Fiscal and Economic
More on Fiscal and Economic
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.
House Chamber, Washington, D.C.
February 12, 2009
M. Speaker:
I rise again to urge the majority to consider very carefully the damage they are doing to our nation’s economy by passing this unprecedented spending measure.
There is still time to heed the warnings from economists across the nation that this bill will do long-term damage to the growth of our nation’s economy for many years to come.
This is not mere economic theory: it is the consistent effect every time and everywhere that governments have tried to spend their way to prosperity.
February 10, 2009
Mme. Speaker:
Before we continue with a stimulus policy that has consistently failed to stimulate anything but government, I think the supporters of this program need to answer some very simple questions.
For example, the President himself told us yesterday that this $800 billion of new spending will produce up to four million new jobs. That comes to $200,000 per job.
Question: Why don’t we just send those four million lucky families a check for $100,000, and save half of what the President wants to spend – by his own numbers.
House Chamber, Washington D.C.
February 10, 2009
M. Speaker:
Benjamin Franklin warned us that “Passion governs, but she never governs wisely.”
As the Congress and the President rush to enact the latest in a long line of mega-spending bills, I think we would be well advised to spend a little more time on the dispassionate math of the matter.