a new program for federal school construction caused anger among House Democrats.
In the end, a compromise was reached that allows states to use funds for modernizing schools. But in a display of displeasure, Pelosi decided to skip the news conference last Wednesday where Reid announced a final agreement.
In addition to tax relief for individuals and businesses who purchase new equipment, lawmakers inserted breaks for first-time homebuyers and consumers purchasing new cars in an attempt to aid two industries particularly hard-hit by the recession. In response to pressure from lawmakers from Pennsylvania, Indiana and elsewhere, the bill was altered at the last minute to permit the buyers of recreational vehicles and motorcycles to claim the same break as those buying cars and light trucks.
In the House, all 246 votes in favor were cast by Democrats. Seven Democrats joined 176 Republicans in opposition.
Democratic group targets Leonard Lance's vote against stimulus
by Jessica Coomes
www.lehighvalleylive.com
Originally published Feb. 2, 2009
Less than a month after U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance, R-Hunterdon, took office, a national Democratic organization is airing ads in his congressional district, criticizing his vote against an $819 billion economic stimulus package.
The radio spots, which debut today and will run for a week, are paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the same group that provided significant financial support on behalf of Democrat Linda Stender, Lance's opponent in the November election.
The Democratic committee now is targeting ads at 28 Republican House members, all of whom joined their party in voting against a Democratic-sponsored stimulus bill last week. No House Republican supported the package, though the Democratic majority was able to pass it.
On Monday, Lance's chief of staff, Todd Mitchell, reiterated why the congressman voted against the stimulus bill: "The House-passed stimulus legislation is a $1.1 trillion spending package that was not developed in a spirit of bipartisanship. The Democrat leadership should follow the lead of President Barack Obama in being willing to consider Republican ideas that reduce wasteful spending and help create jobs for middle-class families and small businesses."
When Lance voted against the bill, he called the package "wasteful spending," citing provisions that would not stimulate the economy, including $1 billion for the upcoming census, $650 million for digital TV converter boxes, and $600 million for government vehicles.
"I hope the stimulus bill that moves through the Senate contains improvements and suggestions from the Republican side of the aisle," Lance said at the time. "I will review it when it comes back to the House of Representatives to see if it has become a better bill. We can do better."
The Senate this week is taking up its version of the stimulus bill.
Lance is the only Republican in New Jersey or Pennsylvania to be singled out in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's latest ads.
"We will continue to go district by district to hold Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with party leaders and against the folks in their districts accountable," Brian Wolff, the committee's executive director, said.
The Democratic group released a transcript of the short radio spot: "Did you know Congressman Leonard Lance voted against economic recovery to immediately create and save over 171,000 New Jersey jobs? Times are tough; tell Leonard Lance to put families before politics."
Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would not say how much the organization spent on the Lance ads.
Rudominer said the committee is choosing not to say which radio station or stations in New Jersey are running the spot.
Despite the Democratic committee's efforts on behalf of Stender during the 2008 election, Lance won the district to replace retired Republican congressman Mike Ferguson.
www.lehighvalleylive.com
Originally published Feb. 2, 2009
Less than a month after U.S. Rep. Leonard Lance, R-Hunterdon, took office, a national Democratic organization is airing ads in his congressional district, criticizing his vote against an $819 billion economic stimulus package.
The radio spots, which debut today and will run for a week, are paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the same group that provided significant financial support on behalf of Democrat Linda Stender, Lance's opponent in the November election.
The Democratic committee now is targeting ads at 28 Republican House members, all of whom joined their party in voting against a Democratic-sponsored stimulus bill last week. No House Republican supported the package, though the Democratic majority was able to pass it.
On Monday, Lance's chief of staff, Todd Mitchell, reiterated why the congressman voted against the stimulus bill: "The House-passed stimulus legislation is a $1.1 trillion spending package that was not developed in a spirit of bipartisanship. The Democrat leadership should follow the lead of President Barack Obama in being willing to consider Republican ideas that reduce wasteful spending and help create jobs for middle-class families and small businesses."
When Lance voted against the bill, he called the package "wasteful spending," citing provisions that would not stimulate the economy, including $1 billion for the upcoming census, $650 million for digital TV converter boxes, and $600 million for government vehicles.
"I hope the stimulus bill that moves through the Senate contains improvements and suggestions from the Republican side of the aisle," Lance said at the time. "I will review it when it comes back to the House of Representatives to see if it has become a better bill. We can do better."
The Senate this week is taking up its version of the stimulus bill.
Lance is the only Republican in New Jersey or Pennsylvania to be singled out in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's latest ads.
"We will continue to go district by district to hold Republicans who continue to vote in lockstep with party leaders and against the folks in their districts accountable," Brian Wolff, the committee's executive director, said.
The Democratic group released a transcript of the short radio spot: "Did you know Congressman Leonard Lance voted against economic recovery to immediately create and save over 171,000 New Jersey jobs? Times are tough; tell Leonard Lance to put families before politics."
Ryan Rudominer, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, would not say how much the organization spent on the Lance ads.
Rudominer said the committee is choosing not to say which radio station or stations in New Jersey are running the spot.
Despite the Democratic committee's efforts on behalf of Stender during the 2008 election, Lance won the district to replace retired Republican congressman Mike Ferguson.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
House passes economic stimulus bill
By David Jackson and Richard Wolf
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives quickly approved President Obama's $819 billion economic recovery plan Wednesday.
The vote was 244-188, mostly along party lines.
"We don't have a moment to spare," the president said earlier in the day.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, where debate is expected to begin as early as this week on a companion measure already taking shape. Democratic leaders have pledged to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by mid-February.
A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the events heralded a new era. "The ship of state is difficult to turn," she said. "But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address."
No Republicans supported the measure. Eleven Democrats opposed it. The vote was Obama's first test of the bipartisanship he pledged in his campaign.
After a meeting with executives, which Obama described as "sober" because of the tough times, the president said the group was "confident that we can turn our economy around."
Obama visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to address GOP criticism that the package has too much spending and not enough tax cuts. He won compliments but few converts.
"I don't expect 100% agreement from my Republican colleagues," Obama said between meetings with House and Senate Republicans. Citing a recent round of layoffs among large U.S. companies, he said, "I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."
Senate Republicans hope to make changes before it reaches Obama — possibly by adding small business tax cuts or road and bridge spending.
Though GOP lawmakers said they appreciated Obama's visit Tuesday, their leaders urged a "no" vote because of the bill's price tag. "All it does is burden our kids and their kids with more debt," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, citing a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimate that the plan would add $347 billion in interest on the national debt over 10 years.
Two-thirds of the House bill, or $550 billion, is new spending. That includes money to states and localities, increases in unemployment benefits and other aid to Americans hard hit by the recession, as well as construction projects designed to create jobs. The remaining $275 billion is tax cuts to encourage new spending.
Obama promised to consider Republicans' ideas, but many said they will wait and see. "Reaching out is one thing," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Actually taking action to include Republican ideas is another."
Contributing: The Associated Press
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Democratic-controlled House of Representatives quickly approved President Obama's $819 billion economic recovery plan Wednesday.
The vote was 244-188, mostly along party lines.
"We don't have a moment to spare," the president said earlier in the day.
The vote sent the bill to the Senate, where debate is expected to begin as early as this week on a companion measure already taking shape. Democratic leaders have pledged to have legislation ready for Obama's signature by mid-February.
A mere eight days after Inauguration Day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the events heralded a new era. "The ship of state is difficult to turn," she said. "But that is what we must do. That is what President Obama called us to do in his inaugural address."
No Republicans supported the measure. Eleven Democrats opposed it. The vote was Obama's first test of the bipartisanship he pledged in his campaign.
After a meeting with executives, which Obama described as "sober" because of the tough times, the president said the group was "confident that we can turn our economy around."
Obama visited Capitol Hill on Tuesday to address GOP criticism that the package has too much spending and not enough tax cuts. He won compliments but few converts.
"I don't expect 100% agreement from my Republican colleagues," Obama said between meetings with House and Senate Republicans. Citing a recent round of layoffs among large U.S. companies, he said, "I do hope that we can all put politics aside and do the American people's business right now."
Senate Republicans hope to make changes before it reaches Obama — possibly by adding small business tax cuts or road and bridge spending.
Though GOP lawmakers said they appreciated Obama's visit Tuesday, their leaders urged a "no" vote because of the bill's price tag. "All it does is burden our kids and their kids with more debt," said House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, citing a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimate that the plan would add $347 billion in interest on the national debt over 10 years.
Two-thirds of the House bill, or $550 billion, is new spending. That includes money to states and localities, increases in unemployment benefits and other aid to Americans hard hit by the recession, as well as construction projects designed to create jobs. The remaining $275 billion is tax cuts to encourage new spending.
Obama promised to consider Republicans' ideas, but many said they will wait and see. "Reaching out is one thing," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "Actually taking action to include Republican ideas is another."
Contributing: The Associated Press
Monday, January 19, 2009
10 questions about the economic stimulus bill
By Brian Riedl
The Heritage Foundation
The $800 billion economic "stimulus" bill may be more appropriately called the "Obama debt plan." It will, after all, dump $6,700 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren. Whether it will actually stimulate the economy is another matter. So perhaps politicians can first answer a few questions from the back of the classroom:
» President-elect Barack Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create or save 3.675 million jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn't sound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a $40,000 check?
» Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush's $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. It's obviously not. So why would $800 billion more of the same suddenly end the recession?
» We're told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn't have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it's borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
» Some answer the previous question by saying that transferring income from savers to spenders keeps more money circulating through the economy. That made some sense in the 1930s when people hid their savings in mattresses because they didn't trust the banks. But today, people use their savings to pay down debt, invest or put it in banks -- in each case, making the purchasing power available to others wishing to borrow. Thus, savings circulate through the investment spending side of the economy. How does transferring money out of investment help?
» Policy-makers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy by approximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion. Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?
» Lawmakers tell us every $1 billion in highway "stimulus" can be spent creating 34,779 construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy. Won't the private sector then lose the same number of jobs?
» During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending -- and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. More recently, Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 "stimulus" bills over eight years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world) -- and their economy remained stagnant. Why do lawmakers believe the same failed approach will succeed for the U.S. today?
» The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn't afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badly misjudged. Washington's solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt (which will also raise interest rates) solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? And who will bail out the American taxpayer when the bill comes due?
» Temporary tax rebates were implemented in 1975, 2001 and 2008, and most economists agree they failed to help the economy. Long-term marginal tax rate reductions implemented in 1982 and 2003 both substantially increased economic growth. So why are lawmakers planning another round of temporary tax rebates, followed by an increase in tax rates?
» Mayors have pledged to spend stimulus funds on items such as a mob museum in Nevada, a polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island, and curbing prostitution in Dayton, Ohio. As National Review asked, how come one Bridge to Nowhere is a national embarrassment and 1,000 Bridges to Nowhere are a "stimulus?" Given the 11,000 annual earmarks, why should taxpayers trust politicians to spend this money better than they would spend it themselves?
------
Brian M. Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
------
(c) 2009, The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation
The $800 billion economic "stimulus" bill may be more appropriately called the "Obama debt plan." It will, after all, dump $6,700 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren. Whether it will actually stimulate the economy is another matter. So perhaps politicians can first answer a few questions from the back of the classroom:
» President-elect Barack Obama claims that spending approximately $800 billion will create or save 3.675 million jobs. That comes to $217,000 per job. This doesn't sound like a very good value, especially with the national average salary around $40,000. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just mail each of these workers a $40,000 check?
» Politicians say deficit spending will expand the economy (as if President Bush's $300 billion budget deficits brought economic nirvana). If that were true, then the current $1.2 trillion deficit -- the largest in history -- would already be rescuing the economy. It's obviously not. So why would $800 billion more of the same suddenly end the recession?
» We're told that government spending will add new spending power to the economy. But Congress doesn't have a vault of money waiting to be distributed: Every dollar lawmakers "inject" into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. If government borrows the money from American investors, investment spending drops accordingly. If it's borrowed from foreigners, net exports drop accordingly. How does borrowing $800 billion from one group of people and giving that $800 billion to another group of people make us wealthier?
» Some answer the previous question by saying that transferring income from savers to spenders keeps more money circulating through the economy. That made some sense in the 1930s when people hid their savings in mattresses because they didn't trust the banks. But today, people use their savings to pay down debt, invest or put it in banks -- in each case, making the purchasing power available to others wishing to borrow. Thus, savings circulate through the investment spending side of the economy. How does transferring money out of investment help?
» Policy-makers are basing the "stimulus" bill on economic models that wrongly assume every $1 of government spending increases the economy by approximately $1.60. Is it really that simple? By that logic, debt-ridden, big-government countries like Italy, France and Germany should be wealthier than America. And why stop at $800 billion? Such logic suggests unlimited prosperity could be guaranteed by the government borrowing and spending $800 trillion. Should America be basing such costly decisions on these types of economic models?
» Lawmakers tell us every $1 billion in highway "stimulus" can be spent creating 34,779 construction jobs. But Congress must first borrow that $1 billion out of the private economy. Won't the private sector then lose the same number of jobs?
» During the 1930s, New Deal lawmakers doubled federal spending -- and unemployment remained above 20 percent until World War II. More recently, Japan responded to a 1990 recession by passing 10 "stimulus" bills over eight years (building the largest national debt in the industrialized world) -- and their economy remained stagnant. Why do lawmakers believe the same failed approach will succeed for the U.S. today?
» The economy sank because people over-borrowed for houses they couldn't afford, and financial institutions over-borrowed for investments they badly misjudged. Washington's solution is to borrow $800 billion that it cannot afford. How will adding $800 billion to the national debt (which will also raise interest rates) solve a recession created by imprudent borrowing? And who will bail out the American taxpayer when the bill comes due?
» Temporary tax rebates were implemented in 1975, 2001 and 2008, and most economists agree they failed to help the economy. Long-term marginal tax rate reductions implemented in 1982 and 2003 both substantially increased economic growth. So why are lawmakers planning another round of temporary tax rebates, followed by an increase in tax rates?
» Mayors have pledged to spend stimulus funds on items such as a mob museum in Nevada, a polar bear exhibit in Rhode Island, and curbing prostitution in Dayton, Ohio. As National Review asked, how come one Bridge to Nowhere is a national embarrassment and 1,000 Bridges to Nowhere are a "stimulus?" Given the 11,000 annual earmarks, why should taxpayers trust politicians to spend this money better than they would spend it themselves?
------
Brian M. Riedl is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.
------
(c) 2009, The Heritage Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)