Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:
Obama’s False Choice – and Missed Opportunity – on Regulations
The President tonight missed an opportunity to constructively address one of the major problems facing the economy: regulation.
After acknowledging that “there are some rules and regulations that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, and claiming credit for the small steps taken so far toward reform, he then slipped into a rhetorical — and rather cartoonish — description of the issue.
“What we can’t do,” he said, “is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted on for decades. I reject the idea that we need to ask people to choose between their jobs and their safety.”
But no one is suggesting that any basic protections be erased — instead the pressing need now is to stop the tidal wave of regulation — costing almost $40 billion dollars — that has swamped Americans and the economy since the president was elected.
From lightbulbs to the Internet, from guitars to health care, Washington has imposed new rules. It is time to stem this flow. This need not be a partisan issue – both sides agree the current rulebooks are too fat. But demagoguery and rhetoric will get us no closer to a solution.
– James Gattuso
The Futility of Infrastructure Banks
Building and repairing roads and bridges neither creates net job growth nor boosts the economy in the near term.
First, increasing government spending on these projects simply moves resources from one place to another — it may employ construction workers, but only by reducing jobs in other sectors. Further, the money never gets out the door soon enough to promote near-term job growth: “shovel-ready” projects are not nearly so shovel ready as they may seem, as the President himself recently acknowledged.
Further, the infrastructure bank the President proposes would require a whole new bureaucracy that would only increase the central government control over transportation — which would be consistent with the President’s government takeover of health care, student loans, financial markets, and other sectors.?
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 to him.
I think that it would be easy to save eight billion dollars a year by privatizing the Post Office. This should be an easy decision.
The United States Postal Service has lost over $20 billion since 2006 and is projected to lose another $8 billion this year. Government Mail is about to max out its $15 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and it faces $66 billion in unfunded obligations due to excessive labor costs. With more and more people using email, sending text messages and paying their bills online, the Postal Service’s long-term prospects are undeniably bleak.
Although USPS management has been able to cut costs, the savings haven’t been nearly enough to stem the rising tide of red ink. If the USPS were a private business, it might be able adapt to the rapidly changing economic landscape and evolve into a viable commercial entity. But it’s not a private business — it’s a branch of the federal government. As a result, the USPS has been hopelessly hamstrung by constant meddling from politicians, as exemplified by the difficulty the USPS faces when trying to close post offices.
Postal management announced this week that it will weigh the closure of 3,700 of its 32,000 post offices, hoping to save $200 million a year. Those savings are miniscule compared to the $8 billion alone that the USPS will lose this year, but it’s a start.
Unfortunately, there’s a very good chance that those members of Congress whose districts will be affected by a post office closure will raise a stink. In 2009, for example, the USPS looked at closing 3,200 post offices. Following a congressional outcry, the number under consideration was reduced to a mere 140. Two years later, only 80 have actually been closed.
The USPS is required to provide services to all communities, including areas where post offices have low traffic and are not cost-effective. Before closing a post office, the USPS must provide customers with at least 60 days of notice before the proposed closure date, and any person served by the post office may appeal its closure to the Postal Regulatory Commission. The USPS cannot close a post office “solely for operating at a deficit.” That’s a problem because four out of five post offices are operating at a loss.
Can anyone seriously imagine any other business not being able to close a store or factory for “solely operating at a deficit”? That would be a recipe for bankruptcy. While the USPS is structured like a business — revenues from the sale of postal products are supposed to cover costs and it receives virtually no federal appropriations — Congress prevents it from actually operating like a private business by inhibiting its ability to reduce costs, improve efficiency or innovate.
Postal management is attempting to head off the inevitable congressional interference by creating “Village Post Offices” in the communities affected by the closings. Local businesses, such as pharmacies and grocery stores, would be allowed to offer postal products and services. This makes sense because whereas post offices used to generate almost all postal retail revenue, 35 percent is now generated through alternative channels like USPS.com, self-service kiosks and private stores.
Closing post offices is a small step towards cutting costs and “rationalizing” the retail network, which the USPS management recognizes as critical. However, that won’t be enough to overcome economic reality — let alone the control freaks in Congress. Ultimately, if the USPS is to continue operating like a business instead of becoming just another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, Congress is going to have to hand the reins over to the private sector. That means privatizing the United States Postal Service.
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 39)
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, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Washington needs fundamental changes to the way it spends taxpayer dollars. Never has this kind of change been more urgent than now, when the federal government is running a deficit of $14.3 trillion. Right now, every household in America bears a burden of $130,000, and every individual owes $46,600.
Even with these incredible numbers, President Obama is still calling for an increase in the debt limit, which equates to more borrowing from our future generations.
Because I know that government spending is no different from spending by individuals, families, or businesses, I remained firmly opposed to raising the debt limit. No entity can borrow indefinitely, spending money it doesn’t have, without paying it back.
President Obama has also proposed raising taxes as a way around our debt crisis. But it is important to remember that tax hikes will only hurt America’s small businesses and stifle job creation. This is at a time when unemployment across the nation stands at an unacceptable 9.2 percent. More taxes give Washington more time to delay reform of its scores of wasteful programs and agencies.
It is an outrage that hardworking and responsible Americans are being shackled with the debts from bloated spending by our federal government. It is time for Washington to break the habit and get its fiscal house in order.
Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute.
Heritage’s experts watched President Barack Obama’s jobs speech delivered to a joint session of Congress. Here are some of their immediate reactions:
Jobs for Teachers?
In his remarks tonight, President Obama argued that his jobs proposal would create more jobs for teachers. He went as far as to say laying off teachers…”has to stop”.
But since 1970, student enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools has increased just 7 percent, while public elementary and secondary staff hires have increased 83 percent. Moreover, in the 1950′s, there were approximately 2.36 teachers for every non-teacher in a school district. Today, in our nation’s school systems, that ratio is closer to 1 to 1. So every teacher in the classroom has an administrative counterpart in your local public school district. That is a tremendous strain on state budgets. But it is also a huge boon the education unions.
President Obama’s call to spend more precious taxpayer dollars to “prevent teacher layoffs” may do more to inflate schools’ non-teaching rosters than to retain teachers.
On a per-pupil basis, federal spending on education has nearly tripled since the 1970′s. And those who have benefited the most from this profligacy aren’t the children sitting in the nation’s classrooms. No, the increase in federal education spending (and commensurate increase in Washington’s involvement in local schools) hasn’t led to improvements in academic achievement, to increased graduation rates, or even to a narrowing of the achievement gap. It hasn’t served to improve outcomes for children, but it has propped-up the public education jobs program that too often aims to meet the needs of the adults in the system, not the children it was designed to educate.
– Lindsey Burke
A Puzzling Plan to Allow Refinancing of Mortgages
One of the more puzzling parts of the President’s plan promises to allow more Americans to refinance their mortgages, but provides no details about how. The President promises that with refinancing, families could save about $2,000 a year, but like similar past promises few homeowners are likely to see those savings.
Briefing papers released by the White House say that the economic team will “work with” Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the regulator that runs them since both effectively failed three years ago, and “industry leaders” to make the 2009 Housing Affordable Refinance Program (HARP) more effective.
This means that the White House still has no idea how to do this. HARP, which was supposed to help between 4 and 5 million homeowners who owe more than their property is worth, and several other attempts to help under water homeowners have all been resounding failures.
In theory, refinancing at today’s record low mortgage rates is a good idea that would reduce monthly mortgage payments for those whose mortgages are refinanced. This would especially benefit homeowners who have paid their mortgage on time, but still owe more than the house is worth. These homeowners would be more likely to stay in the house.
However, even a well planned refinancing program would still be slow and complex. And sadly, there is no sign that the Administration has figured out how to successfully structure such a program.
Mortgages are both made and refinanced one at a time. The several past efforts to do mass refinancings have foundered in a mass of overwhelmed phone lines, complex paperwork requirements, and confusion. Some housing advocates talk about redoing hundreds of mortgages at a time, but have no idea how to legally implement such a goal.
Another question that must be answered if the mortgage refinancing proposal would cost money. Briefing papers are silent on this, but a refinanced mortgage will produce lower earnings for the lender. If the mortgage value is written down to the actual value of the house (which is unknown at the moment), there would be additional costs. And most importantly, how would this proposal create jobs?
Until there are details, the President’s proposed mortgage refinancing program, like its predecessors will be little more than another unkept promise.
– David John
In 2010, the U.S. spent more on interest on the national debt than it spent on many federal departments, including Education and Veterans Affairs.
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS (2010)
Download
Source: White House Office of Management and Budget.
The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More
Authors
Emily GoffResearch Assistant
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 38)
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, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Washington, D.C. – Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) issued the following statement after the vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:
“The Budget Control Act trades $21 billion in cuts next year for a debt ceiling increase of $2.1 trillion. That’s one penny in cuts for each dollar of new debt. The bill does not seriously address the drivers of the federal government’s fiscal crisis. It does not improve entitlement programs. It does not include a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I cannot in good conscience vote for so little reform when so much is at stake.
“I had hoped that Democrats and Republicans would work together to develop a reasonable compromise that is fiscally responsible. I would favor a package that combines eliminating special tax breaks and subsidies with a well-structured balanced budget amendment. I believe that type of package would have broad-based support from the American people. Instead, Congress continues to kick the can down the road.
“We can do better. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the next several months to adopt structural reforms that will put the government back on a sustainable path.”
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 37)
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, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Andy Harris voted against the debt ceiling increase. The plan did not require passage of a balanced budget amendment, which Rep. Harris feels is essential to bringing permanent common sense accountability to Washington.
“A balanced budget amendment is the only way to make sure the federal government spends what it takes in and lives within its means,” said Rep. Andy Harris. “Over the past few weeks I have repeatedly voted for reasonable proposals to raise the debt ceiling that included passage of a balanced budget amendment. But I didn’t come to Washington to continue writing blank checks. Maryland’s families and job creators sent me to Congress to permanently change the way Washington does business. I appreciate Speaker Boehner’s remarkable, historic efforts to craft a proposal to solve the debt ceiling issue. But today’s debt ceiling deal just doesn’t go far enough to build an environment for job creation by requiring passage of a balanced budget amendment to bring permanent common sense accountability to Washington.”
Currently, the U.S. Government has a national debt of $14.3 trillion and runs an annual deficit of $1.65 trillion.
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.
Many of the politicians in Washington, including President Obama during his State of the Union address, piously tell us that there is no way to balance the budget without tax increases. Trying to get rid of red ink without higher taxes, they tell us, would require “savage” and “draconian” budget cuts.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its 10-year projections for the budget, so I crunched the numbers to determine what it would take to balance the budget without tax hikes. Much to nobody’s surprise, the politicians are not telling the truth.
The chart below shows that revenues are expected to grow (because of factors such as inflation, more population, and economic expansion) by more than 7 percent each year. Balancing the budget is simple so long as politicians increase spending at a slower rate. If they freeze the budget, we almost balance the budget by 2017. If federal spending is capped so it grows 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington can limit spending growth to about 2 percent each year, red ink almost disappears in just 10 years.
These numbers, incidentally, assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent (they are now scheduled to expire in two years). They also assume that the AMT is adjusted for inflation, so the chart shows that we can balance the budget without any increase in the tax burden.
We also have international evidence showing that spending restraint – not higher taxes – is the key to balancing the budget. New Zealand got rid of a big budget deficit in the 1990s with a five-year spending freeze. Canada also got rid of red ink that decade with a five-year period where spending grew by an average of only 1 percent per year. And Ireland slashed its deficit in the late 1980s by 10 percentage points of GDP with a four-year spending freeze.
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 36)
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, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Washington, DC — Congressman Steve Scalise today issued the following statement after the House passed the Budget Control Act, a two-step proposal to cut and control Washington spending, provide permanent accountability with a balanced budget amendment, and an increase in the debt ceiling to preserve the full faith and credit of the United States.
“The Budget Control Act marks the beginning of the critical process to cut and control Washington spending so we can ensure accountability by getting back to a balanced budget while also preserving the full faith and credit of the United States,” Scalise said. “While this is far from the final solution to our debt problems, this vote begins to change the culture of Washington and the broken system of spending. Achieving a solution to Washington’s spending problem should not be about what’s best for the President’s next election, it should instead be about what’s best for America. It is long past time for the President and the Senate to take up this common-sense agreement and stop playing games with America’s future
Want some perspective on the debt ceiling negotiations and calls for tax increases in exchange for spending cuts? You might want to consider a cautionary tale dating back to 1982 when President Ronald Reagan agreed to a deficit-reduction compromise—and a result he didn’t bargain for.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, who served under President Reagan, and Heritage Action for America’s Michael Needham write in today’s USA Today of the agreement Reagan struck in 1982 in hopes of tackling high deficits. He agreed to a modest increase in business taxes (which he didn’t like) in exchange for spending cuts (which he wanted). The higher taxes were enacted, but the spending cuts never arrived. Meese and Needham explain:
The president had no interest in increasing taxes, but he agreed to consider some kind of compromise with Congress. His representatives began meeting with members of House Speaker Tip O’Neill’s team to find some way to hammer out a deficit-reduction pact. So began what, in our opinion, became the “Debacle of 1982.”
From the outset, the basic idea of the GOP participants was to trade some kind of concessions on the tax front for a Democratic agreement on spending cutbacks. The negotiators knew that Ronald Reagan would be hard to sell on any tax hikes. So they included a ploy they felt might overcome his resistance: a large reduction in federal spending in return for a modest rise in business (but not individual) taxes.
The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president’s colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.
You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.
Did the higher taxes help bring down the deficit? Nope. Meese and Needham write that “spending for fiscal year 1983 was some $48 billion higher than the budget targets, and no progress was made in lowering the deficit. Even tax receipts for that year went down — a lingering effect of the recession, which the additional business taxes did nothing to redress.”
As Congress considers which road to take on the debt ceiling, they ought to take a look at their history books and realize that in Washington, what you bargain for isn’t always what you get.
Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 35)
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, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Jeff Landry (R, LA-03) issued the following statement regarding today’s debt ceiling deal:
“I’m sure by Washington standards, today’s deal is a great accomplishment; but by American standards, it comes up short. Throughout this debate, the American people have demanded a real cure to America’s spending addiction – a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, today’s Washington deal transforms last week’s strong Balanced Budget requirement into a toothless suggestion. And today’s Washington deal puts at risk the security and pay of our brave men and women in uniform. It’s disheartening that Washington continues skirting the problem, instead of passing long-term solutions to end it. As evident by my decision today, I stand with the American people and choose to put the next generation above my next election.”
PRINT PAGE
CITE THIS
Net Interest Spending Will More Than Triple Over the Next Decade
Entitlements Will Consume All Tax Revenues by 2049
The Daily Hatch 