Posted: 2/20/2009 10:09:52 AM EDT
|
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding your
interest in the recently approved "stimulus" bill, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1. It is always good to hear from you. Like most Americans, I fully support a robust stimulus plan designed to create jobs now and invests in the people and infrastructure we need to have a healthy economy in the future. Unfortunately, I had numerous concerns with the final version of the bill. In fact, H.R. 1 provides less than seven percent of the $800 billion bill on building the new roads and bridges Michigan desperately needs and less than one percent on small business tax cuts to create jobs. To pay for the bill, as well as the over $2 trillion in pending bailouts to our financial system, we will be forced to borrow nearly every dollar from foreign countries like China and Saudi Arabia. The end result of all that borrowing will be higher interest rates for all consumers and inflation, which means that the cost of credit for American people and job-providers will rise and so will the cost of every day staples like milk and bread. The legislation also dramatically reduced proposed tax relief for buying a new car that was included in an earlier version of this bill, something that would have been an incredibly important help to Michigan. The bill included a series of earmarks that had little or nothing to do with creating jobs. For example: . $30 million for a mouse habitat in San Francisco . $ 8 billion to create an high speed rail system between Los Angeles and Las Vegas and a second unnamed line somewhere in the mid-west . $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts . $2 billion for neighborhood organizations including ACORN, which has been accused of unlawful voter registration . $1 billion for a prevention and wellness fund available for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention These are serious times that call for serious work. Families all across our nation are doing more with less and being careful with their financial resources. It is irresponsible for Congress to turn around and borrow another $800 billion on a risky plan that does not focus enough resources on jobs. That is why I voted for a more targeted plan that cuts taxes on families and small businesses, and focuses on the core problems plaguing our economy. In fact, an alternative bill I voted for would have created 187,000 jobs in the 8th Congressional District alone at half the cost. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. Please keep in touch. <http://mikerogers.house.gov/media/graphics/emailfooter.jpg> |
|
I got a couple of those types of replies too...
Dear Mr. Colby: Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. As your Senator, I appreciate knowing your opinions. As you know, the U.S. economy and this financial crisis have consistently dominated headlines worldwide. Like you, I am deeply concerned with the direction our country seems to be heading. We are now enduring a recession, as announced by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Early estimations for the fourth quarter of 2008 suggest negative 3.8% growth, the worst since 1982, and the unemployment rate in January of 2009 was 7.6%. Some economists have even forecasted that this recession will be deeper and longer than average. Now, President Obama and the Democrats have argued that the best possible way out of this crisis and out of this recession is to spend hundreds of billions. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 passed in the Senate on February 10, 2009. The bill then went into conference with 35% tax cuts and 65% spending. Amazingly, it came out of conference with fewer (27%) tax cuts and even more (73%) spending. For me, voting against the conference report on the so-called stimulus package was a simple matter of arithmetic. We have $1.1 trillion in new national debt that amounts to $10,000 per household. We have $800 billion in new government spending that amounts to $7,000 per household. But, the tax relief portion amounts to only $8 dollars in additional take-home pay per week for the average American worker, or a little more than an extra $1 dollar per day. When the bill came out of conference, not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voted in favor of the so-called bipartisan proposal. And in the Senate the proposal was supported by all the Democrats and 3 Republicans, hardly a bipartisan proposal or any kind of compromise. Many have wondered why there was not more bipartisanship in crafting this bill. The answer is simple: The two parties have fundamentally different beliefs. One party believes your hard work is worth a little more than an extra $1 per day. I opposed this bill because I do not see any real "stimulus" in it. To give a few examples: This bill provides more than $1 billion dollars to create a new layer of bureaucracy within the Department of Health and Human Services, meaning basically, it could lead to the rationing of health care for Americans in the future. Next, there is a provision that prohibits colleges and universities with a religious mission, those that allow faith-based student groups, or those who rent their facilities for worship services from receiving federal funding for building renovations and repairs. This is clearly discrimination and a violation of our religious liberties and could lead to costly litigation for these institutions. On February 18, 2009, President Obama signed the $787 billion economic stimulus plan into law. The same day, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 297.81 points, less than a point above the lowest level in the past 5 ? years, proving that investors are unsure whether the stimulus package will improve the economy. Even, conservative economist Martin Feldstein, who has written and testified in support of a large stimulus package, has gone as far to call the stimulus plan an "$800 billion mistake." In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reported during the House consideration of its $820 billion version of this spending bill, that the cost of servicing the debt on all the new debt created by this bill would cost roughly $347 billion over 10 years, which means at $820 billion, the real cost of this so called stimulus spending bill will incur $1.2 trillion in new government debt. In other words, to again borrow from Dr. Feldstein, this is actually a $1.2 trillion mistake. Through my leadership position on the Environment and Public Works Committee and Armed Services Committee, I know firsthand the link between infrastructure and defense spending, job creation and a robust economy. Infrastructure investment is a proven stimulus. According to economic reports by Standard and Poor's, defense spending along with infrastructure investment and tax cuts have a greater stimulative impact on the economy than anything else the government can do. Additionally, the Department of Transportation recently estimated that for every $1 billion invested in highways and bridges, 27,800 jobs are created. The latest jobless numbers show that 899,000 construction workers have lost their jobs over the last 27 months. According to the Association of General Contractors, every $1 billion spent on infrastructure adds $3.4 billion to GDP. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found $64 billion worth of projects that are shovel ready. The 4 million jobs created by this level of investment would be distributed across the nation. I offered a bipartisan amendment to redirect funding from frivolous spending in the bill to highways and drinking water and clean water infrastructure investments. However, the Democratic majority would not allow the Senate to consider the amendment. Additionally, I offered an amendment to redirect over $5 billion from programs such as television coupons, trail improvements, and renovations to federal government buildings in Washington, D.C. toward military spending and procurement. When my amendment came up for a vote, 37 Republicans and Senator Lieberman voted in favor and 56 Democrats opposed it. Despite my efforts to reach across the aisle to propose amendments to strip wasteful spending and replace it with legitimate job creating provisions, the Democratic majority clung to their chosen liberal spending priorities. In fact, Republicans offered numerous complete substitutes for this spending bill. Senator McCain offered a substitute with provisions reducing the payroll tax, lowering marginal rates, lowering corporate rates, and offering accelerated depreciation for small business. It included funding for transportation infrastructure and national defense, and offered housing assistance. It failed on a complete party line vote: 40 Republicans for, 57 Democrats against. A bipartisan amendment was offered to allow repatriation of foreign earnings at a reduced tax rate. The last time the U.S. allowed this, the result was $350 billion to $360 billion in repatriated profits back to the U.S. The U.S. Treasury collected $18 billion in revenue it would not have otherwise collected. This bipartisan amendment would have functioned in the same way and it was defeated in nearly a party line vote. Senator DeMint offered a substitute with provisions to reduce corporate taxes, individual marginal rates, repeal the AMT, reduce capital gains and estate taxes, and increase the child tax credit. The result of that amendment was 36 Republicans supporting it and 57 Democrats opposing it. Senator Thune offered a substitute to reduce marginal rates, offer AMT relief, offer bonus depreciation and small business tax relief, deductions for health coverage, and homebuyer assistance. The result of that amendment was 37 Republicans supporting it and 57 Democrats opposing it. No doubt, the massive spending spree underway in Washington will continue. We have witnessed unprecedented spending - even by Washington standards - over the last year as we have passed multi-billion dollar bailout and stimulus bills with little to show for it. Already there are promises of more massive bailouts on the way. Sadly, the cost of all of this spending will be dumped into the laps of our children and grandchildren. But, please know, I will continue to ardently oppose these destructive policies and fight for the interests of responsible taxpaying citizens. Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns. Please do not hesitate to do so again in the future. and the other one; Dear Mr. Colby, Thank you for contacting me about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1, also called the "stimulus"). As you can imagine, I have received a large volume of letters and calls and appreciate the opportunity to respond. I also appreciate the valuable input I have received over the past several weeks from my fellow Oklahomans on this issue. As you may know, the Senate passed H.R. 1 on February 10, by a vote of 61-37, and I was one of 37 senators who voted against this bill. I opposed this legislation because it represents the worst act of generational theft in our history. Our nation cannot afford to take on an additional trillion dollars in debt on a stimulus bill that will not only fail to stimulate the economy, but could also seriously delay our economic recovery. As a nation, we got into our current economic difficulties by spending money we did not have on things we did not need and running up a debt that could not be repaid. We will not get out of it by having the government run up the debt by one trillion dollars or more. Yet this is precisely what this bill proposes to do. Less than 10% of the bill could be considered true stimulus, if one assumes tax credits and infrastructure spending will jolt the economy. The other 90% of the bill will go to special-interest programs and earmarks, an ill-conceived bailout to states, and permanent spending increases that expand government's reach in areas like health care and education. Our nation simply cannot afford to spend our limited federal funds on a piece of legislation that has no guarantee of working. The national debt currently stands at over $10.6 trillion, the largest in the history of the world. This bill will add $10,800 of debt to every American family with little hope of a return on our investment. The bill's selling point is that three million jobs will be created or saved by this package. What is alarming is that each job will cost $286,000 to create or save. Moreover, one in five will be a government job. One of the more disappointing aspects of the bill is that it is loaded with old-fashioned pork, despite President Barack Obama's insistence that members of Congress refrain from adding earmarks. In fact, the bill contains the most expensive earmark in history: $2 billion for a project known as FutureGen, a clean coal power plant in Matoon, Illinois, which even environmentalists say is a waste of money. On top of this, there are countless examples of waste riddled throughout the bill, such as $248 million for furniture at the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters, $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities, $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service and $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. Additionally, this bill lays the groundwork for radically overhauling our nation's health care system by putting health decisions into the hands of bureaucrats and taking them away from patients and doctors. As a practicing physician, I believe we should trust doctors and patients, not politicians and lobbyists, to make decisions about health care. The bill also includes an irresponsible bailout to states that have run up huge budget deficits for themselves. Unfortunately, the bill would reward states that refused to live within their means while punishing states like Oklahoma, which planned ahead and set up rainy day funds to make it through economic downturns. If this bill becomes law, states would have an incentive to live beyond their means because they will assume the federal government will be there to bail them out. One reason the public is skeptical of this bill is because the bill's authors made zero effort to eliminate any wasteful spending to help pay for this package even though Congress wastes at least $300 billion every year. Few families in America have the luxury of avoiding tough economic choices. Yet, career politicians in Congress refused to make any tough choices because they did not want to offend the special interest groups that finance their campaigns. What is not in the bill is as troubling as what is. The package does nothing to address the housing problems that helped trigger the credit crisis. It also contains very little meaningful tax relief to make small businesses and American companies more competitive. Instead, the bill relies on a philosophy that says the government can spend our way out of the problem. I simply cannot agree with that approach. One of the lessons I have learned from the practice of medicine is the danger of treating symptoms rather than the disease. Doing so makes the disease worse and causes the symptoms to come back with a vengeance. It is time for government to quit masking the symptoms and deal with this crisis at its source: toxic assets in the mortgage market and a federal government that continues to pollute our economy with pork and failed interventionist policies. Again, thank you for contacting me on this most important issue. Best wishes! Sincerely, A Tom A. Coburn, M.D. United States Senator |