Fiscal and Economic
More on Fiscal and Economic
House Chamber, Washington, D.C. April 1, 2009 Mr. Speaker: The American people are awakening to a danger of a budget that spends too much and borrows too much and taxes too much, because they know what that means.
They know that you can’t spend your way rich.
They know that you can’t borrow your way out of debt.
And they know that you can’t tax your way to prosperity.
No nation in the world has ever spent, borrowed and taxed its way to economic health. Many nations have spent, borrowed and taxed their way to economic ruin and bankruptcy.
By Tom McClintock On June 28, 1991, the California Assembly began debate on what was then the biggest tax increase in California’s history: a $7 billion tax hike pushed by Gov. Pete Wilson that included increases in sales, income and car taxes.
March 19, 2009. HR 1586 would tax 90 percent of the bonuses that push an executive’s earnings above $250,000 IF his company has received more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds.
I reluctantly supported HR 1586 for a simple and singular reason: it will stop or slow the corporate bailouts that are bankrupting our country.
House Chamber, Washington, D.C. March 17, 2009. M. Speaker: I have been asked to present more than 6,000 postcards generated by the Armstrong and Getty radio show to protest policies that can best be described by the new bumper sticker, “Honk if you’re paying my mortgage,” or today’s reprise, “Honk if you’re paying AIG’s bonuses.”
Rick Santelli of CNBC struck a nerve last month when he asked, “How many of you want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage who has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?”
House Chamber, Washington, D.C. March 12, 2009. Mr. Speaker: Many people were quite relieved when President Obama promised to reduce taxes on 95 percent of Americans.
Last week, the President introduced his new budget that depends on a staggering tax increase of $1.4 trillion over the next ten years. If that fell on all of us, it would come to nearly $15,000 on an average family of four – or $1,500 per year out of that family’s paychecks.
So what a relief to hear the President’s assurances that it’s only going to be a tax on the rich.
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
March 5, 2009
Mr. Speaker:
We have all heard a great deal of rhetoric blaming the Bush administration for the nation’s economic woes, and I actually rise to join that chorus.
We all are painfully aware that the Bush administration increased spending twice as fast as it did under Bill Clinton. The Bush administration added $160 billion to the deficit through tax transfers with its first stimulus bill a year ago – despite warnings that it would do nothing to stimulate the economy. It didn’t.
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
March 3, 2009
M. Speaker:
The Laffer Curve is a simple but elegant method of demonstrating how increasing taxes reduces economic productivity until a point of equilibrium is reached when further tax hikes actually reduce revenue.
If the tax rate is zero, tax revenues are zero. But if the tax rate is 100 percent, tax revenues also reach zero, because there’s no point in working.
House Chamber, Washington D.C.
March 3, 2009
M. Speaker:
I’d like to offer a word of caution about the law of unintended consequences.
Last week, this house passed the Administration’s proposal to allow homeowners to force banks to reduce the size of their mortgages and interest rates.
Millions of families – including my own – now owe more on our mortgages than our homes are worth – yet more than 90 percent of homeowners continue to make our mortgage payments in hopes of better days to come.