House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on Tax Day 2009:
“April 15th has long been and always will be a day American workers and their families despise – and rightfully so. It is the symbol of a government that has grown too big, too costly, and too arrogant, as it asks Americans for more and more of their hard-earned money to pay for wasteful government programs that never go away.
“But this Tax Day is different. Across our nation, thousands of Americans are participating in taxpayer tea parties today for one simple reason: overtaxed families and small businesses have had enough. They’ve had enough of Democrats forcing taxpayers to pick up the tab for more wasteful spending instead of working together to make the tough fiscal decisions Americans are forced to make each and every day. They’ve had enough of seeing their hard-earned tax dollars wasted on pork-barrel spending that won’t create jobs, rebuild their savings, or get our economy moving again. And they’ve had enough of Congress and the White House mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s future by saddling them with mountains of debt destined to bankrupt our country.
“House Republicans share the American people’s frustration and are proposing better solutions to reduce taxes and get Washington’s fiscal house back in order. We’ve proposed a plan to create twice the jobs as the Democrats’ ‘stimulus’ spending bill – 6.2 million total jobs – at half the cost. While Democrats just passed a budget that scrapped President Obama’s promise of a middle-class tax cut, we have offered a budget that curbs spending, creates jobs by cutting taxes, and controls the debt. And we’re crafting reforms to reduce energy costs and expand Americans’ access to affordable health care. It’s time for Washington Democrats to listen to the American people who have had enough and work with Republicans on common sense solutions to get our economy moving again – without raising taxes.”
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
U.S. Sues Union Pacific R.R. for $37 Million for Allegedly Failing to Prevent Use of Rail Cars to Smuggle Narcotics Across Border
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The government has filed two lawsuits against the Union Pacific Railroad Company for allegedly failing to prevent the use of its rail cars to smuggle large quantities of narcotics into the United States, the Justice Department announced today. The complaints, filed in San Diego and Houston, seek more than $37 million in monetary penalties. The government alleges the rail cars were brought across the border at the ports of entry at Calexico, Calif., and Brownsville, Texas.
According to the complaints, Union Pacific Railroad, the largest provider of rail transportation services in North America, has substantial Mexico rail operations, serving border gateways in California, Arizona and Texas. It is alleged in the complaints that Union Pacific has a substantial ownership-interest in the privatized Mexican railroad company Ferrocarril Mexicano (FM). Union Pacific also partners with FM to offer Union Pacific's customers the ability to move merchandise north- and south-bound between Mexico and the United States.
In accordance with Title 19, United States Code, Section 1584, the owner or person in charge of a vehicle bound to the United States is required to submit to Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a manifest that accurately identifies all merchandise on board the vehicle. A violation of this section mandates the imposition of civil monetary penalties.
"It is imperative for transportation providers to be vigilant in determining the nature of cargo they bring into the United States from other countries," said Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "These laws were established to protect the American people."
The complaint, filed in the Southern District of California, alleges that on 37 separate occasions, from November 2001 to October 2006, after Union Pacific submitted its manifests, CBP officials found a total of over 4,000 pounds of marijuana on Union Pacific rail cars north-bound from Mexico for travel throughout the United States. According to the complaint, CBP imposed mandatory monetary penalties of $33,595,112 for Union Pacific's violations but to date, Union Pacific has failed and refused to pay the civil penalties.
The government's complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas alleges that on June 16, 2003, Union Pacific submitted a manifest to CBP for entry at the Port of Entry at Brownsville, Texas. According to the government complaint, the railroad manifest indicated that the rail cars were empty. However, the suit states that CBP officials, during a routine inspection, found a total of 99 packages containing 117 kilograms of cocaine within a false wall on the bottom side of the rail car. The suit, filed in the Southern District of Texas, seeks $4,128,000.
"Railroad companies and other freight carriers must take seriously their obligations under the law to take appropriate action to prevent the use of their vehicles to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into the United States," said Karen P. Hewitt, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. "This civil complaint marks an important step toward addressing the repeated failure of the largest railroad company in North America to prevent rail cars bound for travel throughout the United States from being used to smuggle significant amounts of narcotics."
"Along with the profits of doing an international transportation business comes the legal obligation to ensure contraband is not also brought into our country," said Tim Johnson, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. "The consequences of failing to meet that obligation are what this suit is all about."
"Securing the nation's rail system against the threat of cross border smuggling requires the compliance and cooperation of the rail industry," said Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. "Failure to comply with reasonable security measures leads to vulnerabilities that are simply unacceptable when considering the consequences of illegal cross border activity."
The case is being handled in San Diego by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph P. Price, Jr., and Joseph J. Purcell; in Houston by Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy L. Masso; in Washington by Civil Division Trial Attorneys, David S. Silverbrand and Lauren A. Weeman; and with the assistance of Shelby L. Stuntz and Julie Koller, Attorneys, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection.
According to the complaints, Union Pacific Railroad, the largest provider of rail transportation services in North America, has substantial Mexico rail operations, serving border gateways in California, Arizona and Texas. It is alleged in the complaints that Union Pacific has a substantial ownership-interest in the privatized Mexican railroad company Ferrocarril Mexicano (FM). Union Pacific also partners with FM to offer Union Pacific's customers the ability to move merchandise north- and south-bound between Mexico and the United States.
In accordance with Title 19, United States Code, Section 1584, the owner or person in charge of a vehicle bound to the United States is required to submit to Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a manifest that accurately identifies all merchandise on board the vehicle. A violation of this section mandates the imposition of civil monetary penalties.
"It is imperative for transportation providers to be vigilant in determining the nature of cargo they bring into the United States from other countries," said Michael F. Hertz, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "These laws were established to protect the American people."
The complaint, filed in the Southern District of California, alleges that on 37 separate occasions, from November 2001 to October 2006, after Union Pacific submitted its manifests, CBP officials found a total of over 4,000 pounds of marijuana on Union Pacific rail cars north-bound from Mexico for travel throughout the United States. According to the complaint, CBP imposed mandatory monetary penalties of $33,595,112 for Union Pacific's violations but to date, Union Pacific has failed and refused to pay the civil penalties.
The government's complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas alleges that on June 16, 2003, Union Pacific submitted a manifest to CBP for entry at the Port of Entry at Brownsville, Texas. According to the government complaint, the railroad manifest indicated that the rail cars were empty. However, the suit states that CBP officials, during a routine inspection, found a total of 99 packages containing 117 kilograms of cocaine within a false wall on the bottom side of the rail car. The suit, filed in the Southern District of Texas, seeks $4,128,000.
"Railroad companies and other freight carriers must take seriously their obligations under the law to take appropriate action to prevent the use of their vehicles to smuggle narcotics and other contraband into the United States," said Karen P. Hewitt, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. "This civil complaint marks an important step toward addressing the repeated failure of the largest railroad company in North America to prevent rail cars bound for travel throughout the United States from being used to smuggle significant amounts of narcotics."
"Along with the profits of doing an international transportation business comes the legal obligation to ensure contraband is not also brought into our country," said Tim Johnson, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. "The consequences of failing to meet that obligation are what this suit is all about."
"Securing the nation's rail system against the threat of cross border smuggling requires the compliance and cooperation of the rail industry," said Jayson P. Ahern, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. "Failure to comply with reasonable security measures leads to vulnerabilities that are simply unacceptable when considering the consequences of illegal cross border activity."
The case is being handled in San Diego by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Joseph P. Price, Jr., and Joseph J. Purcell; in Houston by Assistant U.S. Attorney Nancy L. Masso; in Washington by Civil Division Trial Attorneys, David S. Silverbrand and Lauren A. Weeman; and with the assistance of Shelby L. Stuntz and Julie Koller, Attorneys, Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Federal Government Still Viewed as Secretive; Public Supports President's Directive on Transparency
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the first time in four years, public opinion about government secrecy has leveled off, although more than seven in 10 adults still consider the federal government to be secretive, according to the 2009 Sunshine Week survey by Scripps Howard News Service and Ohio University.
Since 2006, the percentage of adults who believe the federal government to be somewhat or very secretive has grown steadily; from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008. The latest survey finds 73 percent characterizing federal government as secretive.
This mood is perhaps buoyed by the nearly eight in 10 adults who think President Obama's Freedom of Information directive calling for a presumption of disclosure is the right thing to do.
"Trust in government has been on the decline for some time in the United States. The previous administration's disclosure policies certainly contributed to public skepticism," said Jerry Miller, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University. "People now appear more optimistic, but still guarded, about President Obama and the current administration's disclosure practices under the Freedom of Information Act."
As in previous years' surveys, people see their state and local governments as more open than the federal system. At the state level, 54 percent view government as open, 44 percent as secretive. People also are more trusting of local public officials. More than half, 56 percent, say their local government is very or somewhat open, with 44 percent rating it as very or somewhat open.
"The more open our government, the more inclusive the processes that impact our everyday lives," noted Rich Boehne, president and chief executive officer of The E.W. Scripps Co.
Two-thirds of adults (67 percent) say they've heard of the federal Freedom of Information Act, and when told about it, slightly more (77 percent) think it is a good law. However, hardly anyone surveyed had ever used it. Nine in 10 adults (94 percent) have never requested information using a FOIA request. None of this, of course, dulls their skepticism about compliance with the law: 61 percent say they believe the federal government only sometimes, rarely or never obeys FOIA law.
"It's heartening there is a reversal in the downward trend of public confidence in the openness of the federal government," said Andy Alexander, co-chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editor's FOI Committee.
"But it's sobering to note that more than half of those surveyed said they still believe their government only sometimes, rarely or never abides by disclosure requirements mandated by law," added Alexander, who is ombudsman at The Washington Post.
The survey of 946 adults was conducted by telephone from Feb. 16 through March 11 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The survey has a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.
The survey has been commissioned by ASNE for Sunshine Week since 2006, Sunshine Week is a non-partisan open government initiative led by ASNE, with print, online and broadcast media; public officials; civic groups and non-profit organizations; public and special libraries; educators and students; religious leaders; and others. It is primarily funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Since 2006, the percentage of adults who believe the federal government to be somewhat or very secretive has grown steadily; from 62 percent in 2006 to 74 percent in 2008. The latest survey finds 73 percent characterizing federal government as secretive.
This mood is perhaps buoyed by the nearly eight in 10 adults who think President Obama's Freedom of Information directive calling for a presumption of disclosure is the right thing to do.
"Trust in government has been on the decline for some time in the United States. The previous administration's disclosure policies certainly contributed to public skepticism," said Jerry Miller, director of the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University. "People now appear more optimistic, but still guarded, about President Obama and the current administration's disclosure practices under the Freedom of Information Act."
As in previous years' surveys, people see their state and local governments as more open than the federal system. At the state level, 54 percent view government as open, 44 percent as secretive. People also are more trusting of local public officials. More than half, 56 percent, say their local government is very or somewhat open, with 44 percent rating it as very or somewhat open.
"The more open our government, the more inclusive the processes that impact our everyday lives," noted Rich Boehne, president and chief executive officer of The E.W. Scripps Co.
Two-thirds of adults (67 percent) say they've heard of the federal Freedom of Information Act, and when told about it, slightly more (77 percent) think it is a good law. However, hardly anyone surveyed had ever used it. Nine in 10 adults (94 percent) have never requested information using a FOIA request. None of this, of course, dulls their skepticism about compliance with the law: 61 percent say they believe the federal government only sometimes, rarely or never obeys FOIA law.
"It's heartening there is a reversal in the downward trend of public confidence in the openness of the federal government," said Andy Alexander, co-chair of the American Society of Newspaper Editor's FOI Committee.
"But it's sobering to note that more than half of those surveyed said they still believe their government only sometimes, rarely or never abides by disclosure requirements mandated by law," added Alexander, who is ombudsman at The Washington Post.
The survey of 946 adults was conducted by telephone from Feb. 16 through March 11 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The survey has a margin of error of about 4 percentage points.
The survey has been commissioned by ASNE for Sunshine Week since 2006, Sunshine Week is a non-partisan open government initiative led by ASNE, with print, online and broadcast media; public officials; civic groups and non-profit organizations; public and special libraries; educators and students; religious leaders; and others. It is primarily funded by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Obama Budget Contains More than $1.6 Trillion in Tax Increases... Possibly As Much As $2.2 Trillion
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While some media outlets are reporting more than $1 trillion in new taxes in the Obama budget, Grassfire.org has identified more than $1.6 trillion, and possibly as much as $2.2 trillion.
"The President's 'carbon tax' is the single biggest tax-increasing item in his budget, and the largest in history," says Steve Elliott, President of Grassfire.org. According to Grassfire.org researchers examining the official published documents on the budget, the $645 billion in carbon taxes pushes the total tax increases in President Obama's budget to a minimum of $1.64 trillion. Go here for a complete breakdown: http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/obama-budget-more-than-16
Elliott adds that $1.6 trillion is just the starting point: "The Obama budget only accounts for the portion of the carbon tax being allocated to so-called 'clean energy technologies' and the 'Make Work Pay' tax credit. If Congressional Budget Office estimates are correct, the actual carbon tax could be double what Obama's budget shows. That dramatically increases the new taxes in the Obama budget to $2.2 trillion," says Elliott.
Elliott also notes that Americans who are faced with tightening personal budgets are growing more and more intolerant of the spending ways of Washington. "The President is right that a 'day of reckoning' is coming, but that reckoning will take the form of citizens who are fed up with politicians expanding the tentacles of government deeper and deeper into our lives and our pocketbooks."
Many of those frustrated Americans have already added their names to a national Grassfire.org petition that has already rallied over 100,000 citizens urging Congress to "Stop the Spending." To view the petition: http://www.grassfire.org/112/petition.asp
"The President's 'carbon tax' is the single biggest tax-increasing item in his budget, and the largest in history," says Steve Elliott, President of Grassfire.org. According to Grassfire.org researchers examining the official published documents on the budget, the $645 billion in carbon taxes pushes the total tax increases in President Obama's budget to a minimum of $1.64 trillion. Go here for a complete breakdown: http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/obama-budget-more-than-16
Elliott adds that $1.6 trillion is just the starting point: "The Obama budget only accounts for the portion of the carbon tax being allocated to so-called 'clean energy technologies' and the 'Make Work Pay' tax credit. If Congressional Budget Office estimates are correct, the actual carbon tax could be double what Obama's budget shows. That dramatically increases the new taxes in the Obama budget to $2.2 trillion," says Elliott.
Elliott also notes that Americans who are faced with tightening personal budgets are growing more and more intolerant of the spending ways of Washington. "The President is right that a 'day of reckoning' is coming, but that reckoning will take the form of citizens who are fed up with politicians expanding the tentacles of government deeper and deeper into our lives and our pocketbooks."
Many of those frustrated Americans have already added their names to a national Grassfire.org petition that has already rallied over 100,000 citizens urging Congress to "Stop the Spending." To view the petition: http://www.grassfire.org/112/petition.asp
Thursday, February 26, 2009
2010 Budget Rings in New Era for Federal Government
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The American Federation of Government Employees today applauded the Obama Administration's 2010 fiscal budget and stands ready to increase services provided to the American public. "We are delighted to finally have the resources to run our agencies," said AFGE National President John Gage. "This budget is a welcome departure from the 'starve the beast' policies of the last eight years that sought to deprive government agencies and programs of the resources they needed to carry out their missions on behalf of the American people."
While the last eight years saw budgets that catered only to the interests of the wealthy and politically-connected contractors, this budget places the highest priorities on veterans; the elderly and the disabled who rely on Social Security; education; the safety of communities where federal prisons are located; science-based projects to protect the environment; housing assistance; and everyone who buys health insurance and uses health care, to name only a few.
"Although federal employees would prefer to have seen an increase in pay, the equivalent to the military, we recognize the severity of our nation's economic situation, including the crisis for public workers at the state and local level, and understand that only modest steps can be taken this year to close the remaining pay gap between the federal and non-federal salaries," continued Gage. "We also are pleased to see an emphasis on controlling health care costs in the years to come."
"Federal employees are genuinely committed to providing their fellow Americans with the highest quality services and protections. From the Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents' efforts to protect the border to the Department of Labor's OSHA inspectors to the VA nurses and doctors - federal employees are so pleased to see that President Obama recognizes that understaffing is dangerous and self-defeating. They are thrilled at the prospect of additional resources for hiring staff who will be dedicated to serving the public interest," Gage said.
The 2010 budget goes even further, recognizing the harm done by Bush administration's privatization agenda. "Their ideological bias forced agencies to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of the integrity of federal programs as well as public accountability. It looks like that may be coming to an end," said Gage.
"AFGE looks forward to this renewed opportunity to serve the American public," concluded Gage. "And we look forward to continuing our work with the Obama administration toward our shared goal of better government."
While the last eight years saw budgets that catered only to the interests of the wealthy and politically-connected contractors, this budget places the highest priorities on veterans; the elderly and the disabled who rely on Social Security; education; the safety of communities where federal prisons are located; science-based projects to protect the environment; housing assistance; and everyone who buys health insurance and uses health care, to name only a few.
"Although federal employees would prefer to have seen an increase in pay, the equivalent to the military, we recognize the severity of our nation's economic situation, including the crisis for public workers at the state and local level, and understand that only modest steps can be taken this year to close the remaining pay gap between the federal and non-federal salaries," continued Gage. "We also are pleased to see an emphasis on controlling health care costs in the years to come."
"Federal employees are genuinely committed to providing their fellow Americans with the highest quality services and protections. From the Department of Homeland Security's Border Patrol agents' efforts to protect the border to the Department of Labor's OSHA inspectors to the VA nurses and doctors - federal employees are so pleased to see that President Obama recognizes that understaffing is dangerous and self-defeating. They are thrilled at the prospect of additional resources for hiring staff who will be dedicated to serving the public interest," Gage said.
The 2010 budget goes even further, recognizing the harm done by Bush administration's privatization agenda. "Their ideological bias forced agencies to contract out regardless of cost or quality, and at the expense of the integrity of federal programs as well as public accountability. It looks like that may be coming to an end," said Gage.
"AFGE looks forward to this renewed opportunity to serve the American public," concluded Gage. "And we look forward to continuing our work with the Obama administration toward our shared goal of better government."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
WordpressURL ALL: Stimulus Provision Endangers Seniors, Opens the Door for Euthanasia
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement from Judie Brown, president of American Life League, on the eugenics element woven into the healthcare provisions of the stimulus package agreed upon by the House and Senate Feb. 12 as reported by the Associated Press and San Jose Mercury News.
"Our elected representatives have fed on the fears of a nation gripped by economic panic to legislate state-enforced euthanasia.
"President Obama's economic stimulus package puts a price tag on each of our heads.
"The package's healthcare provisions threaten the elderly and open the door for euthanasia and nationalized health care.
"Patterned on a plan outlined by Sen. Tom Daschle in his book 'Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis,' the plan will have the greatest impact on seniors and places the country a step closer to mandated euthanasia of the elderly, infirm and those deemed undesirable.
"This is a disgusting direct attack on the worth and human dignity of all people, regardless of age. These provisions endanger the life of every single American.
"May God help us as we embark into this 'brave new world' in which government bureaucrats determine the value of our lives."
"Our elected representatives have fed on the fears of a nation gripped by economic panic to legislate state-enforced euthanasia.
"President Obama's economic stimulus package puts a price tag on each of our heads.
"The package's healthcare provisions threaten the elderly and open the door for euthanasia and nationalized health care.
"Patterned on a plan outlined by Sen. Tom Daschle in his book 'Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis,' the plan will have the greatest impact on seniors and places the country a step closer to mandated euthanasia of the elderly, infirm and those deemed undesirable.
"This is a disgusting direct attack on the worth and human dignity of all people, regardless of age. These provisions endanger the life of every single American.
"May God help us as we embark into this 'brave new world' in which government bureaucrats determine the value of our lives."
Monday, February 9, 2009
Institute for Policy Innovation: Abuse of English Language to Call Pork Bill 'Stimulus'
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that not only will fail to create new jobs, but is teeming with runaway government spending for increased welfare, overgrown bureaucracy, pork, political payoffs and other waste.
"To call this spending bill 'stimulus' is an abuse of the English language," said Peter Ferrara, director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI).
The centerpiece of the stimulus bill is little more than a welfare check -- a $500 per worker "tax credit" totaling $150 billion.
"There will be no economic net gain because the government will just borrow $150 billion from the private sector to give away, nor will there be any added incentives to save, invest, or start or expand a business, or create jobs," said Ferrara.
IPI president Tom Giovanetti agreed, saying, "This is like going through the neighborhood breaking windows to provide economic stimulus for the glass company."
To create a sustainable economic stimulus, comprehensive reductions in tax rates must be implemented. This includes:
-- Slashing the corporate tax rate to 20%;
-- Cutting the federal corporate capital gains rate from 35% to 15%;
-- Returning billions in investment capital to America by allowing
multinational companies' overseas earnings to be subject only to a 5%
corporate tax;
-- Allowing immediate deductions for all capital investment in machinery
and equipment, rather than extending only partial deductions over
several years through depreciation;
-- And unleashing America's energy industry through deregulation,
assuring a low-cost, reliable energy supply, adding to GDP and
creating jobs.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. The only solution to getting the U.S. economy booming again is to unleash the private sector through fundamental tax relief.
"To call this spending bill 'stimulus' is an abuse of the English language," said Peter Ferrara, director of entitlement and budget policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI).
The centerpiece of the stimulus bill is little more than a welfare check -- a $500 per worker "tax credit" totaling $150 billion.
"There will be no economic net gain because the government will just borrow $150 billion from the private sector to give away, nor will there be any added incentives to save, invest, or start or expand a business, or create jobs," said Ferrara.
IPI president Tom Giovanetti agreed, saying, "This is like going through the neighborhood breaking windows to provide economic stimulus for the glass company."
To create a sustainable economic stimulus, comprehensive reductions in tax rates must be implemented. This includes:
-- Slashing the corporate tax rate to 20%;
-- Cutting the federal corporate capital gains rate from 35% to 15%;
-- Returning billions in investment capital to America by allowing
multinational companies' overseas earnings to be subject only to a 5%
corporate tax;
-- Allowing immediate deductions for all capital investment in machinery
and equipment, rather than extending only partial deductions over
several years through depreciation;
-- And unleashing America's energy industry through deregulation,
assuring a low-cost, reliable energy supply, adding to GDP and
creating jobs.
In the words of Ronald Reagan, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. The only solution to getting the U.S. economy booming again is to unleash the private sector through fundamental tax relief.
Growing the Economy: Three Models of Failure, Three Models of Success
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following release was issued today by Americans for Tax Reform:
There's a debate raging in Washington over how to improve economic growth. On the one side, President Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the liberal establishment wants to "stimulate" the economy by stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to unionized government make-work projects. On the other side, free market conservatives favor lower marginal tax rates, full business expensing, tax-free savings, free trade, sound money, and lower government spending. In the recent past, there have been three models of "stimulus" failure, and three models of free-market success.
Failed "Stimulus" Plans
1. In 1997, Argentina's economy began to worsen. In response, Argentine non-interest government spending grew from 23% of GDP in 1997 to 25% of GDP by 2001. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $300 billion. Despite this, average real GDP growth in the period was just 0.7%. (1)
2.In the 1990s, Japan tried to grow government to "prime the pump" of the economy. Government spending grew from 32% of GDP in 1991 to 38% of GDP in 2000. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $900 billion. After this experiment, Japan's per-capita national income fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1991 to only 74 percent in 2000. The people of Japan became poorer after this massive government "stimulus." (2)
3. In 1929, the U.S. entered the Great Depression. In the decade following, a Republican failed president (Herbert Hoover) and a Democrat failed president (FDR) increased federal spending from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.3% of GDP in 1939. The equivalent today would be an immediate increase in government spending of $1 trillion. Despite all the spending of the New Deal, the U.S. economy actually shrank from $97.4 billion to $89.1 billion, or nearly 10 percent in 10 years. (3)
Successful Growth Models
1. In late 1963, Congress implemented the Kennedy tax cut, which lowered the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Until LBJ raised taxes to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society, average annual real GDP growth from 1964-1966 was 6.2%.
2. In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%, and also cut the corporate income tax rate. The top personal rate was reduced to 28% in 1986. Average annual real GDP growth from 1983 to 1989 (the last year before the George H.W. Bush tax hike) was 4.3%.
3. In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15%, and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. Until Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and announced the imminent end of these lower tax rates, real GDP growth averaged 3.0% per year.
There are two models at work here:
-- Keynesian Stimulus. The government spends taxpayer money on projects
to "create jobs." The only jobs that are created are in the sprawling
government bureaucracies. Because the government cannot spend any
money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this
model cannot create economic growth. It failed in Japan and Argentina
in the 1990s, and right here in America in the 1930s. Economic growth
was stagnant or negative in all three cases. The government purely
and simply wasted taxpayers' money.
-- Growth Economics. When marginal tax rates on work, saving, and
investment are cut, incentives to produce more work, savings, and
investment go up. The Kennedy tax cuts worked. The Reagan tax cuts
worked. The Bush tax cuts worked. In all three cases, lowering
marginal tax rates caused economic growth to rise and for all
Americans to be better off.
How to Grow the Economy Now and Permanently
1. Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to 25%
2. Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%
3. Cut the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 0%
4. Move to full business expensing of all business investments
5. Stop double-taxing U.S. employers on their income earned overseas
6. Kill the Death Tax
7. Kill the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
8. Cut the payroll and self-employment tax rate in half, from 15.3% to 7.5%
9. Cap government spending to the pre-Bush level of 18% of GDP
10. Require full government transparency to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or at jkartch@atr.org.
Permalink: http://www.atr.org/content/html/2009/feb/020909pr-growing_the_economy_three_mo dels.html
Notes:
(1) http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2002/071702.htm
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cfm
(3) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist01z2.xls
(4) All real GDP growth figures in the successful models taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
There's a debate raging in Washington over how to improve economic growth. On the one side, President Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the liberal establishment wants to "stimulate" the economy by stealing money from taxpayers and giving it to unionized government make-work projects. On the other side, free market conservatives favor lower marginal tax rates, full business expensing, tax-free savings, free trade, sound money, and lower government spending. In the recent past, there have been three models of "stimulus" failure, and three models of free-market success.
Failed "Stimulus" Plans
1. In 1997, Argentina's economy began to worsen. In response, Argentine non-interest government spending grew from 23% of GDP in 1997 to 25% of GDP by 2001. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $300 billion. Despite this, average real GDP growth in the period was just 0.7%. (1)
2.In the 1990s, Japan tried to grow government to "prime the pump" of the economy. Government spending grew from 32% of GDP in 1991 to 38% of GDP in 2000. The equivalent in the U.S. would be an immediate increase in government spending of nearly $900 billion. After this experiment, Japan's per-capita national income fell from 86 percent of the U.S. level in 1991 to only 74 percent in 2000. The people of Japan became poorer after this massive government "stimulus." (2)
3. In 1929, the U.S. entered the Great Depression. In the decade following, a Republican failed president (Herbert Hoover) and a Democrat failed president (FDR) increased federal spending from 3.4% of GDP in 1930 to 10.3% of GDP in 1939. The equivalent today would be an immediate increase in government spending of $1 trillion. Despite all the spending of the New Deal, the U.S. economy actually shrank from $97.4 billion to $89.1 billion, or nearly 10 percent in 10 years. (3)
Successful Growth Models
1. In late 1963, Congress implemented the Kennedy tax cut, which lowered the top marginal personal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Until LBJ raised taxes to pay for the Vietnam War and Great Society, average annual real GDP growth from 1964-1966 was 6.2%.
2. In 1983, the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented. They reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50%, and also cut the corporate income tax rate. The top personal rate was reduced to 28% in 1986. Average annual real GDP growth from 1983 to 1989 (the last year before the George H.W. Bush tax hike) was 4.3%.
3. In 2003, President George W. Bush cut the top personal rate from 38.1% to 35%, the dividend rate from 38.1% to 15%, and the capital gains rate from 20% to 15%. Until Democrats took over Congress in 2006 and announced the imminent end of these lower tax rates, real GDP growth averaged 3.0% per year.
There are two models at work here:
-- Keynesian Stimulus. The government spends taxpayer money on projects
to "create jobs." The only jobs that are created are in the sprawling
government bureaucracies. Because the government cannot spend any
money on the economy it did not first take from the economy, this
model cannot create economic growth. It failed in Japan and Argentina
in the 1990s, and right here in America in the 1930s. Economic growth
was stagnant or negative in all three cases. The government purely
and simply wasted taxpayers' money.
-- Growth Economics. When marginal tax rates on work, saving, and
investment are cut, incentives to produce more work, savings, and
investment go up. The Kennedy tax cuts worked. The Reagan tax cuts
worked. The Bush tax cuts worked. In all three cases, lowering
marginal tax rates caused economic growth to rise and for all
Americans to be better off.
How to Grow the Economy Now and Permanently
1. Cut the top personal income tax rate from 35% to 25%
2. Cut the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25%
3. Cut the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 0%
4. Move to full business expensing of all business investments
5. Stop double-taxing U.S. employers on their income earned overseas
6. Kill the Death Tax
7. Kill the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
8. Cut the payroll and self-employment tax rate in half, from 15.3% to 7.5%
9. Cap government spending to the pre-Bush level of 18% of GDP
10. Require full government transparency to ensure that taxpayer money is not wasted
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all federal, state and local tax increases. For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or at jkartch@atr.org.
Permalink: http://www.atr.org/content/html/2009/feb/020909pr-growing_the_economy_three_mo dels.html
Notes:
(1) http://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2002/071702.htm
(2) http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/bg2222.cfm
(3) http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist01z2.xls
(4) All real GDP growth figures in the successful models taken from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Statement on Comparative Effectiveness Research Under Senate Appropriations Committee Stimulus Bill
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "The Senate today improved on a comparative effectiveness research (CER) package from the House by focusing the $1.1 billion dollar research effort on clinical effectiveness," said Dr. Jane L. Delgado, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Hispanic Health, the nation's leading Hispanic health advocacy group. She added, "The Senate Appropriations Committee has rejected House report language that put cost over quality and was a prescription for bad health.
"House stimulus package language had urged that those treatments found 'more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.' The Senate instead calls for the CER program to focus specifically on clinical effectiveness. The Senate language recognizes that a decision on the best treatment for an individual patient must be made between the patient and their provider, not a federal research or rulemaking body.
"While the Senate language is an improvement , it is important that further steps be taken to ensure that research and governance reflect those that the research seeks to serve."
According to Dr. Delgado two outstanding issues are critical.
1. Final legislation must specifically enforce current policies for inclusion in research. House language was silent on inclusion of gender, race, ethnicity, and disability. While the Senate improves on House language, the final legislation should specifically call for research to be in compliance with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Policy on the Inclusion of Priority Populations in Research.
2. Governance must be changed from an all federal board to include majority governance by patient and provider groups. Current House language calls for a 15 person governance board of only federal officials to oversee the $1.1 billion CER program. An all federal panel will not reflect the real-life concerns of patients and providers and inevitably lead to science and spending that does not meet the needs of patients for better quality care.
"We appreciate the work of the Senate Appropriations and Finance Committees and in particular thank Senators Baucus, Conrad, Harkin, and Inouye for their leadership on improving the CER program under the stimulus package. We look forward to our work with the Senate and House in the days ahead to develop a package that puts patients and quality first."
"House stimulus package language had urged that those treatments found 'more expensive, will no longer be prescribed.' The Senate instead calls for the CER program to focus specifically on clinical effectiveness. The Senate language recognizes that a decision on the best treatment for an individual patient must be made between the patient and their provider, not a federal research or rulemaking body.
"While the Senate language is an improvement , it is important that further steps be taken to ensure that research and governance reflect those that the research seeks to serve."
According to Dr. Delgado two outstanding issues are critical.
1. Final legislation must specifically enforce current policies for inclusion in research. House language was silent on inclusion of gender, race, ethnicity, and disability. While the Senate improves on House language, the final legislation should specifically call for research to be in compliance with the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Policy on the Inclusion of Priority Populations in Research.
2. Governance must be changed from an all federal board to include majority governance by patient and provider groups. Current House language calls for a 15 person governance board of only federal officials to oversee the $1.1 billion CER program. An all federal panel will not reflect the real-life concerns of patients and providers and inevitably lead to science and spending that does not meet the needs of patients for better quality care.
"We appreciate the work of the Senate Appropriations and Finance Committees and in particular thank Senators Baucus, Conrad, Harkin, and Inouye for their leadership on improving the CER program under the stimulus package. We look forward to our work with the Senate and House in the days ahead to develop a package that puts patients and quality first."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
'President Obama: Make Clarity, Transparency, Simplicity a Priority,' Say 79% of the American People
/PRNewswire/ -- "People are desperate for clarity and simplicity in order to make informed decisions," says Alan Siegel, Founder and Chairman of global brand consultancy Siegel+Gale. "There is a huge opportunity for government and business to overcome cynicism and regain lost trust through the way they communicate with their constituents and customers."
A new survey of 1,214 American homeowners and investors conducted by Siegel+Gale between December 29, 2008 and January 5, 2009, released today, shows an overwhelming majority demand more clarity in communications from companies and the government. Fully 84% of all consumers say they are more likely to trust a company that uses jargon-free, plain English in communications. And 79% say they think it is "very important" that President Obama "mandate that clarity, transparency, and plain English be a requirement of every new law, regulation and policy."
"Transparency and authenticity are the new marketing imperatives," says Lee Rafkin, Siegel+Gale's Global Director of Simplification. "People are fed up and desperate for institutions and brands that offer simple and honest communications they can understand. That's the clear message from our most recent research survey."
Complexity Up; Trust Down
Three-quarters of survey respondents (75%) say that complexity and lack of understanding have played a significant role in the current financial crisis. Moreover, 63% of those surveyed feel that "banks, mortgage lenders, and Wall Street intentionally make things complicated to hide risks or to keep people in the dark."
Trust in companies is predictably down, the survey shows. Compared to one year ago, 37% are less likely to trust their mortgage lender, 36% are less likely to trust their broker or financial advisor, and 35% are less likely to trust their bank.
However, consumers agreed they should shoulder some of the blame for the financial crisis. Over half of all surveyed admitted to not reading or attempting to understand the complicated documents they sign. And 50% agreed with the statement, "Financial products are inherently complicated. It's the final responsibility of the customer to make sure they understand all the risks."
The survey asked how much of an impact jargon-free, plain-English explanations and disclosures would make on consumer interest in a number of categories. Consumers reported:
-- a 79% increased interest in investing in a financial product,
-- a 73% increased interest in selecting a broker or a financial advisor,
-- a 67% increased interest in purchasing a life insurance policy,
-- a 63% increased interest in taking out a loan, and
-- a 63% increased interest in applying for a credit card.
A new survey of 1,214 American homeowners and investors conducted by Siegel+Gale between December 29, 2008 and January 5, 2009, released today, shows an overwhelming majority demand more clarity in communications from companies and the government. Fully 84% of all consumers say they are more likely to trust a company that uses jargon-free, plain English in communications. And 79% say they think it is "very important" that President Obama "mandate that clarity, transparency, and plain English be a requirement of every new law, regulation and policy."
"Transparency and authenticity are the new marketing imperatives," says Lee Rafkin, Siegel+Gale's Global Director of Simplification. "People are fed up and desperate for institutions and brands that offer simple and honest communications they can understand. That's the clear message from our most recent research survey."
Complexity Up; Trust Down
Three-quarters of survey respondents (75%) say that complexity and lack of understanding have played a significant role in the current financial crisis. Moreover, 63% of those surveyed feel that "banks, mortgage lenders, and Wall Street intentionally make things complicated to hide risks or to keep people in the dark."
Trust in companies is predictably down, the survey shows. Compared to one year ago, 37% are less likely to trust their mortgage lender, 36% are less likely to trust their broker or financial advisor, and 35% are less likely to trust their bank.
However, consumers agreed they should shoulder some of the blame for the financial crisis. Over half of all surveyed admitted to not reading or attempting to understand the complicated documents they sign. And 50% agreed with the statement, "Financial products are inherently complicated. It's the final responsibility of the customer to make sure they understand all the risks."
The survey asked how much of an impact jargon-free, plain-English explanations and disclosures would make on consumer interest in a number of categories. Consumers reported:
-- a 79% increased interest in investing in a financial product,
-- a 73% increased interest in selecting a broker or a financial advisor,
-- a 67% increased interest in purchasing a life insurance policy,
-- a 63% increased interest in taking out a loan, and
-- a 63% increased interest in applying for a credit card.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Obama's Latest Speech Continues to Ignore Small Businesses
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In his latest speech on the economy, President-elect Barack Obama has once again failed to make even a single mention of America's small businesses, which create nearly 80 percent of net new jobs, and employ 50.4 percent of private sector workers.
With regards to the economy, Obama held true to his campaign pattern of significantly downplaying the role small businesses play in driving our national economy. Even one of his top economic advisors, Dr. Laura Tyson acknowledged that the best way to simulate the economy is to direct federal infrastructure funds to small businesses. Tyson is the former Chair of the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration and is currently an economic adviser to President-elect Obama.
On February 26, 2008, President-elect Obama stated, "Over half of all Americans work for a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php)
The statement was made in response to a series of more than 15 federal investigations, which have found fraud, abuse, loopholes and a blatant lack of oversight in federal small business contracting programs; and have uncovered the diversion of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms. (http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html)
Within days of making the statement Obama began to distance himself from it. During the final months of the campaign Obama failed to mention small business issues in campaign speeches, modified his statement regarding the diversion of small business contracts to large corporations on his campaign website, and gave small business issues virtually no priority in his campaign agenda.
When President-elect Obama's Transition Team website, www.change.gov was launched, any mention of Obama's statement to stop the flow of federal small business contracts to large corporations had been removed.
Small business advocates are concerned that President-elect Obama may enact policy and legislation that could be harmful to the nation's nearly 27 million small businesses. Additionally, advocates point to the fact that the Obama-Biden Transition Agenda which is housed on change.gov, contains no new provisions that would significantly impact our nation's small business community.
"I am extremely concerned that President-elect Obama doesn't seem to understand that most Americans work for companies with less than 100 employees and that these are the companies that are going to lead our country out of the recession and create a vast majority of all new jobs," President of the American Small Business League Lloyd Chapman said. "So far, he has refused to offer even the most basic proposal to redirect federal infrastructure funds to these companies. It appears that he has no intention of stopping the flow of up to $100 billion in government small business contracts to large corporations. We are concerned that during his first days in office he may try to create loopholes for venture capitalists that will divert even more federal funds away from small businesses. It is going to take a lot more than tax cuts to stimulate this economy. President-elect Obama keeps talking about how important it is that we act immediately, and I couldn't agree more. We would like to see him propose policies next week that would, as he promised on February 26, 2008, stop the flow of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."
With regards to the economy, Obama held true to his campaign pattern of significantly downplaying the role small businesses play in driving our national economy. Even one of his top economic advisors, Dr. Laura Tyson acknowledged that the best way to simulate the economy is to direct federal infrastructure funds to small businesses. Tyson is the former Chair of the U.S. President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration and is currently an economic adviser to President-elect Obama.
On February 26, 2008, President-elect Obama stated, "Over half of all Americans work for a small business. Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy and we must protect this great resource. It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants." (http://www.barackobama.com/2008/02/26/the_american_small_business_le.php)
The statement was made in response to a series of more than 15 federal investigations, which have found fraud, abuse, loopholes and a blatant lack of oversight in federal small business contracting programs; and have uncovered the diversion of billions of dollars in federal small business contracts to Fortune 500 firms. (http://www.asbl.com/documentlibrary.html)
Within days of making the statement Obama began to distance himself from it. During the final months of the campaign Obama failed to mention small business issues in campaign speeches, modified his statement regarding the diversion of small business contracts to large corporations on his campaign website, and gave small business issues virtually no priority in his campaign agenda.
When President-elect Obama's Transition Team website, www.change.gov was launched, any mention of Obama's statement to stop the flow of federal small business contracts to large corporations had been removed.
Small business advocates are concerned that President-elect Obama may enact policy and legislation that could be harmful to the nation's nearly 27 million small businesses. Additionally, advocates point to the fact that the Obama-Biden Transition Agenda which is housed on change.gov, contains no new provisions that would significantly impact our nation's small business community.
"I am extremely concerned that President-elect Obama doesn't seem to understand that most Americans work for companies with less than 100 employees and that these are the companies that are going to lead our country out of the recession and create a vast majority of all new jobs," President of the American Small Business League Lloyd Chapman said. "So far, he has refused to offer even the most basic proposal to redirect federal infrastructure funds to these companies. It appears that he has no intention of stopping the flow of up to $100 billion in government small business contracts to large corporations. We are concerned that during his first days in office he may try to create loopholes for venture capitalists that will divert even more federal funds away from small businesses. It is going to take a lot more than tax cuts to stimulate this economy. President-elect Obama keeps talking about how important it is that we act immediately, and I couldn't agree more. We would like to see him propose policies next week that would, as he promised on February 26, 2008, stop the flow of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
