Category Archives: spending out of control

Daniel Mitchell on Paul Ryan’s budget

August 22, 2012 – 6:42 am

One thing that stands out about Dan Mitchell is that is not a Democrat or a Republican but a lover of freedom like Milton Friedman was. Take a look at this article of his below.

Posted by Ryan Minto on August 16, 2012

By DANIEL J. MITCHELL

Thanks to several years of fiscal restraint during the 1990s, the burden of federal spending dropped to 18.2% of gross domestic product by the time Bill Clinton left office. The federal budget today consumes more than 24% of economic output, a one-third increase since 2001 in the share of the U.S. economy allocated by politics rather than market forces. That makes the Republican House budget, which would reverse this trend, extremely important for the economic health of the country.

Both political parties deserve blame for the spending spree that’s put America in a fiscal ditch. President George W. Bush was a big spender and President Obama has compounded the damage with his stimulus spending and other programs.

But the era of bipartisan big government may have come to an end. Largely thanks to Rep. Paul Ryan and the fiscal blueprint he prepared as chairman of the House Budget Committee earlier this year, the GOP has begun climbing back on the wagon of fiscal sobriety and has shown at least some willingness to restrain the growth of government.

The Ryan budget has generated considerable controversy in Washington, and it will become even more of an issue now that Mr. Ryan is Mitt Romney’s running mate. So it’s an appropriate time to analyze the plan and consider what it would mean for America.

image

Chad Crowe

The most important headline about the Ryan budget is that it limits the growth rate of federal spending, with outlays increasing by an average of 3.1% annually over the next 10 years. If spending is left on autopilot, by contrast, it would grow by 4.3% (or nearly 39% faster). If President Obama is re-elected, the burden of spending presumably will climb more rapidly.

This comes as a surprise to many people since the press is filled with stories about the Ryan budget imposing trillions of dollars of “savage” and “draconian” spending cuts. All of these stories, however, are based on Washington’s misleading budget process that automatically assumes an ever-expanding government. The 4.3% “base line” increase is the benchmark for measuring “cuts”—even though spending is rising rather than falling, and it’s only the rate of spending growth that is being slowed.

Even limiting spending so it grows by 3.1% per year, as Mr. Ryan proposes, quickly leads to less red ink. This is because federal tax revenues are projected by the House Budget Committee to increase 6.6% annually over the next 10 years if the House budget is approved (and this assumes the Bush tax cuts are made permanent). Since revenues would climb more than twice as fast as spending, the deficit would drop to about 1% of gross domestic product by the end of the 10-year budget window.

To balance the budget within 10 years would require that outlays grow by about 2% each year. Spending in the Ryan budget means the federal budget reaches balance in 2040. There are many who would prefer that the deficit come down more quickly, but from a jobs and growth perspective, it isn’t the deficit that matters.

Rather, what matters for prosperity and living standards is the degree to which labor and capital are used productively. This is why policy makers should focus on reducing the burden of government spending as a share of GDP—leaving more resources in the private economy.

The simple way of making this happen is to follow what I’ve been calling the golden rule of good fiscal policy: The private sector should grow faster than the government. This is what happens with the Ryan budget. The Congressional Budget Office expects nominal economic output (before inflation) to grow about 5% each year over the next decade. So if federal spending grows 3.1% annually, the burden of federal spending slowly shrinks as a share of GDP.

According to the House Budget Committee, the federal budget would consume slightly less than 20% of economic output if the Ryan budget remained in place for 10 years. This would be remarkable progress considering that the federal government is now consuming 24% of GDP vs. Mr. Clinton’s 18.2% in 2001. If Paul Ryan’s policies are social Darwinism, as Mr. Obama and his allies allege, one can only speculate where Bill Clinton ranks in their estimation.

Spending restraint also creates more leeway for good tax policy. Regardless of what you think about deficits, the political reality is that it is difficult to lower tax rates if government borrowing remains at high or rising levels. If deficit spending continues at current levels, then higher tax rates are almost sure to follow. And higher tax rates can’t create an environment conducive to more investment and jobs.

The Ryan budget avoids this unpleasant outcome by addressing the problem of excessive government spending. This makes it possible to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax-rate reductions. It also clears the way for other pro-growth reforms, such as Gov. Romney’s proposed across-the-board 20% income tax cut, a more competitive 25% corporate tax rate, and less double-taxation of dividends and capital gains.

One of the best features of the Ryan budget is that he reforms the two big health entitlements instead of simply trying to save money. Medicaid gets block-granted to the states, building on the success of welfare reform in the 1990s. And Medicare is modernized by creating a premium-support option for people retiring in 2022 and beyond.

This is much better than the traditional Beltway approach of trying to save money with price controls on health-care providers and means testing on health-care consumers. Price controls are notoriously ineffective—because health-care providers adapt by ordering more tests and procedures—and politically unsustainable due to lobbying pressure. Means testing imposes an indirect penalty on people who save and invest during their working years. That should be a nonstarter for a political party that seeks to encourage productive behavior and discourage dependency.

But good entitlement policy also is a godsend for taxpayers, particularly in the long run. Without reform, the burden of federal spending will jump to 35% of GDP by 2040, compared to 18.75% of output under the Ryan budget.

Assuming the GOP ticket prevails in November, Mitt Romney will make the big decisions on fiscal policy. But there is no escaping the fiscal math. If Mr. Romney intends to keep his no-tax-hike promise, he has to restrain the growth of spending. This doesn’t mean he has to go with every detail of the Ryan budget—but it’s certainly a good place to start.

Mr. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

A version of this article appeared August 16, 2012, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: What’s Really in the Ryan Budget.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Bill Clinton, Cato Institute, Milton Friedman, President Obama, Taxes | Comments (0)

Will conservatives vote for more debt?

August 20, 2012 – 8:52 am

Have you been waiting for the next debt ceiling debate? Will the conservatives punt the ball? I am afraid that they already have. Look at this quote. “Mr. Boehner and Mr. Reid, you might not have built our country but your lack of guts is destroying it,” said Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots.

Tentative Deal Reached to Fund Government Through March 2013
By: Tuesday July 31, 2012 12:15 pm

Following up on a previous item, Congressional leaders have indeed agreed to a 6-month stopgap spending bill to avoid a government shutdown at the end of September.

The emerging deal is a sharp contrast to previous occasions when House Republicans used the approach of a spending deadline to insist on deep spending cuts in exchange for their votes, once avoiding a shutdown by a matter of hours. But with the Oct. 1 deadline for enacting spending bills for 2012 coming so close to the election, Republicans leaders were eager to avoid a government crisis that they could be blamed for by voters at the polls.

Under the agreement that takes the spending fight off the table before the presidential and Congressional elections, lawmakers have agreed to continue the current rate of spending into early next year despite a call by some conservative Republicans for a lower rate. By pushing the spending into next year, the House and Senate would also eliminate it as a bargaining chip in post-election negotiations over what to do about expiring tax cuts.

The rate of spending will be consistent with the $1.047 trillion agreed to in the debt limit deal last year. Harry Reid added that there are no riders in the bill. It’s just a budget deal to keep the government running through March 2013, at the level Democrats wanted, with no concessions to Republicans.

This means that the elections will determine the future of the budget, as per usual. But it represents a real retreat from the hard-charging rhetoric of Republicans on budgetary matters.

However, there’s still time for this to blow up. While the agreement was announced today, voting will not take place until after the August recess. That means that conservatives, seeing that they gave away all their leverage on this issue, may whip up the far right of the party and force changes. That’s certainly something we’ve seen happen before. Five weeks is a long time.

________

Related posts:

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 26) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25)

Uploaded by RepJoeWalsh on Jun 14, 2011 Our country’s debt continues to grow — it’s eating away at the American Dream. We need to make real cuts now. We need Cut, Cap, and Balance. The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 25) This post today is a part of a series […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 23) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 22) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

No one wants to cut spending and as a result another credit downgrade coming

The Price of a U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade Uploaded by catoinstitutevideo on Aug 5, 2011 http://www.downsizinggovernment.org The federal government’s debt may soon be downgraded by major credit rating agencies. What would that mean? Video produced by Caleb O. Brown and Austin Bragg __________ Looks like the politicians in Washington better cut spending or another downgrade […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 21) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20)

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 20) This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, […]

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 158)

August 20, 2012 – 7:59 am

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below:

Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

I just did. I went to the Senator’s website and sent this below:

Below is an excellent plan to balance the budget through spending cuts from Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute written in April of 2011. Here is the first part.

A Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget

by Chris Edwards, Cato Institute

Introduction
Reducing Spending over 10 Years
Spending Cut Details
Subsidies to Individuals and Businesses
Aid to State and Local Governments
Military Expenses
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
Privatization
Conclusions
 

Introduction

Federal spending is soaring, and government debt is piling up at more than a trillion dollars a year. Official projections show rivers of red ink for years to come unless policymakers enact major budget reforms. Unless spending is cut, the United States is headed for economic ruin.

The results of the 2010 elections made clear that Americans want an end to the spending spree in Washington. People fear that today’s spendthrift policies may lead to large tax increases and a lower standard of living for themselves and their children. The public has given Congress marching orders to start cutting spending and rein in debt.

Policymakers should implement an emergency plan of cuts to defense, domestic, and entitlement programs. This essay proposes spending cuts of more than $1 trillion annually by 2021, which would balance the budget without resorting to damaging tax increases. Federal spending would be reduced to 18.0 percent of gross domestic product by 2021 under the plan, which compares to President Obama’s projected spending that year of 24.2 percent of GDP.

Each of the spending cuts proposed here would make sense whether or not the government was running deficits. That’s because many federal programs reduce individual freedom and cause economic distortions. If these programs were cut, resources would flow from lower-return government activities to higher-return activities in the private sector.

In recent decades, the federal government has expanded into hundreds of areas that should be left to state and local governments, businesses, charities, and individuals. That expansion is sucking the life out of the private economy and creating a top-down bureaucratic society that is alien to American traditions. Cutting federal spending would enhance civil liberties by dispersing power from Washington.

The need to cut spending and debt is urgent. Numerous committees, think tanks, and members of Congress have proposed plans to tackle ongoing deficits, including the House Budget Committee, the House Republican Study Committee, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), and President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. The various plans are not in agreement about the role of taxes in reducing deficits, but there is fairly broad support for substantial spending cuts, particularly cuts to entitlement programs.

The plan presented here does not include tax increases. Official budget projections show that federal debt is exploding because spending is at abnormally high levels. With the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place, and with continued relief from the alternative minimum tax, federal revenues are expected to rise to at least 18 percent of GDP in coming years, which is about the average over recent decades. By contrast, it is federal spending—currently at more than 24 percent of GDP—that is above normal levels. During the last two years of the Clinton administration a decade ago, federal spending was just 18 percent of GDP.

Some analysts claim that cutting government spending would hurt the economy, but that idea is based on faulty Keynesian theories. In fact, federal spending cuts would shift resources from often mismanaged and damaging government programs to the more productive private sector, thus increasing overall GDP. Consider Canada’s experience. In the mid-1990s, the country faced a debt crisis caused by runaway government spending—similar to our current situation. The Canadian government changed course and slashed total spending 10 percent in just two years and then held it roughly flat for another three years.1 The Canadian economy did not sink into recession, but was instead launched on a 15-year economic boom.

Policymakers shouldn’t think of spending cuts as a necessary evil needed to reduce debt. Rather, the government’s fiscal mess is an opportunity to make reforms that would spur growth and expand individual freedom. The plan below includes a menu of spending cut options for Congress, and further reforms are described at www.DownsizingGovernment.org.
 

Reducing Spending over 10 Years

This section illustrates how a reduction in spending could eliminate the federal budget deficit over 10 years. It shows projections of revenues and spending as a share of GDP based on the March 2011 Congressional Budget Office estimates.2 My projections for revenues assume the extension of the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts, extension of alternative minimum tax relief, and repeal of the tax increases in the 2010 health care law.3 My projections for spending adjust the CBO baseline to include more realistic assumptions regarding troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the extension of the Medicare “doc fix.”4

In Figure 1, the bottom line shows that federal revenues with tax relief in place are expected to rise to 18.0 percent of GDP by 2021 as the economy recovers and resumes normal growth. The top line shows President Obama’s proposed spending based on his fiscal 2012 budget.5 As a share of GDP, spending is expected to dip the next few years as funding from the 2009 “stimulus” bill peters out and war costs fall, but spending is expected to start rising again after that. That high spending path would lead to higher taxes, higher debt, or both.

Figure 1.
Projected Federal Revenues and Spending Percent of GDP
Figure 1. 

The middle line in the chart shows spending under the balanced budget plan. Under this plan, spending cuts of more than $1 trillion annually by 2021 would be phased in over 10 years.6 Those cuts would generate substantial interest savings by 2021, and total federal spending would fall to 18.0 percent of GDP—the same level as federal revenues that year. With those cuts, federal public debt would peak at 75 percent of GDP in 2013 and then fall to 64 percent of GDP by 2021.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Federal spending by Obama is going up at record pace

August 20, 2012 – 7:08 am

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Uploaded by on Dec 15, 2008

Based on a theory known as Keynesianism, politicians are resuscitating the notion that more government spending can stimulate an economy. This mini-documentary produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation examines both theory and evidence and finds that allowing politicians to spend more money is not a recipe for better economic performance.

_____________

I have a lot of respect for Tea Party heroes like Tim Huelskamp , Idaho First District Congressman Raúl R. Labrador, and Justin Amash who are willing to vote against proposals that increase our spending,  and they want to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment.    

It is a fact that we must balance the budget soon. I do not believe that we can wait to balance the budget at some distant time in the future. The financial markets will not allow us a long time to get our house in order. Look at how things have been going the last four years and no matter how anyone tries to spin it, we are going down the financial drain fast.

Mike Brownfield

May 25, 2012 at 8:48 am

There are some things that are so apparent that they’re not even worth mentioning. What goes up must come down. The earth is round. President Barack Obama is a big spender. But this week, some in the media and in the White House are denying one of these totally obvious truths. It shouldn’t be a big surprise which one it is.

On Tuesday, MarketWatch’s Rex Nutting wrote that claims of Obama’s big spending ways are overblown and that the “Obama spending binge never happened.” In a press gaggle on Wednesday, White House spokesman Jay Carney picked up on the argument and claimed that “this President has been–has demonstrated significant fiscal restraint and acted with great fiscal responsibility.”

But sure as the sun rises in the east, not in the west, claims of Obama’s supposed “fiscal restraint” are just plain wrong. Heritage’s J.D. Foster explains:

Federal spending as a share of the economy will average over 24 percent during Obama’s term, and each and every year of that term will see a higher share than during any year since the Second World War. That apparently qualifies as ‘significant fiscal restraint’ Obama-style.

Fiscal responsibility? Obama has had by far the largest budget deficits, driven in large part by the eruption in spending.

Heritage’s Alison Fraser and Emily Goff thoroughly dismantle of the Nutting-Carney claim and point out that President Obama’s near-trillion-dollar stimulus “drove spending to a record 25.2 percent of the economy in 2009 and deficits topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation’s history.”

You can see the proof for yourself in Heritage’s 2012 edition of the Federal Budget in Pictures. Of the last ten presidents, going back to John F. Kennedy, president Obama’s budget deficits as a percentage of GDP have exploded. And if you take a look at where spending is headed under President Obama’s budget, you’ll see that the country’s debt crisis just keeps getting worse. The President’s FY 2013 budget would increase the debt to 76.5 percent of GDP by 2022, despite $2 trillion in tax hikes. That’s not “fiscal restraint,” no matter how you slice it.

As bad as spending is today, President Obama wants to spend more, especially on transportation, infrastructure, education and research. He says that more spending, paid for with higher taxes, is the key to getting the U.S. economy back on track — even though that strategy has failed miserably over the past three years. Here’s the president’s problem. The American people don’t want Washington to spend more, they want it to spend less. They don’t want Washington to tax more, they want it to tax less. According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, 53 percent of voters believe that tax cuts help the economy, and most say that more government spending has a negative impact.

The president wants to have it both ways. He’d like to be viewed as someone who cuts taxes and has demonstrated fiscal restraint, but he also wants to keep on taxing and spending. But sure as apples fall from trees and go down, not up, President Obama is a big spender who has done anything but show fiscal restraint. There are some laws of nature that just can’t be denied.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 127)

August 20, 2012 – 7:07 am

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Liberals sometime just lose track of reality. Unemployment benefits were originally set up for a 3 month period, but the Democrats have extended it to almost two years!! What will be the result?

I don’t now why I bothered spending all that time perusing the writings of Paul Krugman and Larry Summers in order to produce my previous blog post when this Michael Ramirez cartoon makes the same point in a much simpler way.

Michael Ramirez

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, Taxes | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 126 B)

August 18, 2012 – 9:58 pm

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The buck stops at your desk. I just don’t understand why you think we can go on and act like everything is okay when we have a trillion dollar deficit. Sometimes you run across some very wise words like I did the other day. Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp made the following comment on the irresponsible  Budget Control Act of August 1, 2011:

I refuse to dig America into a deeper and un-scalable hole. I refuse to be complicit in recklessly spending and borrowing on the backs of the next generation. And, I believe conservatives should make good on their promises to cut trillions in spending…”

Ted DeHaven noted his his article, “Freshman Republicans switch from Tea to Kool-Aid,”  Cato Institute Blog, May 17, 2012:

This week the Club for Growth released a study of votes cast in 2011 by the 87 Republicans elected to the House in November 2010. The Club found that “In many cases, the rhetoric of the so-called “Tea Party” freshmen simply didn’t match their records.” Particularly disconcerting is the fact that so many GOP newcomers cast votes against spending cuts.

The study comes on the heels of three telling votes taken last week in the House that should have been slam-dunks for members who possess the slightest regard for limited government and free markets. Alas, only 26 of the 87 members of the “Tea Party class” voted to defund both the Economic Development Administration and the president’s new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program (see my previous discussion of these votes here) and against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank (see my colleague Sallie James’s excoriation of that vote here).

One of those Tea Party heroes was Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Last year I posted this below concerning his conservative views and his willingness to vote against the debt ceiling increase:

August 1, 2011

Congressman Huelskamp: My Constituents and Our Economy Deserve a Long-Term Solution

(WASHINGTON) – Kansas Congressman Tim Huelskamp issued the following statement after voting against the Budget Control Act:

“My fellow freshmen and I were sent to Washington to end tricks and gimmicks that put America in this position,” Congressman Tim Huelskamp said. “I voted ‘no’ today because I refuse to dig America into a deeper and un-scalable hole. I refuse to be complicit in recklessly spending and borrowing on the backs of the next generation. And, I believe conservatives should make good on their promises to cut trillions in spending, enact structural reforms, and fill the role of elected representatives, rather than hand control to an exclusive committee.”

“Back in April – when I voted against the continuing resolution for this year – I said ‘no’ because the cuts were minimal. I came to the same conclusion today: these are paltry cuts compared to the $14.3 trillion in debt we already have and the $7 trillion in new debt we can expect in the next decade. This is not a path to fiscal solvency, it’s a path to fiscal insanity. My constituents and our economy deserve a long-term solution that ends the biggest problem: we simply spend too much.”

“Despite having pledged to the American people an open and transparent process and despite having months to fix this problem, we were asked to vote in the 11th hour for a bill that the public had less than 16 hours to read and understand. The culture of fiscal irresponsibility may not have been created by this Congress, but we were sent here to put an end to it; I’m afraid this bill does not rise to that occasion.”

_________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, Taxes | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 126)

August 16, 2012 – 11:47 pm

Uploaded by on Jan 18, 2009

Margaret Thatcher’s last House of Commons Speech on November 22, 1990.

________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:

People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

__________

No wonder Ronald Wilson Reagan (who I named my son Wilson after) and Prime Minister Thatcher were good friends. They both saw through the motives of the liberals.

I shared an amazing video last year featuring Margaret Thatcher exposing the left for wanting to keep the poor destitute if that was the price of hurting the so-called rich.

Deroy Murdock makes similar points in a great column for National Review.

For too many liberals like Obama, “fairness” is not about enriching the modest; it’s about impoverishing the moneyed. Multibillionaire Warren Buffett has energized liberals with his still-unverified claim that his tax rate lags his secretary’s. …Somehow, reducing the secretary’s taxes never came up. Instead liberals demand the so-called Buffett Rule, an instrument for bludgeoning the successful rather than boosting the downtrodden. …Here’s how the Right should challenge the Left: “If you dislike income inequality, lift those with the least. Let’s adopt universal school choice, allow personal Social Security retirement accounts (to democratize long-term capital accumulation), radically reduce or eliminate America’s anti-competitive 35 percent corporate tax (to supercharge businesses), and pass right-to-work laws (so the jobless won’t fester outside closed shops). Let’s build the Keystone Pipeline (to create 20,000 blue-collar positions right now and lower everyone’s energy costs), frack for natural gas, and tame the EPA, OSHA, SEC, and other power-mad bureaucracies, so U.S. companies will stay here, and foreign firms will move in.”

Needless to say, the left will not accept Deroy’s challenge.

Too many of them care about enriching teacher unions, for instance, more than they care about educational opportunity for poor children.

And most leftist leaders would like to impose higher tax rates on success, even if the government collects less revenue.

__________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Ronald Reagan, Taxes | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 125B)

August 16, 2012 – 11:43 pm

Obama Calls GOP Budget Plan “Prescription for Decline”

Uploaded by on Apr 3, 2012

In a blistering attack on the House-Passed Republican budget Tuesday, President Obama called the plan proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan a “Trojan Horse” and “a prescription for decline.” Judy Woodruff, Jared Bernstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the CATO Institute’s Daniel Mitchell discuss the GOP budget plan.

_______

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

You were really hard on Paul Ryan for his plan, but your plan will NEVER LEAD TO A BALANCED BUDGET.

Obama’s And Paul Ryan’s Conflicting Budget Visions

by Michael D. Tanner

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on April 6, 2012

This article appeared in Fiscal Times on April 6, 2012.

With his speech to news editors and executives this week, President Obama has made it clear that he plans to run a starkly ideological campaign, contrasting his vision for the future of the country with that of his Republican opponents. And, he plans to make the Republican budget, written by rising GOP star Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and embraced by presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney, exhibit one in that contrast. It would be worthwhile therefore to actually compare that budget with the one proposed by the president.

Deficits and Debt
The president’s budget proposal would reduce future deficits — at least until 2018 — but would never achieve balance. By 2018, the president projects deficits to fall to only $575 billion. After that, they begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022. Overall, the president’s budget would add an additional $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Paul Ryan does better when it comes to deficit reduction, but only because the president has set such a low bar. Unlike the president, Ryan would eventually balance the budget — but not until 2040 or so. He does, however, generally run much lower annual deficits than the president would, and adds $3.3 trillion less to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Obama and Ryan have presented two distinct visions of the future.

Over the longer-term, the differences are much more pronounced. By 2050, for instance, Ryan would be running a surplus equal to as much as 3 percent of GDP. The president’s budget, in contrast, projects that we would still face budget deficits in excess of 6 percent of GDP.

Government Spending
Neither President Obama nor Paul Ryan actually cuts government spending. Rather, both are playing the time-honored game of calling a reduction in the rate of increase a “cut.” Thus, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut. Meanwhile, Ryan, who is being accused of “thinly veiled Social Darwinism,” would actually increase spending from $3.53 trillion in 2013 to $4.88 trillion in 2022.

The president warns that Ryan’s spending “cuts” would “gut” the social safety net. And, it is true that Ryan’s budget knife falls more heavily on domestic discretionary spending than does the president’s — but only relatively. Over the next 10 years, Ryan would spend $352 billion less on those programs than would Obama, an average of just $35.2 billion per year in additional cuts. Given that domestic discretionary spending under the president’s budget will total more than $4 trillion over the next decade, Ryan’s cuts look less than draconian.

One area where the president appears to have the better argument is on defense spending. Ryan would undo the defense spending sequester agreed to under last year’s debt-ceiling compromise, and would spend $203 billion more over 10 years than was agreed to. Obama would cut defense by an additional $240 billion. Given our budget problems and the lack of a conventional military threat, Ryan’s plan to spare defense seems shortsighted.

Taxes
The president would increase tax revenue to 20.1 percent of GDP. That’s a huge increase from the current 15.4 percent, and higher than the post-World War II average of 18 percent. His budget includes tax hikes on people and small businesses making as little as $200,000 per year, as well as the usual panoply of tax hikes on energy products, businesses, investment and pretty much anything else the president can think of.

The president also continues to push for the so-called Buffet Rule, a new 30 percent minimum tax on the rich, based on the misleading claim that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. The Buffett Rule would raise very little revenue — less than $3.2 billion per year on average according to the Congressional Budget Office — but the president is pushing it as a matter of fairness.

Ryan would also allow taxes to increase as a percentage of GDP, returning to roughly their historical average around 18 percent of GDP. However, he is also calling for a major reform of the U.S. tax code. Ryan would replace the current four tax rates with two: 15 and 25 percent. He would also lower the current 38 percent corporate tax rate, the world’s highest, to 25 percent. At the same time, he would broaden the taxable base by eliminating many current deductions and loopholes. Unfortunately, Ryan has ducked the unpopular task of actually spelling out which loopholes would be eliminated.

Entitlement Reform
Perhaps the biggest disagreement between the president and Ryan is over how to reform the entitlement programs that are driving this country toward bankruptcy. Ryan would restructure Medicare for those under age 55 to give recipients a choice between the traditional program and a voucher that would allow them to purchase private insurance. That plan, drafted together with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, would have little impact in the short-term — in 2022, it would spend just $21 billion less than the president’s budget — but over the longer term would reduce Medicare’s unfunded liability, which the Medicare trustees put at $24.6 trillion, by trillions of dollars.

The president makes no significant changes to Medicare, relying instead on expansion of changes contained in the new health care law to save a projected $364 billion over the next 10 years.

Ryan would also turn the current Medicaid program to the states in the form of a federal block grant, while reducing spending by $810 billion over 10 years. States would have far more freedom to experiment with ways to reform the system, but would likely receive less federal funds over the long term. Obama, by contrast, leaves the program unchanged, while significantly expanding eligibility under the health care law.

Unsurprisingly in an election year, both Ryan and the president punt on Social Security reform. Neither offers any reform of the troubled retirement system, despite its $21 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Two Visions
The United States is teetering on the edge of Greek-style bankruptcy. Our total indebtedness, including the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, could run as high as $130 trillion, more than 900 percent of GDP. In the face of this looming crisis, Obama and Ryan have presented two distinct visions of the future. The president offers a bigger government, paid for with more debt and higher taxes. Ryan’s vision may be maddeningly timid and vague in places, but it takes important steps toward a smaller, less costly, and less intrusive government.

If that’s the debate that President Obama wants to have, let’s do it.

____________

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your commitment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, President Obama, Taxes | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (“Thirsty Thursday”, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

August 16, 2012 – 12:12 am

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

There’s nothing nutty about a balanced-budget amendment
In fact, it makes a lot of sense
Thursday, July 21, 2011
By Dick Thornburgh

A late entry in the budget deficit-debt ceiling talkathon in Washington is increasing support for a constitutional requirement that the federal budget be balanced each and every year.

Doctrinaire liberals will no doubt characterize this proposal as a nutty one, but careful scrutiny of such an amendment to our Constitution demonstrates its potential to prevent future train wrecks in the budgeting process.

Coupled with a presidential line-item veto and separate capital budgeting (which differentiates investments from current outlays), a constitutional budget-balancing requirement makes sense. These tools already are available to most governors and state legislatures. And they work.

The current debate in the Congress will likely include the following arguments usually raised against a balanced-budget amendment.

First, it will be argued that the amendment would “clutter up” our basic document in a way contrary to the intention of the founding fathers.

This is clearly wrong. The framers of the Constitution contemplated that amendments would be necessary to keep it abreast of the times. It already has been amended on 27 occasions.

Moreover, at the time of the Constitutional Convention, one of the major preoccupations was how to liquidate the Revolutionary War debts of the states. Certainly, it would have been unthinkable to the framers that the federal government itself would systematically run at a deficit, decade after decade. Indeed, the Treasury did not begin to follow such a practice until the mid-1930s.

Second, critics will argue that the adoption of a balanced-budget amendment would not solve the deficit problem overnight.

This is correct, but begs the issue. Serious supporters of the amendment recognize that a phasing-in period of five or 10 years would be required to reach a zero deficit. During this interim period, however, budget makers would be disciplined to meet declining deficit targets in order to reach a balanced budget by the established deadline.

As pointed out by former Commerce Secretary Peter G. Peterson, such “steady progress toward eliminating the deficit will maintain investor confidence, keep long-term interest rates headed down and keep our economy growing.”

Third, it will be argued that such an amendment would require vast cuts in social services and entitlements or defense expenditures.

Not necessarily. True, these programs would have to be paid for on a current basis rather than heaped on the backs of upcoming generations. Certainly, difficult choices would have to be made about priorities and levels of program funding. But the very purpose of the amendment is to discipline the executive and legislative branches actually to debate these choices and not to propose or perpetuate vast spending programs without providing the revenues to fund them.

The amendment would, in effect, make the president and Congress fully accountable for their spending and taxing decisions, as they should be.

Fourth, critics will say that a balanced-budget amendment would prevent or hinder our capacity to respond to national defense or economic emergencies.

This concern is easy to counter. Any sensible amendment proposal would feature a “safety valve” to exempt deficits incurred in response to such emergencies, requiring, for example, a three-fifths “super majority” in both houses of Congress. Such action should, of course, be based on a finding that such an emergency actually exists.

Fifth, it will be said that a balanced-budget amendment would be “more loophole than law” and might be easily circumvented.

The experience of the states suggests otherwise. Balanced-budget requirements are now in effect in all but one of the 50 states and have served them well.

Moreover, the line-item veto, available to 43 governors, would assure that any specific congressional overruns (or loophole end-runs) could be dealt with by the president. The public’s outcry, the elective process and the courts would also provide backup restraint on any tendency to simply ignore a constitutional directive.

In the final analysis, most of the excuses raised for not enacting a constitutional mandate to balance the budget rest on a stated or implied preference for solving our deficit dilemma through the “political process” — that is to say, through responsible action by the president and Congress.

But that has been tried and found wanting, again and again.

Surely, this country is ready for a simple, clear and supreme directive that its elected officials fulfill their fiscal responsibilities. A constitutional amendment is the only instrument that will meet this need effectively. Years of experience at the state level argue persuasively in favor of such a step. Years of debate have produced no persuasive arguments against it.

Perhaps Thomas Jefferson put it best:

“To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us down with perpetual debt.”

That is the aim of a balanced-budget amendment. Reform-minded members of Congress should choose to support such an amendment to our Constitution as a means of resolving future legislative crises and ending “credit card” government once and for all.

A nutty idea? Not by a long shot.

Dick Thornburgh, of counsel to the Pittsburgh law firm K&L Gates, is a former U.S. attorney general and governor of Pennsylvania.
First published on July 21, 2011 at 12:00 am
By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Differing with Dan Mitchell on one point

August 15, 2012 – 10:54 pm

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute wrote a very good article and I agree with most of it. However, I do take exception to just one part. He is right to get on to USA Today for calling this current Congress the most unproductive since they only passed 61 bills. Dan rightly pointed out that in the first two years of Obama’s term the Democratically controlled Congress turned out lots of law but they included some very bad laws like Obamacare.

How I differ with Mitchell on this one point. In 2011 the Republicans in Congress failed to block the debt ceiling proposal and only 66 brave Republicans in the House voted against it. As a result we have continued to run trillion dollar deficits which in my view (and Dan’s too) makes this Congress the dumbest and most unproductive ever. Dan has actually shown how government involvement in deficit spending can actually hinder economic growth. and Dan did an excellent video series on restraining spending in government and I have included the You Tube clips of those in this post.

Here below is a list of those 66 brave Republicans that voted against the debt ceiling increase listed below in August of 2011.

Full House roll call
By: Associated Press
August 1, 2011 08:46 PM EDT

The 269-161 roll call Monday by which the House passed the compromise bill to raise the debt ceiling and prevent a government default.

A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the measure.

Voting yes were 95 Democrats and 174 Republicans.

Voting no were 95 Democrats and 66 Republicans.

X denotes those not voting.

There are 2 vacancies in the 435-member House.

ALABAMA

Democrats – Sewell, Y.

Republicans – Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA

Republicans – Young, Y.

ARIZONA

Democrats – Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.

Republicans – Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS

Democrats – Ross, Y.

Republicans – Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA

Democrats – Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans – Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO

Democrats – DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.

Republicans – Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT

Democrats – Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE

Democrats – Carney, Y.

FLORIDA

Democrats – Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans – Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA

Democrats – Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans – Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII

Democrats – Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO

Republicans – Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS

Democrats – Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans – Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA

Democrats – Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans – Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA

Democrats – Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans – King, N; Latham, N.

 

KANSAS

Republicans – Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY

Democrats – Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans – Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA

Democrats – Richmond, Y.

Republicans – Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE

Democrats – Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND

Democrats – Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans – Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS

Democrats – Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN

Democrats – Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans – Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA

Democrats – Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans – Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI

Democrats – Thompson, N.

Republicans – Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI

Democrats – Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans – Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA

Republicans – Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA

Republicans – Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA

Democrats – Berkley, Y.

Republicans – Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Republicans – Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY

Democrats – Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans – Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

 

NEW MEXICO

Democrats – Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans – Pearce, N.

NEW YORK

Democrats – Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans – Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans – Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Berg, Y.

OHIO

Democrats – Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans – Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA

Democrats – Boren, Y.

Republicans – Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON

Democrats – Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans – Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA

Democrats – Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans – Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND

Democrats – Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Democrats – Clyburn, Y.

Republicans – Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA

Republicans – Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE

Democrats – Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.

Republicans – Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS

Democrats – Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans – Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH

Democrats – Matheson, Y.

Republicans – Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT

Democrats – Welch, N.

VIRGINIA

Democrats – Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans – Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON

Democrats – Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans – Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA

Democrats – Rahall, Y.

Republicans – Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN

Democrats – Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans – Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING

Republicans – Lummis, Y.

_____

Although this line is attributed to many people, Wikiquote says that Gideon Tucker was the first to warn us that “No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

This cartoon about Keynesian economics sort of makes the same point, but not with the same eloquence.

But that’s not the point of this post. Instead, I want to focus on this grossly misleading headline in USA Today: “This Congress could be least productive since 1947.”

I don’t think it’s a case of media bias or inaccuracy, as we saw with the AP story on poverty, the Brian Ross Tea Party slur, or the Reuters report on job creation and so-called stimulus.

But it does blindly assume that it is productive to impose more laws. Was it productive to enact Obamacare? What about the faux stimulus? Or the Dodd-Frank bailout bill?

Wouldn’t the headline be more accurate if it read, “This Congress could be least destructive since 1947″?

Here are the relevant parts of the USA Today report.

Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post World War II era. Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2% of all proposed laws, according to a USA TODAY analysis of records since 1947 kept by the U.S. House Clerk’s office. In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law. The only other year in which Congress failed to pass at least 125 laws was 1995. …When Democrats controlled both chambers during the 111th Congress, 258 laws were enacted in 2010 and 125 in 2009, including President Obama’s health care law.

To be sure, not all legislation is bad. Now that the Supreme Court has failed in its job, Congress would have to enact a law to repeal Obamacare. Laws also would need to be changed to reform entitlements, or adopt a flat tax.

And some laws are benign, such as the enactment of Dairy Goat Awareness Week or naming a federal courthouse.

But I’m guessing that the vast majority of substantive laws are bad for freedom and result in less prosperity.

So let’s cross our fingers that future Congresses are even less productive (and therefore less destructive) than the current one.

____________

Here is list from Wikipedia of the recent federal budgets:

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Bill Clinton, Cato Institute, Uncategorized | Tagged | Comments (0)