After President Clinton took a drubbing from voters in the 1994 Congressional election, he realized his policies weren't working.  He promptly declared, "The era of big government is over," and he then went about making good on that declaration:
• He reduced spending by a miraculous 3 1/2 percent of GDP.
• He attacked entitlement spending and abolished the ballooning open-ended welfare system.
• He signed what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history.
• He delivered the only four budget surpluses in four decades.
• And he produced a period of prolonged economic expansion.

President Obama faced a similar cross-road as he delivered his fourth State of the Union Address to Congress.  If he had followed the example of his successful Democratic predecessor, he could have redeemed his presidency, revived the economy and rallied the country. 

Instead, he succumbed to the basic ingredient of hubris: that the more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing we are to correct them.

Instead, his fourth State of the Union Address was indistinguishable from the three before it – the same big government bromides that have utterly failed to revive the economy while squandering trillions of dollars of the nation’s wealth.

For two full years, lopsided Democratic majorities in Congress responded to eerily similar addresses by giving him everything he asked for, including the biggest single spending bill in history that he promised would keep the unemployment rate under eight percent. 

His fourth State of the Union speech came on the 35th consecutive month of unemployment rates over eight percent -- unemployment rates that would be still higher except that millions of Americans have simply given up looking for work and therefore are no longer counted among the unemployed.  Indeed, fewer Americans are working today than on Inauguration day, 2009. 

In pursuing these policies, he has piled up as much debt in three years as the nation acquired from the first day of the George Washington administration to the last day of the George H. W. Bush administration and destroyed America's Triple-A credit rating.

True, Mr. Obama inherited a terrible mess caused by his predecessor.  George W. Bush went on his own spending and borrowing binge to "stimulate" the economy.  He approved the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society.  He intervened in the housing market by guaranteeing that struggling taxpayers would bail out banks from their bad decisions.  He ran up crippling budget deficits (that now seem quaint by today's standards).  

Yet instead of reversing these disastrous policies, Barack Obama has spent the last three years doubling down on them, and he showed no interest in changing course in the final year of his term. 

 Ronald Reagan inherited an economy plagued by double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, mile-long lines around gas stations and interest rates at 21 ½ percent.  He told the country, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem -- government IS the problem."

Reagan reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing the economy and produced a period of prolonged economic expansion and prosperity.  Former Senator Phil Gramm recently estimated that if the economy under Obama tracked as it had under Reagan, 15.7 million more Americans would be working today and per capita income would be over $4,000 higher than it is today. 

Nor was Reagan a pioneer.  Warren Harding, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, pursued similar policies and produced similar results.

If Barack Obama had presented a comparable vision, he would have had the enthusiastic support of the Republican majority in the House and a year from now could claim the mantle of leadership in putting the nation back on the road to prosperity.  Instead, what he prescribed is guaranteed to produce gridlock, finger-pointing and sniping, as his combative tone clearly signaled is his intention. 

That’s a tragic waste of an entire crucial year when we could be implementing policies to relieve our economy of the burdens that are crushing it – just as a Democratic President working with a Republican Congress did during the Clinton years. 

 Whittier’s words haunt the country in the aftermath of this lost opportunity: “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ‘it might have been.'”

# # #
 

Congressman Tom McClintock will hold a town hall meeting in Truckee on Tuesday, January 10 at 6:00 PM.

The meeting will be held in the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Conference Room, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee.
 

Viewed in isolation, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012 reduces total discretionary spending authority (those expenditures that don’t require statutory changes, including war and emergency spending) from $1.209 trillion in FY 2011 to $1.181 trillion in FY 2012), or $28 billion (2.3 percent).  Viewed over the past five years, however, this still constitutes an increase of $144 billion, in discretionary spending (13.5 percent).  

This may constitute an improvement over the past year, but begs the question, “Does it put the nation back on the path to fiscal solvency?”

The overarching issue is what impact does this bill have in conjunction with total spending levels.  Are we reducing spending enough to avert the fiscal collapse of the United States Government?   The Ryan budget was only supportable because it included significant reform of mandatory spending that, together with a discretionary spending cap of $1.019 trillion, put us on a trajectory that balanced the federal budget by the mid-2030’s and paid off the national debt by the mid-2050’s.  H.R. 3671 would take our annual discretionary spending (in conjunction with all other bills) to $1.181 trillion without any reform of mandatory spending. 

All told, this bill cements total authorized federal spending for FY 2012 at $3.693 trillion with revenue of only $2.635 trillion, assuring another one trillion dollar-plus budget deficit.  That means roughly $13,000 of additional debt on every family of four (per capita x 4), which they will be required to repay through their future taxes.

Last year (FY 2011), total authorized spending amounted to $3.650 trillion meaning that total federal spending has increased by $43 billion, or about $550 per family (per capita x 4) in the past year.

Proportionally, this is the same as a family earning $26,350 that plans to spend $36,930 next year, putting another $10,580 on a credit card that already carries a balance of more than $150,000.  Rather than cutting its overall spending, it has increased it by $43, while cutting only $28 from its “discretionary” choices.   

The question on HR 2055 comes down to this: “Is that family acting responsibly?”

Vote Note by Congressman Tom McClintock on HR 2055 — Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012.

HR 3630 – Payroll Tax Cut Extension: NO.  Although the temporary payroll tax cut doesn’t produce lasting economic growth, I support its continuation because it allows working families to keep more of their earnings at a time of declining incomes, shriveling assets and rising prices.  But since the payroll tax funds Social Security, which is already in permanent deficit, these funds must be made up by other means.  The healthy way to do so is HR 3551, which I cosponsored, to give every American the choice to receive the year of tax relief in exchange for delaying retirement by a month.  HR 3630, however, adds $167 billion to this year’s already crushing deficit, purporting to repay it over the next ten years (in part) by tacking on additional fees to mortgages backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  This shifts the burden to new homebuyers, who will end up paying far more in new taxes (hidden in their mortgages) than they will get from the tax cut.  The average family will save $1,000 in payroll taxes, but pay an extra $2,000 for every $100,000 of mortgage principal they incur in the next ten years.    
 

Congressman McClintock has introduced H.R. 3544.  The legislation offers litigatory reforms for local communities.  The Congressman discussed the legislation in a House floor speech on December 1, 2011:

The Plunder of Colfax

In the Sierra Foothills in northeastern California lies the little town of Colfax, population 1,800, with a median household income of about $35,000.

Over the past several years, this little town has been utterly plundered by regulatory and litigatory excesses that have pushed the town to the edge of bankruptcy and ravaged families already struggling to make ends meet.

Colfax operates a small wastewater treatment plant for its residents that discharges into the Smuthers Ravine.  Because it does so, it operates within the provisions of the Clean Water Act, a measure adopted in 1972 and rooted in legitimate concerns to protect our vital water resources.

The problem is that predatory environmental law firms have discovered how to take unconscionable advantage of that law to reap windfall profits at the expense of working-class families like the townspeople of Colfax.

In the case of Colfax, an environmental law firm demanded every document pertaining to the water treatment plant from the date of its inception.  It then poured over those documents looking for any possible violation – including mere paperwork errors.  By law, those documents include self-monitoring reports by the water agency itself, and any violation, no matter how minor, establishes a cause of action for which the law provides for no affirmative defense – even if the violation is due to factors completely outside of the local community’s control, including acts of God or acts by unrelated and uncontrollable third parties.

Prove one such violation – and remember, the law allows for no affirmative defense – and you have just guaranteed the attorneys all of their fees, which in this case were billed at $550 per hour.

As a result of this predatory activity, the town of Colfax is facing legal fees alone that exceed the town’s entire annual budget.  Families that are struggling just to keep afloat are fleeced by attorneys charging $550 per hour.

But that’s just part of the problem.

The law requires constant upgrading of the facilities to meet ever-changing state-of-the-art regulations that have nothing to do with health and safety and with absolutely no concern for their prohibitive costs.  In fact, Colfax is now required to discharge water certifiably cleaner than the natural stream water into which it is discharged.  In Colfax’s case, this required a $15 million expenditure divided among 1,800 working-class residents who are now paying $2,500 per year just for their water connections.

And once the town has met this standard, there’s no guarantee that in five years it won’t be told, “Sorry, the rules have changed and you’ll need to start over.”

It is time to restore some form of rationality back to this law, and to stop the plunder of small towns like Colfax.  And Colfax isn’t alone – any community that operates a wastewater treatment plant is in the same jeopardy.

No one disputes that we need to maintain and enforce sensible and cost-effective protections of our precious water resources.  But legitimate environmental protections must no longer be used as an excuse for regulatory extremism and litigatory plundering of our local communities.
           
Today, I am introducing legislation to offer six reforms to protect other communities from going through the same nightmare as the people of Colfax:

First, to limit private-party lawsuits to issues of significant non-compliance rather than harmless paperwork errors;

Second, to shield local agencies from liability for acts beyond their control;

Third, to give local agencies 60 days to cure a violation before legal action can be initiated;

Fourth, to allow communities to amortize the cost of new facilities over a period of 15 years before new requirements can be heaped on them;

Fifth, to require a cost-benefit analysis before new regulations can be imposed;

And sixth, to limit attorney fees to the prevailing fees in the community.

Like many movements, the impetus for stronger environmental protection of our air and water was firmly rooted in legitimate concerns to protect these vital resources.  But like many movements, as it succeeded in its legitimate ends, it also attracted a self-interested constituency that has driven far past the borders of commonsense and into the realms of political extremism and outright plunder and I am hopeful that we are now entering an era when common sense can be restored to the Clean Water Act in this session of the Congress.

Congressman Tom McClintock, House Chamber Remarks, Washington, D.C.
December 1, 2011.

http://mcclintock.house.gov/2011/12/the-plunder-of-colfax.shtml

Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04) and 11 cosponsors today introduced House Joint Resolution 84, a balanced budget constitutional amendment.   The amendment consists of 27 words and prohibits the government from increasing U.S. debt except for a specific purpose and with the approval of three-fourths of Congress.

Congressman McClintock discussed the legislation in a House Floor speech.  The remarks are attached below.

Back to Basics with the Balanced Budget Amendment
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
November 2, 2011

Mr. Speaker:  The International Monetary Fund estimated that as of Halloween night, the debt of this nation surpassed its entire economy for the first time since World War II.  We all know that if you live beyond your means today you must live below your means tomorrow.  That’s the tomorrow that our generation has created for the children who were dressed up as princesses and cowboys when they came calling on Monday.  That is our generation’s eternal shame, and something that our generation must set right.

The House is expected soon to vote on a balanced budget amendment that is critical to stop this plunder of our children.  There are a number of excellent proposals out there and I would have no trouble supporting any of them.

I do rise, however, to express the hope that the final product of these deliberations proves worthy of the wisdom that guided the drafting of the Constitution.

The beauty of the American Constitution is in its simplicity and its humility.  The American Founders recognized Cicero’s wisdom that “the best laws are the simplest ones.”  And they realized that they couldn’t possibly foresee the circumstances and conditions that may confront future generations and therefore they resisted the temptation to micro-manage every decision that might be made centuries in the future.  Instead, they set forth general principles of governance and erected a structure in which human nature itself would naturally guide future decisions to comport with those principles.

In crafting a balanced budget amendment, we need to maintain these qualities. We should not attempt to tell future generations specifically how they should manage their revenues and expenditures in times that we cannot comprehend.  The experience of many states that operate under their own balanced budget amendments tells us that the more complicated and convoluted such strictures become, the more they are circumvented and manipulated.

Many have quoted Jefferson’s 1798 letter to John Taylor as support for a balanced budget amendment.  Here’s what he actually wrote:

“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the federal government the power of borrowing."

What is a balanced budget? It’s simply a budget that doesn’t require us to borrow.  Then why not just say so, as Jefferson did?

Instead of trying to define fiscal years, outlays, expenditures, revenues, emergencies, triggers, sequestrations and on and on, I hope we would consider 27 simple words:

“The United States government may not increase its debt except for a specific purpose by law adopted by three-fourths of the membership of both Houses of Congress.”

That’s it.

Such an amendment, taking effect ten years from ratification, would give the government time to put its affairs in order and thereafter naturally require future Congresses to maintain both a balanced budget and a prudent reserve to accommodate fluctuations of revenues and routine contingencies.  It trusts that three-fourths of Congress will be able to recognize a genuine emergency when it sees one and that one-fourth of Congress will be strong enough to resist borrowing for light or transient reasons.  The experience of the states has warned us that a 2/3 vote is insufficient to protect against profligacy.

Some advocate going much farther and establishing limitations on spending and taxation as well, but if borrowing is prohibited, there exists a natural limit to the ability and willingness of the people to tolerate taxation and therefore spending.  The real danger is when run-away spending is accommodated by borrowing – a hidden future tax – and the best and most effective way to invoke that natural limit is a simple prohibition.  

At the end of the week, I will introduce this 27-word amendment and ask my colleagues to consider it with the many others that are now before the Congress.  As I said, I like virtually all of them – they all accomplish the purpose of restraining the reckless deficits that our generation has produced.  But in drafting an amendment to guide not only this generation, but all those to follow, I would hope that we would do as the Constitutional Convention would have done if it had the benefit of Jefferson’s wise counsel: set down the general principle only and allow future generations, with their own insight into their own challenges, to put it to practical effect.
 

# # #
 

Congressman McClintock will hold a town hall meeting on Thursday, October 20th at 6:00 PM in Roseville.  The meeting will be held at Oakmont High School, in the auditorium.  The high school is located at 1710 Cirby Way, Roseville. 

# # #
 

The House Natural Resources Committee today passed Congressman Tom McClintock’s legislation, H.R. 2915, the American Taxpayer and Western Area Power Administration Customer Protection Act of 2011.  The legislation repeals the 2009 Stimulus Act’s new $3.25 billion Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) loan authority, including the taxpayer bailout provision for failed renewable energy transmission projects.

“Recent events make it clear that billions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been placed in jeopardy to support companies that obviously lack the merit to attract private investments,” said Congressman McClintock. “These dubious interests rely instead on political connections with government officials to access taxpayer funds. As they collapse, the taxpayers end up holding the bag. It is time to require every sector of the energy industry to raise its own capital through its own merit rather than to perpetuate the crony capitalism that is now running rampant through this government.”

The legislation would specifically repeal Section 301 of the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984, which was amended by the Stimulus Act to suddenly create the new borrowing authority. It would not apply to any projects already approved before September 15, 2011.

The legislation next will be voted on by the full House of Representatives.

###
 

On Saturday, September 10, Congressman McClintock will hold town hall meetings in Chester, Susanville and Alturas:

  Chester, 10:00 AM, Almanor Recreation Center, 450 Meadowbrook Loop, Chester.

Susanville, 1:00 PM, Commercial Building, Lassen County Fair Grounds.

Alturas, 4:00 PM, Brass Rail Restaurant, Alturas.