Remember that businesses do not really pay taxes, their customers do.
By Chris Banescu
It may come as a surprise that US companies pay the highest taxes in the world. Yes, you read that right. American businesses, large and small and across all industries pay from 35% to 41.6% of their income in combined state and federal taxes. The 41.6% maximum rate is scheduled to rise to 46.2% in 2010 when President Obama's promised tax increases are implemented. Compare that to socialist France where companies pay only 34.4% in taxes, to China where the rate is 25%, or Russia which levies a mere 24%. Corporations in Ireland, Europe's fastest growing economy for the
last 18 years, pay just 12.5% in taxes.
Because of its dual taxation system, US businesses and individuals are required to pay both state and federal taxes on their income. When combined both these taxes range from a minimum of 35% in states like Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming that do not tax business income, to a maximum of 41.6% in Iowa, the state with the highest corporate tax rate of 12%.
Corporate Tax Rates, US vs. Other Free-Market Democracies
Last year the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan educational organization with a solid reputation for independence and credibility, released a report that compared the tax rates of US corporations (across all 50 states) with 29 other countries that accept the principles of representative democracy and free-market economy (referred to as OCED countries, 30 total). Their study reveals the surprising finding that US companies are already at a significant competitive disadvantage in the world economy.
When compared to other OECD countries:
* 24 US states have a corporate tax rate higher than top-ranked Japan.
* 32 states have a corporate tax rate higher than third-ranked Germany.
* 46 states have a corporate tax rate higher than fourth-ranked Canada.
* All 50 states have a corporate tax rate higher than fifth-ranked France.
(The Tax Foundation, 2008)
The full chart comparing the various US tax rates versus all the other OCED countries is available here.
Based on gross domestic product (GDP) data from 2008, Japan was ranked as the world's second largest economy, Germany was the fourth largest, France was the fifth largest, and Canada was the eleventh largest economy. (CIA World Factbook on Wikipedia)
Among other surprises, all 50 US states have a combined corporate tax rate higher than even Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Greece, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Hungary, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, Turkey, and South Korea. All 50 US states have higher tax rates than 27 of the other OCED countries.
When compared with companies based in Ireland with a 12.5% flat tax rate, US corporations that face an average 39.3% rate are taxed at 3.1 times Ireland's rate. When contrasted with Iceland (18%), Turkey (20%), Poland (20%), and Switzerland (21.3%) US companies pay roughly twice the tax rates of their foreign counterparts.
Even our cousins across the pond levy lower rates. The United Kingdom requires 30% in taxes while the US companies pay on average 39.3%; that's a 31% premium.
US Corporate Tax Rates Highest Among The World's Largest 15 Economies
The comparison doesn't stop with the OCED countries. US corporations compete in a global marketplace where many other non-OCED countries also operate. When looking outside the 30 free-market democracies that the Tax Foundation examined, things are just as ominous for American firms.
Based on the GDP data from 2008, some of the world's largest economies are also providing a tax environment much friendlier to businesses than the United States.
Communist China, the world's third largest economy, lowered its top corporate tax rate to 25% as of January 1, 2008. The new tax rate replaced the previous one of 33%.
Russia, the world's eighth largest economy, currently taxes its corporations just 24%.
Brazil, the world's tenth largest economy, taxes its companies a maximum 34% rate.
India, the world's twelfth largest economy, taxes its corporations at a rate of 33%.
The United States is the world's largest economy. When compared to the next 14 countries that represent the world's largest economies by GDP as of 2008, from the second largest (Japan) to the fifteenth largest (South Korea), the emerging patterns are striking:
* 24 US states have higher corporate tax rates than all 14 other countries.
* 32 US states have higher corporate tax rates than 13 of the 14 countries.
* 46 US states have higher corporate tax rates than 12 of the 14 countries.
* All 50 states have higher corporate tax rates than 11 of the 14 countries.
The full chart comparing all the US tax rates versus the world's largest economies is available here.
Raising Taxes Further on US Businesses
In the face of aggressive global competition and in spite of the considerable tax burdens they operate under, US businesses have somehow managed to prosper and grow and maintain America's prominence as the world's largest economy. Unfortunately, as the global competitive marketplace has expanded and countries like China, India, and Russia ramp up their economic might and move away from punitive corporate taxation, many of America's politicians are taking America in exactly the opposite direction.
In the midst of a serious global economic slowdown, with devastating reductions in corporate profits, accelerating business bankruptcies, and massive corporate layoffs, many state lawmakers are working to increase tax rates and fees on corporations and businesses. Concurrently, the White House and a majority of representatives in Congress are promising more tax increases and the elimination of many tax credits. Instead of helping US companies be more competitive and profitable and thereby allow the US economy to remain the job creating engine and economic driver of the world, our politicians are punishing and handicapping them. What could they be thinking?
2010 Corporate Tax Rate: US = 46.2%, China = 25%
Looking toward 2010, if President Obama and Congressional Democrats keep their promises, we will witness the once unthinkable: free-market America will tax its companies at 46.2%, almost double the rate of state-controlled China at 25%. As the world's largest economies continue to embrace lower corporate tax rates, a friendlier business environment, and greater prosperity for their people, the US will move backwards to the failed policies of the past, of punitive taxation and mediocre growth at best.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama tries to kill charities
Posted by bs (Profile)
Wednesday, March 4th at 9:00AM EST
35 Comments
We are all aware that Barack Obama is on the path to move the USA towards his vision of a socialist paradise. Hidden in Obama’s budget proposal is another plan to raise taxes - but this time it’s being done on the backs of those who are trying to help the needy and unfortunate: charities. His budget proposal calls for reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions for high-income taxpayers (> $250K/yr). The deduction would be limited to 28% instead of the 35% in place today.
The leftists who are in favor of this measure - yet another soak-the-rich strategy - piously claim that “they should give out of the goodness of their hearts and not for the deduction”. This is true, but it’s not reality and it’s not relevant. In reality, many give not only to benefit the charity, but also to get the writeoff. No matter what the motivation to give, this will inevitably impact charities by reducing that motivation. And this impacts not only the giver, but the charities that receive the donations.
Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt has been one of the more vocal Congressional critics of this part of the Obama budget. Last Friday Blunt sent a letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi to voice his displeasure with the charitable contribution hit job. In that letter, he states:
I am puzzled why this President – who has frequently called upon Americans to take responsibility for building their communities and institutions – would hinder many Americans from continuing to contribute voluntarily to our nation´s charitable organizations. These civic, educational, and faith-based organizations and groups are the backbone of our communities and can move quickly in times of crisis to react to the needs of the local, regional, and national communities they serve. We should be encouraging, not penalizing, the country´s good Samaritans during a time when millions of Americans are relying on their work more than ever.
(In 2005, Blunt championed a bill known as the “Charitable Giving Act” that sought to “provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses” - one key aspect would have been to allow non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions. That bill never passed out of committee)
But as bad as the financial implications might be, the social implications are even worse. Today the National Review’s Peter Wehner & Phillip Merrick published an article titled “An Assault on Authentic Compassion”. They point out how this measure belies the so-called “progressives” claims of “compassion” and “care for the poor” - in fact, it takes money away from them. But should we be surprised? Of course not - this is simply a continuation of the socialist policies of the Obama administration. Wehner & Merrick state:
The Obama administration’s unprecedented intrusion into the private sector betrays its underlying philosophy. In his speech before a joint session of Congress last week, the president declared that he doesn’t believe in bigger government. Oh yes he does, in ways we have never quite seen before.
With this proposal, President Obama is saying as directly as it can be said that the federal government is better able than private citizens and the charities they support to decide how these donation dollars are best distributed. Conservatives, by contrast, believe in the principle of subsidiarity — which in this instance means that charity is best performed at the most local and immediate level possible, and by “mediating” institutions rather than large, distant, and bureaucratic ones. This is not an abstract doctrine; it is based on the accumulated wisdom of the ages.
President Obama is willing to see private charitable giving to the poor decrease in order to see the scope and size of government increase. These are the actions of an ideologue, not a “pragmatist.”
Yes, indeed. Obama is simply revealing more of his left-wing, socialist/Marxist ideology and attempting to move the care of the needy to Mother Government and away from charities.
Take action today by writing to your Senator and Representative and voice your opposition to this move to socialize charity.
UPDATE: I am quite embarrassed that I missed Ben Domenech’s coverage of this story over at The New Ledger. Ben does a wonderful job of reviewing the situation, in a much less acerbic way than I did. I was glad to see that one of Ben’s sources saw the same Obama motivation that I did:
“This is a frontal assault on the non-profit sector aimed at undermining alternatives to government provision of social services. Nobody likes competition, and that goes for those who think government is the answer to all our problems.”
Wednesday, March 4th at 9:00AM EST
35 Comments
We are all aware that Barack Obama is on the path to move the USA towards his vision of a socialist paradise. Hidden in Obama’s budget proposal is another plan to raise taxes - but this time it’s being done on the backs of those who are trying to help the needy and unfortunate: charities. His budget proposal calls for reducing the deductibility of charitable contributions for high-income taxpayers (> $250K/yr). The deduction would be limited to 28% instead of the 35% in place today.
The leftists who are in favor of this measure - yet another soak-the-rich strategy - piously claim that “they should give out of the goodness of their hearts and not for the deduction”. This is true, but it’s not reality and it’s not relevant. In reality, many give not only to benefit the charity, but also to get the writeoff. No matter what the motivation to give, this will inevitably impact charities by reducing that motivation. And this impacts not only the giver, but the charities that receive the donations.
Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt has been one of the more vocal Congressional critics of this part of the Obama budget. Last Friday Blunt sent a letter to Speaker of the House Pelosi to voice his displeasure with the charitable contribution hit job. In that letter, he states:
I am puzzled why this President – who has frequently called upon Americans to take responsibility for building their communities and institutions – would hinder many Americans from continuing to contribute voluntarily to our nation´s charitable organizations. These civic, educational, and faith-based organizations and groups are the backbone of our communities and can move quickly in times of crisis to react to the needs of the local, regional, and national communities they serve. We should be encouraging, not penalizing, the country´s good Samaritans during a time when millions of Americans are relying on their work more than ever.
(In 2005, Blunt championed a bill known as the “Charitable Giving Act” that sought to “provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses” - one key aspect would have been to allow non-itemizers to deduct charitable contributions. That bill never passed out of committee)
But as bad as the financial implications might be, the social implications are even worse. Today the National Review’s Peter Wehner & Phillip Merrick published an article titled “An Assault on Authentic Compassion”. They point out how this measure belies the so-called “progressives” claims of “compassion” and “care for the poor” - in fact, it takes money away from them. But should we be surprised? Of course not - this is simply a continuation of the socialist policies of the Obama administration. Wehner & Merrick state:
The Obama administration’s unprecedented intrusion into the private sector betrays its underlying philosophy. In his speech before a joint session of Congress last week, the president declared that he doesn’t believe in bigger government. Oh yes he does, in ways we have never quite seen before.
With this proposal, President Obama is saying as directly as it can be said that the federal government is better able than private citizens and the charities they support to decide how these donation dollars are best distributed. Conservatives, by contrast, believe in the principle of subsidiarity — which in this instance means that charity is best performed at the most local and immediate level possible, and by “mediating” institutions rather than large, distant, and bureaucratic ones. This is not an abstract doctrine; it is based on the accumulated wisdom of the ages.
President Obama is willing to see private charitable giving to the poor decrease in order to see the scope and size of government increase. These are the actions of an ideologue, not a “pragmatist.”
Yes, indeed. Obama is simply revealing more of his left-wing, socialist/Marxist ideology and attempting to move the care of the needy to Mother Government and away from charities.
Take action today by writing to your Senator and Representative and voice your opposition to this move to socialize charity.
UPDATE: I am quite embarrassed that I missed Ben Domenech’s coverage of this story over at The New Ledger. Ben does a wonderful job of reviewing the situation, in a much less acerbic way than I did. I was glad to see that one of Ben’s sources saw the same Obama motivation that I did:
“This is a frontal assault on the non-profit sector aimed at undermining alternatives to government provision of social services. Nobody likes competition, and that goes for those who think government is the answer to all our problems.”
Ryan on Obama's Budget
March 3, 2009 Posted by John at 2:17 PM
Today the House Committee on the Budget held a hearing at which Peter Orszag, Director of OMB, testified. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the ranking Republican on the committee. His opening comments on the budget were, I thought, worth reproducing:
RYAN: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. I look forward to having a number of these hearings on this budget. What a week we just had last week. Let's go through it for a second. On Monday, we had the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. On Tuesday, we witnessed a very eloquent, ambitious and even inspiring speech by the president of the United States echoing those themes of fiscal responsibility. Then on Wednesday, Congress passed a bloated $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. And on Thursday, we received the mother of all budgets, a truly sweeping transformation of the federal government, the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal.
Finally, on Saturday, the president threw down the gauntlet. Rather than echoing the theme of changing the tone in Washington or bringing people together to forge a bipartisan compromise, he essentially said, "You're either with me or you're against me." He claimed opponents of this transformative budget are quote, "Tools of special interest and the powerful."
This is not changing the tone of Washington or forging a compromise. This is staking out an ideological conquest. It's playing the oldest political trick in the book, which is if someone disagrees with you impugn their motives. Don't debate the facts. Destroy their credibility and win the argument by default.
This power play strikes me as an incredible gamble with the U.S. economy and with those principles that built this country. Now the facts surrounding this budget are disturbing. It proposes to bring the size of our government to its largest level ever since World War II. It doubles the national debt in eight years. During a recession, it seeks to impose a $1.4 trillion tax in our economy on work, on savings, investment, energy, on manufacturing.
Even with the rosiest of economics assumptions, this budget never even comes close to achieving a balanced budget. During the time we have insolvency that goes permanently for Medicare and Social Security.
But what's most distressing about this budget is that it takes a decidedly ideological turn away from the principles that built this country and built this economy for the type of governing system we see in Europe that provides a kind of economic and social stagnation we have not seen here in America.
And I was asked this past weekend: What can Republicans do about this? Candidly, Republicans, we don't have the votes to really do anything about this. So I guess the question will become this year: Will all Democrats march in lock step with this vision, with this type of transformation?
Our goal, our role, our job, in the minority, is to give the American people the facts, is give the American people the truth, is to give the American people a good vigorous and civilized debate over this budget and to offer them a real choice and alternative, how we would do things differently and that is exactly what we intend to do while we have this vigorous debate and while we ask the tough questions.
Today the House Committee on the Budget held a hearing at which Peter Orszag, Director of OMB, testified. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the ranking Republican on the committee. His opening comments on the budget were, I thought, worth reproducing:
RYAN: Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. I look forward to having a number of these hearings on this budget. What a week we just had last week. Let's go through it for a second. On Monday, we had the Fiscal Responsibility Summit. On Tuesday, we witnessed a very eloquent, ambitious and even inspiring speech by the president of the United States echoing those themes of fiscal responsibility. Then on Wednesday, Congress passed a bloated $410 billion spending bill with 9,000 earmarks. And on Thursday, we received the mother of all budgets, a truly sweeping transformation of the federal government, the likes of which we have not seen since the New Deal.
Finally, on Saturday, the president threw down the gauntlet. Rather than echoing the theme of changing the tone in Washington or bringing people together to forge a bipartisan compromise, he essentially said, "You're either with me or you're against me." He claimed opponents of this transformative budget are quote, "Tools of special interest and the powerful."
This is not changing the tone of Washington or forging a compromise. This is staking out an ideological conquest. It's playing the oldest political trick in the book, which is if someone disagrees with you impugn their motives. Don't debate the facts. Destroy their credibility and win the argument by default.
This power play strikes me as an incredible gamble with the U.S. economy and with those principles that built this country. Now the facts surrounding this budget are disturbing. It proposes to bring the size of our government to its largest level ever since World War II. It doubles the national debt in eight years. During a recession, it seeks to impose a $1.4 trillion tax in our economy on work, on savings, investment, energy, on manufacturing.
Even with the rosiest of economics assumptions, this budget never even comes close to achieving a balanced budget. During the time we have insolvency that goes permanently for Medicare and Social Security.
But what's most distressing about this budget is that it takes a decidedly ideological turn away from the principles that built this country and built this economy for the type of governing system we see in Europe that provides a kind of economic and social stagnation we have not seen here in America.
And I was asked this past weekend: What can Republicans do about this? Candidly, Republicans, we don't have the votes to really do anything about this. So I guess the question will become this year: Will all Democrats march in lock step with this vision, with this type of transformation?
Our goal, our role, our job, in the minority, is to give the American people the facts, is give the American people the truth, is to give the American people a good vigorous and civilized debate over this budget and to offer them a real choice and alternative, how we would do things differently and that is exactly what we intend to do while we have this vigorous debate and while we ask the tough questions.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Another Campaign Promise Bites the Dust
We've often been critical of the Associated Press for its left-wing agenda journalism, but this article, by Andrew Taylor, is surprisingly balanced. It's titled, "Obama beats early retreat on promise to fight pork:"
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election. ...
Obama is hardly the first president to promise to make Congress change its pork-barreling ways, and he certainly won't be the last. But he is the first to retreat so quickly, after only six weeks in the White House.
Of course, using wasteful spending to buy votes is the essence of the Democrats' electoral strategy, so no one should be surprised that Obama has, once again, walked away from his campaign promise. Change? Forget about it!
Despite campaign promises to take a machete to lawmakers' pet projects, President Barack Obama is quietly caving to funding nearly 8,000 of them this year, drawing a stern rebuke Monday from his Republican challenger in last fall's election. ...
Obama is hardly the first president to promise to make Congress change its pork-barreling ways, and he certainly won't be the last. But he is the first to retreat so quickly, after only six weeks in the White House.
Of course, using wasteful spending to buy votes is the essence of the Democrats' electoral strategy, so no one should be surprised that Obama has, once again, walked away from his campaign promise. Change? Forget about it!
Monday, March 2, 2009
The coming cap-and-trade tax
posted at 4:00 pm on March 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Barack Obama insists that his new tax increases will not affect 95% of Americans, who will not pay even a dime more. He may be right about that, at least directly, but Obama has another plan that will hit every single American with a massive cost burden. The George C. Marshall Institute analyzes the potential impact of the cap-and-trade energy system that Obama espouses and finds a big price tag that only gets bigger as we go along.
First, it will depress growth, which almost everyone predicts (page 3):
Estimated GDP losses vary widely, from a 0.3%-0.5% to 3% drop in GDP below the business-as-usual projections in 2015 and a 1% to 10% drop in 2050. The timeframes of new technology development and growth in existing clean sources of energy, availability of offsets (domestic, international), and banking of allowances are likely to account for most of these differences in GDP costs estimates.
Loss of GDP means a retracting economy, less opportunity, fewer jobs, and a decline in living standards. The Marshall Institute offers the question of whether the US wants that as a tradeoff for the questionable effects of limiting carbon-dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the present administration and its backers won’t acknowledge that as the choice before us, preferring to paint rosy pictures of increased living standards and prosperity while the government chokes off energy production, a contradiction they claim to solve with an explosion of “green energy” from sources that don’t exist at the moment.
How do we know that? Even Europe, which led the “green” movement, has discovered that stopping conventional energy production doesn’t magically produce realistic, mass-production alternatives.
But the bad news gets worse. Not only will the GDP drop over both the short and long terms, but the increased price of energy will result in substantial costs to all Americans — not just Obama’s 5% at the top (page 9):
We find that a mitigation path consistent with Lieberman-Warner’s provisions is equivalent to a permanent tax increase for the average American household. This increase is projected to amount to an additional $1100 in taxes in 2008. Moreover, this cap-and-trade “tax” increases over time in real terms from about $1400 to $2000 during 2015-2030 and approximately $2000 to $3000 in 2030-2050. The de facto tax increase becomes quite significant when one considers the average American household spends about $2500 on food annually, or approximately $208 monthly. The decrease in consumption per capita of $277 annually is equivalent to more than one month’s food budget for the average American household, keeping other consumption levels constant.
Another way to gauge this cap-and-trade tax impact is comparing it to auto-loan payments. For example, a new 2009 C-Class Mercedes can be leased for around $429 per month. A decrease in consumption by $1110 amounts is equivalent to 2.5 monthly payments on this luxury car. This tax amounts to aboutlmost three and a half monthly payments in 2015 and almost seven payments in 2050.
Great. So we make less, get less, and pay more — or do without. I can’t afford two Mercedes autos now, and given the way the markets are heading at the moment, I may not be able to afford two Schwinns by 2015.
A nation looking to boost growth has to first rely on cheap and plentiful energy. Without that, investment disappears and so do jobs, production, and consumer confidence. John McCain’s Lexington Plan addressed that, even if it took Paris Hilton to explain it properly. It addressed short- and medium-range energy needs by expanding domestic oil and natural gas production and boosting nuclear power while using the proceeds of those industries to develop alternatives for the long term. Without that, all we have is energy rationing … and look how well that worked for us in the 1970s.
Read the entire Marshall analysis, and start letting your friends know that the tax on the other 95% is coming. Soon.
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Barack Obama insists that his new tax increases will not affect 95% of Americans, who will not pay even a dime more. He may be right about that, at least directly, but Obama has another plan that will hit every single American with a massive cost burden. The George C. Marshall Institute analyzes the potential impact of the cap-and-trade energy system that Obama espouses and finds a big price tag that only gets bigger as we go along.
First, it will depress growth, which almost everyone predicts (page 3):
Estimated GDP losses vary widely, from a 0.3%-0.5% to 3% drop in GDP below the business-as-usual projections in 2015 and a 1% to 10% drop in 2050. The timeframes of new technology development and growth in existing clean sources of energy, availability of offsets (domestic, international), and banking of allowances are likely to account for most of these differences in GDP costs estimates.
Loss of GDP means a retracting economy, less opportunity, fewer jobs, and a decline in living standards. The Marshall Institute offers the question of whether the US wants that as a tradeoff for the questionable effects of limiting carbon-dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, the present administration and its backers won’t acknowledge that as the choice before us, preferring to paint rosy pictures of increased living standards and prosperity while the government chokes off energy production, a contradiction they claim to solve with an explosion of “green energy” from sources that don’t exist at the moment.
How do we know that? Even Europe, which led the “green” movement, has discovered that stopping conventional energy production doesn’t magically produce realistic, mass-production alternatives.
But the bad news gets worse. Not only will the GDP drop over both the short and long terms, but the increased price of energy will result in substantial costs to all Americans — not just Obama’s 5% at the top (page 9):
We find that a mitigation path consistent with Lieberman-Warner’s provisions is equivalent to a permanent tax increase for the average American household. This increase is projected to amount to an additional $1100 in taxes in 2008. Moreover, this cap-and-trade “tax” increases over time in real terms from about $1400 to $2000 during 2015-2030 and approximately $2000 to $3000 in 2030-2050. The de facto tax increase becomes quite significant when one considers the average American household spends about $2500 on food annually, or approximately $208 monthly. The decrease in consumption per capita of $277 annually is equivalent to more than one month’s food budget for the average American household, keeping other consumption levels constant.
Another way to gauge this cap-and-trade tax impact is comparing it to auto-loan payments. For example, a new 2009 C-Class Mercedes can be leased for around $429 per month. A decrease in consumption by $1110 amounts is equivalent to 2.5 monthly payments on this luxury car. This tax amounts to aboutlmost three and a half monthly payments in 2015 and almost seven payments in 2050.
Great. So we make less, get less, and pay more — or do without. I can’t afford two Mercedes autos now, and given the way the markets are heading at the moment, I may not be able to afford two Schwinns by 2015.
A nation looking to boost growth has to first rely on cheap and plentiful energy. Without that, investment disappears and so do jobs, production, and consumer confidence. John McCain’s Lexington Plan addressed that, even if it took Paris Hilton to explain it properly. It addressed short- and medium-range energy needs by expanding domestic oil and natural gas production and boosting nuclear power while using the proceeds of those industries to develop alternatives for the long term. Without that, all we have is energy rationing … and look how well that worked for us in the 1970s.
Read the entire Marshall analysis, and start letting your friends know that the tax on the other 95% is coming. Soon.
That Was Then, This Is Now
It's no secret that there is no intellectual integrity on the Left, but it's still hard not to be a bit shocked by liberals' reaction to the budget proposal that Barack Obama unleashed yesterday. Let's take the example of the New York Times, probably the most prominent voice of the Far Left in the U.S. Throughout the George W. Bush administration, the Times' editorial board waxed eloquent about the terrible consequences to be expected from the Bush deficits. Let's cite just a few examples.
April 16, 2003:
It is incredible to see a wartime president demanding a tax cut that would, in an instant, require a record $984 billion increase in the national debt, to $7.384 trillion, with annual deficits of $400 billion and more under a Republican Party that once bragged of budgetary rectitude.
Obama's budget contemplates a $1.75 trillion deficit in its first year, and does not even aspire to a deficit as small as $400 billion at any time in the future.
May 2, 2003:
[T]he detaxation mania continues apace as House and Senate leaders press toward a Memorial Day deadline that will be a rendezvous with foolhardiness. By then, they hope to enact a Bush tax cut and spending plan adding $2.7 trillion in deficits to a coming decade of red ink....
Barack Obama's budget added a $1.7 trillion deficit in his first year in office.
May 22, 2003:
This version of the president's ''growth'' plan will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars across the next decade. [Ed.: Those were the good old days.] To help pay for it, the G.O.P. budget hawks of yore, born again now as deficit spenders of record proportions, will soon have to raise the national debt limit by almost a trillion dollars from the current $6.4 trillion. ... ''Deficits do matter,'' the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, warned Congress, sounding like a Dickensian wraith ominously foreseeing a future of red-ink borrowing and rising interest rates. But the Republicans appear set to party on now and roll the tab over the far horizon.
So, do deficits "still matter?" And if so, with their grotesquely multiplied deficits, are today's Democrats "partying on now and rolling the tab over the far horizon?"
September 2, 2003:
The White House serenely brushed off a detailed caution from the Congressional Budget Office last week that the growth in the deficit is more likely to roar than retreat across the next decade, fed by the three Bush tax cuts and other debt-fattening indulgences. If that warning was not enough, how about the concern reported at the International Monetary Fund that the administration has no credible plan to restore budget balance? Yes, the I.M.F., which must lecture the profligates of the globe, is worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers.
Now that his planned deficits are four times larger, does Obama's budget contain "debt-fattening indulgences?" Has the Times denounced them? Does the Obama administration have a "credible plan to restore budget balance?" Given that Obama's intended budgets--put aside how optimistic his numbers may be--far exceed the actual deficits during the Bush administration, is the Times still "worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers?" If not, why not?
November 25, 2003:
The Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, not given to hyperbole, warned in its most recent newsletter that the ''U.S. budget is out of control.'' This sentiment was echoed by the bipartisan Concord Coalition, which monitors federal spending, and which called 2003 ''the most irresponsible year ever'' in terms of fiscal discipline. ...
these Republicans have presided over an orgy of tax cuts and benefit increases that, according to the Concord group, will not only boost this year's projected deficit but also add as much as $800 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
Barack Obama has added more than twice that much to the national debt in his first 30 days in office. May 23, 2004:
A few weeks before the fall election, President Bush is likely to claim a victory, of sorts, over the budget deficit. The good news will be based on October data from the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch, which, according to widespread estimates, will show red ink of $420 billion to $450 billion at the end of the 2004 fiscal year. When the year started, the budget office had conveniently projected a deficit of $521 billion. Hence, a bookkeeping triumph.
The deficits they're talking about here are around one quarter of what Obama projects for his first year in office.
The administration would like to turn the budget deficit into a nonissue in the presidential campaign. But it deserves to be one of the central talking points, even more than it was in 1992, when Ross Perot rightly convinced the nation that deficits were threatening American prosperity. ...
Though the Bush deficit of 2003 was already a record in pure numbers, the administration's defenders often point out that it amounted to only 3.5 percent of gross domestic product. That doesn't sound too bad compared with the modern record of 6 percent set by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. But the size of the deficit now is masked by the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. If you believe that the Social Security surplus would be put to better use by being preserved for future retirees, the Bush deficit should really amount to 5 percent of G.D.P.
Obama's first deficit will amount to more than 12 percent of G.D.P.
President Reagan's deficit binge occurred decades before the baby boomers' retirement. This one is taking place on the eve. To use an analogy, President Bush's deficits are putting the nation in the position of a couple who take out a long-term mortgage just before retirement.
That's a travesty, because reducing the buildup of government debt is the key to strengthening Social Security. ... Clearly, we could not have picked a worse demographic moment to be borrowing money on the next generation's credit.
We're still waiting for the Times to point out that the Democrats' vastly greater deficits are so ill-timed as to constitute a "travesty." More fundamentally, is reducing federal debt the "key to strengthening Social Security?" If so, has the Obama administration threatened the viability of Social Security by exploding federal debt? If not, why not?
A greater reliance on foreign creditors creates further economic instability, as nations like Argentina have found out the hard way. Debt is debt, to be sure, leading ultimately to a smaller economy than would otherwise be the case.
But debt owed to foreigners is more likely to affect the value of the dollar, and foreign capital is more nomadic, leaving the United States vulnerable to the whims of central bankers in Beijing and Tokyo.
But even if a sudden catastrophe never materializes, a slower one is already in the making. It is important that voters talk seriously about deficits in this political season.
I agree with that last observation. Now that the deficits are four times greater than the ones the Times was so worried about, do the paper's editorialists hold to the same view? Do they still think that debt--far greater debt--will "[lead] ultimately to a smaller economy than would otherwise be the case?" If not, what's changed in such a short time?
April 5, 2004:
From the grim evidence of his deficit-stoking tax cuts, Mr. Bush hardly loses sleep over unbalanced books. Yet now comes his rare veto threat, a nod to the voters' growing anxiety over the crushing national debt.
Are the voters still anxious over the "crushing national debt," now slated to burgeon far beyond what it was during the Bush administration? Should they be anxious over the "crushing national debt?" In this editorial, the Times ridiculed President Bush because he proposed to veto such small spending bills. Should Barack Obama veto much more spending than Bush did?
July 1, 2004:
Central to low interest rates -- particularly long-term rates -- is keeping down federal borrowing. All the debt that Washington incurs to finance our federal budget deficit pushes interest rates higher than they otherwise would be. ...
When adjusted for the minimal inflation of recent years, interest rates have not been as low as they were during some other periods of slow growth. And although they were low, they would have been lower still with less borrowing. It's basic economics: When we want more of something, the price goes up. To deny that is to believe that the market for borrowing money is somehow different from all other markets.
I think that's true, too. Does the Times still believe what it wrote in 2004, now that federal borrowing has exploded in a Democratic administration?
[T]he president has yet to veto his first bill or to publicly pressure or scold his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill for their lack of fiscal restraint. By contrast, conservative policy organizations have been pummeling the Bush administration for what the Heritage Foundation calls ''a spending spree.'' Congress has been larding up legislation with local projects -- for trails, visitors centers, marina repairs and planning grants by the dozen.
So, how does the Times feel about the salt marsh harvest mouse?
Some who are relaxed about the deficit say that we will ''grow into it,'' that a faster rate of growth will lead to more tax receipts and close the gap, thereby taking pressure off interest rates. But assuming current policies are continued, the government will need to borrow $5 trillion more over the next 10 years. Even one percentage point more in economic growth than is now expected -- a hugely ambitious goal -- would cut the $5 trillion only in half.
Under Obama's budget, the government will have to borrow a lot more than that. Is it still a problem?
There are many reasons that we need to find a national consensus to reduce the budget deficit -- bankrupting Medicare and Social Security, burdening our children with debt and the like -- but now that we have entered a period of rising interest rates, a higher cost of borrowing for both business and consumers is perhaps the most immediate.
Now that the deficit is growing so much faster under a Democratic administration whose election the Times enthusiastically supported, are we still in danger of bankrupting Medicare and Social Security, and is the Times still worried about "burdening our children" with far greater debt than was contemplated when this editorial was written?
The answers to all of the questions we've posed are unclear. The Times editorialists have addressed the question of Obama's deficits--sort of--only once, here. The editorialists' main theme is glee that the Obama administration plans to raise taxes. But what about the horrors of deficit spending, that were so ubiquitous during the Bush administration? The Times can respond only with dishonesty:
Mr. Obama's blueprint, released on Thursday, commits to cutting by more than two-thirds, by 2013, the $1.75 trillion budget deficit that Mr. Bush dumped on the nation.
In fact, the $1.75 trillion, by Obama's own account, is his budget, not President Bush's: on no scenario did Bush "dump" anything like that deficit on the nation. What Obama has done, as he has acknowledged, is to increase the deficit he was bequeathed, not decrease it. So it is absurd for the Times to retrospectively blame Bush for Obama's policy choices.
Further, even if Obama succeeded in reducing the federal deficit by two-thirds from the astonishing, unprecedented $1.75 trillion figure that he intends to ring up in his first fiscal year, his deficits would still exceed those that he "inherited" from President Bush. But the Times has no integrity, and it assumes that those who read its editorials--a pathetically small, but no doubt loyal, number--won't notice how its tune has changed. So it offers this absurdity:
The Obama administration has acknowledged the need for deficit spending to stimulate the economy but has vowed that unpaid-for government will not become the norm. Judging from the blueprint, Mr. Obama is not just talking the talk.
The Times editors apparently haven't tried to do the math. Here is a chart of federal spending and revenues through 2019--three years after Obama leaves office, assuming a second term--under Obama's rosy budget projections; click to enlarge:
"Unpaid-for government," to a greater extent than that which the Times denounced during George Bush's administration, is, in fact, "the norm" as far as the eye can see. But that's what you expect from the Times: either deliberate falsehood or impenetrable ignorance; it's often hard to tell which. The Times' editors are in the bag for the Left, and there is little pretense of consistency or intellectual integrity; in fact, the editors are not very bright--to be a Times editor is to be a full-time shill.
April 16, 2003:
It is incredible to see a wartime president demanding a tax cut that would, in an instant, require a record $984 billion increase in the national debt, to $7.384 trillion, with annual deficits of $400 billion and more under a Republican Party that once bragged of budgetary rectitude.
Obama's budget contemplates a $1.75 trillion deficit in its first year, and does not even aspire to a deficit as small as $400 billion at any time in the future.
May 2, 2003:
[T]he detaxation mania continues apace as House and Senate leaders press toward a Memorial Day deadline that will be a rendezvous with foolhardiness. By then, they hope to enact a Bush tax cut and spending plan adding $2.7 trillion in deficits to a coming decade of red ink....
Barack Obama's budget added a $1.7 trillion deficit in his first year in office.
May 22, 2003:
This version of the president's ''growth'' plan will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars across the next decade. [Ed.: Those were the good old days.] To help pay for it, the G.O.P. budget hawks of yore, born again now as deficit spenders of record proportions, will soon have to raise the national debt limit by almost a trillion dollars from the current $6.4 trillion. ... ''Deficits do matter,'' the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, warned Congress, sounding like a Dickensian wraith ominously foreseeing a future of red-ink borrowing and rising interest rates. But the Republicans appear set to party on now and roll the tab over the far horizon.
So, do deficits "still matter?" And if so, with their grotesquely multiplied deficits, are today's Democrats "partying on now and rolling the tab over the far horizon?"
September 2, 2003:
The White House serenely brushed off a detailed caution from the Congressional Budget Office last week that the growth in the deficit is more likely to roar than retreat across the next decade, fed by the three Bush tax cuts and other debt-fattening indulgences. If that warning was not enough, how about the concern reported at the International Monetary Fund that the administration has no credible plan to restore budget balance? Yes, the I.M.F., which must lecture the profligates of the globe, is worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers.
Now that his planned deficits are four times larger, does Obama's budget contain "debt-fattening indulgences?" Has the Times denounced them? Does the Obama administration have a "credible plan to restore budget balance?" Given that Obama's intended budgets--put aside how optimistic his numbers may be--far exceed the actual deficits during the Bush administration, is the Times still "worried that a structural deficit will push up interest rates and restrain growth as America ceaselessly borrows to steer red ink from imbalanced budgets onto future taxpayers?" If not, why not?
November 25, 2003:
The Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, not given to hyperbole, warned in its most recent newsletter that the ''U.S. budget is out of control.'' This sentiment was echoed by the bipartisan Concord Coalition, which monitors federal spending, and which called 2003 ''the most irresponsible year ever'' in terms of fiscal discipline. ...
these Republicans have presided over an orgy of tax cuts and benefit increases that, according to the Concord group, will not only boost this year's projected deficit but also add as much as $800 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
Barack Obama has added more than twice that much to the national debt in his first 30 days in office. May 23, 2004:
A few weeks before the fall election, President Bush is likely to claim a victory, of sorts, over the budget deficit. The good news will be based on October data from the Office of Management and Budget in the executive branch, which, according to widespread estimates, will show red ink of $420 billion to $450 billion at the end of the 2004 fiscal year. When the year started, the budget office had conveniently projected a deficit of $521 billion. Hence, a bookkeeping triumph.
The deficits they're talking about here are around one quarter of what Obama projects for his first year in office.
The administration would like to turn the budget deficit into a nonissue in the presidential campaign. But it deserves to be one of the central talking points, even more than it was in 1992, when Ross Perot rightly convinced the nation that deficits were threatening American prosperity. ...
Though the Bush deficit of 2003 was already a record in pure numbers, the administration's defenders often point out that it amounted to only 3.5 percent of gross domestic product. That doesn't sound too bad compared with the modern record of 6 percent set by President Ronald Reagan in 1983. But the size of the deficit now is masked by the Social Security Trust Fund surplus. If you believe that the Social Security surplus would be put to better use by being preserved for future retirees, the Bush deficit should really amount to 5 percent of G.D.P.
Obama's first deficit will amount to more than 12 percent of G.D.P.
President Reagan's deficit binge occurred decades before the baby boomers' retirement. This one is taking place on the eve. To use an analogy, President Bush's deficits are putting the nation in the position of a couple who take out a long-term mortgage just before retirement.
That's a travesty, because reducing the buildup of government debt is the key to strengthening Social Security. ... Clearly, we could not have picked a worse demographic moment to be borrowing money on the next generation's credit.
We're still waiting for the Times to point out that the Democrats' vastly greater deficits are so ill-timed as to constitute a "travesty." More fundamentally, is reducing federal debt the "key to strengthening Social Security?" If so, has the Obama administration threatened the viability of Social Security by exploding federal debt? If not, why not?
A greater reliance on foreign creditors creates further economic instability, as nations like Argentina have found out the hard way. Debt is debt, to be sure, leading ultimately to a smaller economy than would otherwise be the case.
But debt owed to foreigners is more likely to affect the value of the dollar, and foreign capital is more nomadic, leaving the United States vulnerable to the whims of central bankers in Beijing and Tokyo.
But even if a sudden catastrophe never materializes, a slower one is already in the making. It is important that voters talk seriously about deficits in this political season.
I agree with that last observation. Now that the deficits are four times greater than the ones the Times was so worried about, do the paper's editorialists hold to the same view? Do they still think that debt--far greater debt--will "[lead] ultimately to a smaller economy than would otherwise be the case?" If not, what's changed in such a short time?
April 5, 2004:
From the grim evidence of his deficit-stoking tax cuts, Mr. Bush hardly loses sleep over unbalanced books. Yet now comes his rare veto threat, a nod to the voters' growing anxiety over the crushing national debt.
Are the voters still anxious over the "crushing national debt," now slated to burgeon far beyond what it was during the Bush administration? Should they be anxious over the "crushing national debt?" In this editorial, the Times ridiculed President Bush because he proposed to veto such small spending bills. Should Barack Obama veto much more spending than Bush did?
July 1, 2004:
Central to low interest rates -- particularly long-term rates -- is keeping down federal borrowing. All the debt that Washington incurs to finance our federal budget deficit pushes interest rates higher than they otherwise would be. ...
When adjusted for the minimal inflation of recent years, interest rates have not been as low as they were during some other periods of slow growth. And although they were low, they would have been lower still with less borrowing. It's basic economics: When we want more of something, the price goes up. To deny that is to believe that the market for borrowing money is somehow different from all other markets.
I think that's true, too. Does the Times still believe what it wrote in 2004, now that federal borrowing has exploded in a Democratic administration?
[T]he president has yet to veto his first bill or to publicly pressure or scold his fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill for their lack of fiscal restraint. By contrast, conservative policy organizations have been pummeling the Bush administration for what the Heritage Foundation calls ''a spending spree.'' Congress has been larding up legislation with local projects -- for trails, visitors centers, marina repairs and planning grants by the dozen.
So, how does the Times feel about the salt marsh harvest mouse?
Some who are relaxed about the deficit say that we will ''grow into it,'' that a faster rate of growth will lead to more tax receipts and close the gap, thereby taking pressure off interest rates. But assuming current policies are continued, the government will need to borrow $5 trillion more over the next 10 years. Even one percentage point more in economic growth than is now expected -- a hugely ambitious goal -- would cut the $5 trillion only in half.
Under Obama's budget, the government will have to borrow a lot more than that. Is it still a problem?
There are many reasons that we need to find a national consensus to reduce the budget deficit -- bankrupting Medicare and Social Security, burdening our children with debt and the like -- but now that we have entered a period of rising interest rates, a higher cost of borrowing for both business and consumers is perhaps the most immediate.
Now that the deficit is growing so much faster under a Democratic administration whose election the Times enthusiastically supported, are we still in danger of bankrupting Medicare and Social Security, and is the Times still worried about "burdening our children" with far greater debt than was contemplated when this editorial was written?
The answers to all of the questions we've posed are unclear. The Times editorialists have addressed the question of Obama's deficits--sort of--only once, here. The editorialists' main theme is glee that the Obama administration plans to raise taxes. But what about the horrors of deficit spending, that were so ubiquitous during the Bush administration? The Times can respond only with dishonesty:
Mr. Obama's blueprint, released on Thursday, commits to cutting by more than two-thirds, by 2013, the $1.75 trillion budget deficit that Mr. Bush dumped on the nation.
In fact, the $1.75 trillion, by Obama's own account, is his budget, not President Bush's: on no scenario did Bush "dump" anything like that deficit on the nation. What Obama has done, as he has acknowledged, is to increase the deficit he was bequeathed, not decrease it. So it is absurd for the Times to retrospectively blame Bush for Obama's policy choices.
Further, even if Obama succeeded in reducing the federal deficit by two-thirds from the astonishing, unprecedented $1.75 trillion figure that he intends to ring up in his first fiscal year, his deficits would still exceed those that he "inherited" from President Bush. But the Times has no integrity, and it assumes that those who read its editorials--a pathetically small, but no doubt loyal, number--won't notice how its tune has changed. So it offers this absurdity:
The Obama administration has acknowledged the need for deficit spending to stimulate the economy but has vowed that unpaid-for government will not become the norm. Judging from the blueprint, Mr. Obama is not just talking the talk.
The Times editors apparently haven't tried to do the math. Here is a chart of federal spending and revenues through 2019--three years after Obama leaves office, assuming a second term--under Obama's rosy budget projections; click to enlarge:
"Unpaid-for government," to a greater extent than that which the Times denounced during George Bush's administration, is, in fact, "the norm" as far as the eye can see. But that's what you expect from the Times: either deliberate falsehood or impenetrable ignorance; it's often hard to tell which. The Times' editors are in the bag for the Left, and there is little pretense of consistency or intellectual integrity; in fact, the editors are not very bright--to be a Times editor is to be a full-time shill.
THE BACHMANN BULLETIN
House Passes $410-Billion Spending Bill
Just a couple of weeks after passing the $792-billion “stimulus” spending bill, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a $410-billion omnibus appropriations bill to fund government programs through September 30, 2009.
Regrettably, the bill – which was littered with about 9,000 earmarks and included funding for 162 federal programs that had just received hundreds of billions in the “stimulus” package – again missed the mark and I had to vote against it. Here is my statement from debate on this spending bill:
“Last night, President Obama repeatedly expressed a desire to pass fiscally responsible legislation, his fear of passing a mountain of debt to future generations, and his intention to greatly reduce the federal deficit.
“All sentiments with which I couldn’t agree more.”
“However, only two weeks after passing a $1.1-trillion economic “stimulus” package and a week after presenting a $275-billion plan to address less than 8% of American mortgages, Washington Democrats today are bringing to the floor an appropriations bill that represents the largest discretionary spending increase, aside from legislation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, since the Carter Administration.
“If we look back on the last 19 months, you’ll find that the U.S. government has pledged more than $11.6 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers to dig our nation out of the recession – and that doesn’t even include the $410 billion we are about to spend in this latest spending bill.
“Where is the fiscal responsibility?
“Even more incredulous is the fact that this omnibus appropriations bill contains funding for many of the same agencies and programs that already received funds in the so-called “stimulus” bill—162 programs in fact. For instance, it provides $2.9 billion for the 2010 census even though $1 billion was already allocated for this project in the “stimulus” package. We also have funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which, fresh off receiving $50 million from the “stimulus,” is now in line to receive $138 million in this latest proposal.
“The combined fiscal year 2009 funding for these “double-dipping” programs is $680 billion—a whopping 80% increase in spending.
“Furthermore, the Democrat majority is once again using a massive spending bill to shove sweeping national policy changes through Congress without public scrutiny and without proper debate. This bill contains language to terminate the District of Columbia’s successful school voucher program; it eliminates the “Reading First” program within the Department of Education; and it drastically undercuts construction and design funding for Yucca Mountain, a key component to any plan that puts America on the path to energy independence. The merit of these programs aside, a sweeping spending bill—especially one with no opportunity to amend—is not the appropriate place for any of these measures to be considered.
“Enough is enough. The American taxpayer is already struggling in this weakened economy and it is time Congress started to show respect to the American people and stop increasing the weight of their financial burdens. The spending spree has to stop now.”
Bachmann Supports Workers' Right to Secret Ballot
Last year, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would deny workers the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize. Along with the Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, and a variety of organizations that represent union members (including the Fraternal Order of Police and the American Hospital Association), I strongly oppose this legislation, which is commonly known as Card Check, and have cosponsored legislation which would instead protect the right to a secret ballot, one of our most cherished rights as Americans.
The Employee Free Choice Act, which imposes Card Check on all workers is supported by the Administration and labor unions. It would force employees to make a decision about whether or not to support union organization right in front of their co-workers and right in front of the organizers. If union organizers collect enough cards from employees indicating interest in a union, the union would be certified. And, there’s more than ample anecdotal evidence about the use of coercion and intimidation in collecting those cards.
The Secret Ballot Protection Act, which I have cosponsored, would ensure that unionization will never come about as a result of force or threats.
The right to a secret ballot is one of the most cherished of American freedoms and it should always be protected. At a time when our government spends billions of dollars to advance and support free elections around the world, it makes no sense to abolish federally protected private ballots in our own workplace.
Just a couple of weeks after passing the $792-billion “stimulus” spending bill, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a $410-billion omnibus appropriations bill to fund government programs through September 30, 2009.
Regrettably, the bill – which was littered with about 9,000 earmarks and included funding for 162 federal programs that had just received hundreds of billions in the “stimulus” package – again missed the mark and I had to vote against it. Here is my statement from debate on this spending bill:
“Last night, President Obama repeatedly expressed a desire to pass fiscally responsible legislation, his fear of passing a mountain of debt to future generations, and his intention to greatly reduce the federal deficit.
“All sentiments with which I couldn’t agree more.”
“However, only two weeks after passing a $1.1-trillion economic “stimulus” package and a week after presenting a $275-billion plan to address less than 8% of American mortgages, Washington Democrats today are bringing to the floor an appropriations bill that represents the largest discretionary spending increase, aside from legislation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, since the Carter Administration.
“If we look back on the last 19 months, you’ll find that the U.S. government has pledged more than $11.6 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers to dig our nation out of the recession – and that doesn’t even include the $410 billion we are about to spend in this latest spending bill.
“Where is the fiscal responsibility?
“Even more incredulous is the fact that this omnibus appropriations bill contains funding for many of the same agencies and programs that already received funds in the so-called “stimulus” bill—162 programs in fact. For instance, it provides $2.9 billion for the 2010 census even though $1 billion was already allocated for this project in the “stimulus” package. We also have funding for the National Endowment for the Arts, which, fresh off receiving $50 million from the “stimulus,” is now in line to receive $138 million in this latest proposal.
“The combined fiscal year 2009 funding for these “double-dipping” programs is $680 billion—a whopping 80% increase in spending.
“Furthermore, the Democrat majority is once again using a massive spending bill to shove sweeping national policy changes through Congress without public scrutiny and without proper debate. This bill contains language to terminate the District of Columbia’s successful school voucher program; it eliminates the “Reading First” program within the Department of Education; and it drastically undercuts construction and design funding for Yucca Mountain, a key component to any plan that puts America on the path to energy independence. The merit of these programs aside, a sweeping spending bill—especially one with no opportunity to amend—is not the appropriate place for any of these measures to be considered.
“Enough is enough. The American taxpayer is already struggling in this weakened economy and it is time Congress started to show respect to the American people and stop increasing the weight of their financial burdens. The spending spree has to stop now.”
Bachmann Supports Workers' Right to Secret Ballot
Last year, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would deny workers the right to a secret ballot when deciding whether to unionize. Along with the Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, and a variety of organizations that represent union members (including the Fraternal Order of Police and the American Hospital Association), I strongly oppose this legislation, which is commonly known as Card Check, and have cosponsored legislation which would instead protect the right to a secret ballot, one of our most cherished rights as Americans.
The Employee Free Choice Act, which imposes Card Check on all workers is supported by the Administration and labor unions. It would force employees to make a decision about whether or not to support union organization right in front of their co-workers and right in front of the organizers. If union organizers collect enough cards from employees indicating interest in a union, the union would be certified. And, there’s more than ample anecdotal evidence about the use of coercion and intimidation in collecting those cards.
The Secret Ballot Protection Act, which I have cosponsored, would ensure that unionization will never come about as a result of force or threats.
The right to a secret ballot is one of the most cherished of American freedoms and it should always be protected. At a time when our government spends billions of dollars to advance and support free elections around the world, it makes no sense to abolish federally protected private ballots in our own workplace.
Friday, February 27, 2009
What Will Obama’s Budget Cost You? $25,573.48… EACH!
Posted by Warner Todd Huston (Profile)
Friday, February 27th at 7:44AM EST
5 Comments
Obama is about to unleash a $3.552 TRILLION budget on this poor nation. So, if we each of us were expected to fork over our share of that tab, what would it cost us? Well, according to Toby Harnden, blogger for the Daily Telegraph, it would amount to $25,573.48 each.
I don’t know about you but, I just don’t have it.
So how much will President Barack Obama’s budget cost us? The projected 2010 budget of $3.552 trillion can be found on page 114 of the “New Era of Responsibility” budget here.
The US Census bureau estimates that the current US population is 304,059,724. Dividing the $3.552 trillion by that gives us close to the $11,833 that Drudge came up with. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports that there wil be $989 billion in new taxes over the next decade.
I’m an American taxpayer and the starkest figure is what this could cost me. The latest figure I could find for the number of US taxpayers is 138,893,908 returns in 2007 here. By my reckoning, that’s $25, 573.48 each.
Friday, February 27th at 7:44AM EST
5 Comments
Obama is about to unleash a $3.552 TRILLION budget on this poor nation. So, if we each of us were expected to fork over our share of that tab, what would it cost us? Well, according to Toby Harnden, blogger for the Daily Telegraph, it would amount to $25,573.48 each.
I don’t know about you but, I just don’t have it.
So how much will President Barack Obama’s budget cost us? The projected 2010 budget of $3.552 trillion can be found on page 114 of the “New Era of Responsibility” budget here.
The US Census bureau estimates that the current US population is 304,059,724. Dividing the $3.552 trillion by that gives us close to the $11,833 that Drudge came up with. ABC’s Jake Tapper reports that there wil be $989 billion in new taxes over the next decade.
I’m an American taxpayer and the starkest figure is what this could cost me. The latest figure I could find for the number of US taxpayers is 138,893,908 returns in 2007 here. By my reckoning, that’s $25, 573.48 each.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Really?
Posted by Rep. John Shadegg
Last night President Obama said, “I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan…Not because I believe in bigger government - I don’t.”
Really?
If that’s true, why was every single policy the President suggested last night…big government?
Mr. President, if you don’t like big government, perhaps you should consider not making it the centerpiece of your administration. That makes about as much sense as holding a fiscal responsibility summit days after passing one of the biggest spending bills in history.
Wait. That already happened.
Okay, how about this: saying you don’t like big government while promoting it, would kind of be like railing against earmarks while getting ready to sign a bill with, oh say, 9,000 of them.
Wait – that’s also really happening, house Democrats passed it today.
I guess we’re seeing a trend. The President tells the American people he’s not into big government, while he proposes expanding government. It’s like that high school crush you didn’t want to tell anyone about.
But of course, it’s not much of a secret in this case. After all, it’s hard to hide things like trillion-dollar spending bills and pork stacked a mile high. I’m also sure Americans will notice when the government tries to take over their health care and raise their taxes. And they won’t be happy.
There’s a reason, Mr. President, lines in your speeches saying you don’t like big government are a big hit – it’s because, believe or not, people hope you mean it.
Last night President Obama said, “I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan…Not because I believe in bigger government - I don’t.”
Really?
If that’s true, why was every single policy the President suggested last night…big government?
Mr. President, if you don’t like big government, perhaps you should consider not making it the centerpiece of your administration. That makes about as much sense as holding a fiscal responsibility summit days after passing one of the biggest spending bills in history.
Wait. That already happened.
Okay, how about this: saying you don’t like big government while promoting it, would kind of be like railing against earmarks while getting ready to sign a bill with, oh say, 9,000 of them.
Wait – that’s also really happening, house Democrats passed it today.
I guess we’re seeing a trend. The President tells the American people he’s not into big government, while he proposes expanding government. It’s like that high school crush you didn’t want to tell anyone about.
But of course, it’s not much of a secret in this case. After all, it’s hard to hide things like trillion-dollar spending bills and pork stacked a mile high. I’m also sure Americans will notice when the government tries to take over their health care and raise their taxes. And they won’t be happy.
There’s a reason, Mr. President, lines in your speeches saying you don’t like big government are a big hit – it’s because, believe or not, people hope you mean it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Hey! Let's allow Big Brother to keep track of our highway mileage!
Rick Moran
As it stands now, road maintenance is funded largely through the gas tax. It is a pretty fair way to allocate the tax burden since the more you drive and use those roads, the more taxes you pay.
But our new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood doesn't think we're getting enough cash as a result of the gax tax - or at least not enough for the Obama administration. So, instead of the gas tax, there are proposals to fund road building and maintenance by charging drivers for every mile they drive.
How would the government know how much to bill you for your driving? They want to stick a GPS device in your car and monitor where you go and how much you drive. Of course, they would also be able to determine who you visit, what stores you shop at, and all sorts of other juicy information that Big Brother would love to get his paws on:
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
I've got a great idea, Ray. Instead of "thinking outside the box" on this, let's just put this back in the box, close the lid, seal it, and never bring it out again.
This is a bad idea on so many levels one wonders at the brazenness of the Obama Administration and whether the press would make a stink about such a massive intrusion into the privacy of American citizens.
Chances are, they would meekly accept it as the price to pay for "energy independence" or "to stop global warming" or any other excuse the Administration could use to keep track of us.
We can always stop driving, I guess.
As it stands now, road maintenance is funded largely through the gas tax. It is a pretty fair way to allocate the tax burden since the more you drive and use those roads, the more taxes you pay.
But our new Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood doesn't think we're getting enough cash as a result of the gax tax - or at least not enough for the Obama administration. So, instead of the gas tax, there are proposals to fund road building and maintenance by charging drivers for every mile they drive.
How would the government know how much to bill you for your driving? They want to stick a GPS device in your car and monitor where you go and how much you drive. Of course, they would also be able to determine who you visit, what stores you shop at, and all sorts of other juicy information that Big Brother would love to get his paws on:
"We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled," the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said.
Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.
The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.
A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it's an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.
Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in President Barack Obama's Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.
"What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America," he said.
I've got a great idea, Ray. Instead of "thinking outside the box" on this, let's just put this back in the box, close the lid, seal it, and never bring it out again.
This is a bad idea on so many levels one wonders at the brazenness of the Obama Administration and whether the press would make a stink about such a massive intrusion into the privacy of American citizens.
Chances are, they would meekly accept it as the price to pay for "energy independence" or "to stop global warming" or any other excuse the Administration could use to keep track of us.
We can always stop driving, I guess.
Reverend Wright lives on in the Obama administation
Meghan Clyne of the Weekly Standard reports that President Obama has appointed Reverend Dr. Otis Moss Jr. to serve on the President's Advisory Council established as part of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (did you get all that?). Moss is the father of Reverend Otis Moss III, who succeeded the infamous Jeremiah Wright as the spiritual leader of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, which Obama attended for something like 20 years.
Moss Jr. himself has close ties to Wright. According to Clyne, they shared a mentor in Samuel DeWitt Proctor, who helped give rise to black liberation theology. Ironically, it was the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference that sponsored Wright's appearance at the National Press Club last April -- the one that finally caused Obama to break with his racist, anti-American pastor.
Moss is full of praise for Wright. Last February, after Wright's anti-American ravings had come to light, Moss said he had been blessed by Wright's "genius, his creativity, his scholarship, his discipleship, his sensitivity as a prophet, and. . .his rhythmic poetry." Moss' own rhetoric is less deranged than Wright's but, as Cline shows, it is inflammatory enough. And Moss is the co-author, with Wright, of a book that refers to U.S. education and health care policy as "weapons of mass destruction."
Moss should fit in well on Obama's new Advisory Council. Other members include black liberation theologist Vashi McKenzie, who has preached at Trinity, and Jim Wallis a former (?) Marxist and a defender of Wright.
Even before breaking with Wright, Obama argued (in his Philadelphia speech) that his pastor and those like him didn't get that America had changed from when they were young. Yet Obama has now selected a misguided (according to him) "race man" to advise on spiritual matters.
Apparently, Obama finds it useful to keep the grievances of Wright and Moss alive even though he knows, and his election confirms, that they are seriously outdated.
Moss Jr. himself has close ties to Wright. According to Clyne, they shared a mentor in Samuel DeWitt Proctor, who helped give rise to black liberation theology. Ironically, it was the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Conference that sponsored Wright's appearance at the National Press Club last April -- the one that finally caused Obama to break with his racist, anti-American pastor.
Moss is full of praise for Wright. Last February, after Wright's anti-American ravings had come to light, Moss said he had been blessed by Wright's "genius, his creativity, his scholarship, his discipleship, his sensitivity as a prophet, and. . .his rhythmic poetry." Moss' own rhetoric is less deranged than Wright's but, as Cline shows, it is inflammatory enough. And Moss is the co-author, with Wright, of a book that refers to U.S. education and health care policy as "weapons of mass destruction."
Moss should fit in well on Obama's new Advisory Council. Other members include black liberation theologist Vashi McKenzie, who has preached at Trinity, and Jim Wallis a former (?) Marxist and a defender of Wright.
Even before breaking with Wright, Obama argued (in his Philadelphia speech) that his pastor and those like him didn't get that America had changed from when they were young. Yet Obama has now selected a misguided (according to him) "race man" to advise on spiritual matters.
Apparently, Obama finds it useful to keep the grievances of Wright and Moss alive even though he knows, and his election confirms, that they are seriously outdated.
Dear President Obama:
I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
By Rush Limbaugh
You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.
As a former president of the Harvard Law Review and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, you are more familiar than most with the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.
When I began my national talk show in 1988, no one, including radio industry professionals, thought my syndication would work. There were only about 125 radio stations programming talk. And there were numerous news articles and opinion pieces predicting the fast death of the AM band, which was hemorrhaging audience and revenue to the FM band. Some blamed the lower-fidelity AM signals. But the big issue was broadcast content. It is no accident that the AM band was dying under the so-called Fairness Doctrine, which choked robust debate about important issues because of its onerous attempts at rationing the content of speech.
After the Federal Communications Commission abandoned the Fairness Doctrine in the mid-1980s, Congress passed legislation to reinstitute it. When President Reagan vetoed it, he declared that "This doctrine . . . requires Federal officials to supervise the editorial practices of broadcasters in an effort to ensure that they provide coverage of controversial issues and a reasonable opportunity for the airing of contrasting viewpoints of those issues. This type of content-based regulation by the Federal Government is . . . antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment. . . . History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee."
Today the number of radio stations programming talk is well over 2,000. In fact, there are thousands of stations that air tens of thousands of programs covering virtually every conceivable topic and in various languages. The explosion of talk radio has created legions of jobs and billions in economic value. Not bad for an industry that only 20 years ago was moribund. Content, content, content, Mr. President, is the reason for the huge turnaround of the past 20 years, not "funding" or "big money," as Mr. Clinton stated. And not only has the AM band been revitalized, but there is competition from other venues, such as Internet and satellite broadcasting. It is not an exaggeration to say that today, more than ever, anyone with a microphone and a computer can broadcast their views. And thousands do.
Mr. President, we both know that this new effort at regulating speech is not about diversity but conformity. It should be rejected. You've said you're against reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but you've not made it clear where you stand on possible regulatory efforts to impose so-called local content, diversity-of-ownership, and public-interest rules that your FCC could issue.
I do not favor content-based regulation of National Public Radio, newspapers, or broadcast or cable TV networks. I would encourage you not to allow your office to be misused to advance a political vendetta against certain broadcasters whose opinions are not shared by many in your party and ideologically liberal groups such as Acorn, the Center for American Progress, and MoveOn.org. There is no groundswell of support behind this movement. Indeed, there is a groundswell against it.
The fact that the federal government issues broadcast licenses, the original purpose of which was to regulate radio signals, ought not become an excuse to destroy one of the most accessible and popular marketplaces of expression. The AM broadcast spectrum cannot honestly be considered a "scarce" resource. So as the temporary custodian of your office, you should agree that the Constitution is more important than scoring transient political victories, even when couched in the language of public interest.
We in talk radio await your answer. What will it be? Government-imposed censorship disguised as "fairness" and "balance"? Or will the arena of ideas remain a free market?
By Rush Limbaugh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)