Unpublished Letter to the Editor of WSJ
This letter was not published by the Wall Street Journal so we are publishing it here on our we website. It is a very well-stated list of concerns about the Debt Ceiling legislation:
Dear Editor:
What is the reader to believe? Paul Ryan’s “Where’s Your Budget, Mr.President?” (Aug 3) fairly asks the president that question as the president and the Congress have pushed huge new costly programs like ObamaCare but they have not produced a budget to pay for them. This budget deal they passed doesn’t cut anything that can be measured and adds at least $7 trillion to the debt. Ryan says that Republicans passed a bill that “cuts more than a dollar for every dollar it increases the debt limit, without raising taxes.” And that Republicans “won the policy debate by securing the first of many spending restraints…” to avoid calamity. Excuse me, but if there is a $2.4 trillion increase in debt this year and much more in the next few years, how can Ryan make those claims? You can’t call many $trillions in new spending (debt) a tax cut! If Ryan can point to any cuts at all they are not from current spending but from cuts in projected increased spending. We are not being treated honestly by the professional politicians or the media.
And the “Super Committee” created in this bill will surely have as their focus ways to increase taxes without having to go through all the trouble of full debate as our Constitution provides and we, the people, are entitled to expect. Whatever they come up with will be offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis on an up or down vote.
The WSJ and others call this a victory for the TEA parties? This bill being called a victory is the exact opposite of what the TEA parties have expressed in all of our actions all over the country for three years, at least. Cut, Cap and Balance has been our appeal to our elected officials, our representatives, and we got no cut, no cap and not anything near a balanced budget.
George Blumel, Atlantis FL 33462
PBC Charter Review – Call to Action – Deadline August 26th
Back in June, the County began public meetings about its ongoing Charter Review. If you recall – the County Charter is its ‘constitution’ and describes Home Rule. There are 20 Home Rule or Charter Counties in Florida. Palm Beach County does not have a formalized Charter Review process, and this is the first comprehensive review to have taken place.
The Charter and the county’s charter review website can be found here. While there are a few changes that the Commissioners would like, citizens can input their own suggestions via the County Website. Suggestions are limited to 300 words per suggestion. Here is a link to the survey page. You can make as many submissions as you like.
Personally, I am not in favor of a few changes favored by several of the Commissioners – a) changing the county commission makeup to include a few at-large commission districts, and b) to have non-partisan elections for County Commissioners.
I have a few changes that I am submitting in order to make for better governance without bogging down the document or specifying so much detail that the slim charter becomes unmanageable. You may have others. If you would like to submit any of the ones listed below, just click on the [copy] to the right of the suggestion you would like to copy, and then cut/paste from the text that comes up and submit that to the survey link above. Each of my submissions are shorter than the 300-word limit per submission.
Friday, August 26, is the last date on which submissions will be accepted on the county website.
Review all boards and advisory committees every four years
Objective: Formalizes a review process to remove unnecessary, redundant, or obsolete Boards and Advisory Committees.
Precedent and wording from Broward County Section 2.09 F
The County Commission shall adopt procedures to provide for the review of the performance of all Boards, Committees, Authorities and Agencies at least once every four (4) years. As part of its review of the respective Board, Committee, Authority or Agency, the County Commission shall determine, by resolution, that the applicable Board, Committee, Authority, or Agency is needed to serve the public interest, and the cost of its existence to the citizens and taxpayers is justified. The review provision shall not apply to any Board, Committee, Authority, or Agency established by this Charter.
County Version of Smartcap (this is a TAB proposal)
Objective: Limits spending growth to population growth and inflation formula
Reference: State Revenue Limitation (CS/SJR958). The yearly adjustment factor is calculated based on the previous year’s cap, not revenue collected. This avoids the problem encountered by Colorado “TABOR” which caused excessive reductions in spending during an economic downturn.
Precedent: Brevard 2.9.3.1(a): http://www.brevardcounty.us/countycharter/charter-article2.cfm – s29 and City of Jacksonville Sections 14.08/14.09: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=12174&stateID=9&statename=Florida
Suggested wording: 1) For each budget year, county revenue collected is limited by the state computed adjustment factor defined in CS/SJR958. 2) Exemptions are allowed for unfunded mandates and certain other classifications of spending. 3) Emergency override is permitted with a super majority vote of the BCC.
Periodic Mandatory Review of the Charter by Independent Commission
Objective: Formalize the review of County Charter, instead of the ad hoc approach being taken during the current county review.
Precedent: 16 of the 20 Home Rule counties have a formal appointed* Charter Review Commission specified in their Charters. Period ranges from every 4 years to every 10 years. Size of Commission ranges from 10-15 individuals, with majority or 2/3 vote required to bring an amendment forward, and most scheduled to coincide with General Elections. *Sarasota County has an elected Charter Review Commission
Recommendation: Modify the charter to require a Formal review, by appointed review commission consisting of citizens, with an odd number of commissioners and majority vote, every 8 years, with results to coincide with a general election.
Debt Policy
Objective: Transparency and Accountability
Precedent: Charlotte County Sec 2.2.J
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10526&stateID=9&statename=Florida
Text from Charlotte County:
The county commission shall adopt and review annually, prior to April first of each year, a debt policy to guide the issuance and management of debt. The debt policy shall be integrated with other financial policies, operating and capital budgets. Adherence to a debt policy helps ensure that debt is issued and managed prudently in order to maintain a sound fiscal position and protect credit quality. Elements to be addressed in the debt policy shall include:
(1)The purposes for which debt may be issued.
(2)Legal debt limitations, or limitations established by policy (maximum amount of debt that should be outstanding at one time).
(3)The types of debt permitted to be issued and criteria for issuance of various types of debt.
(4)Structural features of debt (maturity, debt service structure).
(5)Credit objectives.
(6)Placement methods and procedures.
State of the County Quarterly/Annual Report
Objective: Transparency and Accountability by the administrative branch of the county
Precedent: Broward County 1.04 L: http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientID=10288&stateID=9&statename=Florida
Lee County: 2.3.A.1.(a): http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?nomobile=1&clientid=10131
The County Commission shall require and the public is entitled to have access to a Management Report published by the County Administrator, and made public on a quarterly basis, detailing the performance of the County government offices, divisions and departments. The Management Report shall include, but not be limited to, a report on the receipt and expenditure of County funds by each County office, division and department, and a report of the expected and actual performance* of the activities of each County office, division and department.
*Performance shall include measurements (benchmark metrics like head counts against peer counties) in key areas/contingent liabilities for long term union contracts and capital projects/annual market comparison of salaries and benefits (peer counties and private sector), other issues.
Redistricting – Incumbent Protection or Citizen Input? You decide.
Fred and I attended the Florida Redistricting Public Meeting conducted at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton today, August 16. We didn’t know quite what to expect – eg. who would be attending, or to whom we would be addressing our comments. As it turned out, the majority of the speakers were from various interest groups, with the League of Women Voters being the best represented, as well as the most aggressive about their issues. The committee consisted of a panel of 40 state representatives and senators, arranged in a double row facing the crowd. The chairman is Senator Don Gaetz, R-Niceville.
Senate 27 – a district likely to change
Both George Bennett of the Palm Beach Post, and Anthony Man of the Sun-Sentinel did a good job representing the gist of the meeting. However I’d like to capture a few of my personal observations and concerns.
First – it alarms me greatly whenever, as a political conservative, I find myself agreeing with most of the comments made by the very liberal Boca crowd who took the time to get organized, come out in force, speak and stay until the end of the meeting listening to others’ comments.
– Timeline: I agree with the concerns, best expressed by Supervisor of Elections Susan Bucher, that the timeline to completion of the redistricting effort is extremely late in the election cycle. Incumbents and those who are considering running for office will not know the boundaries or district makeup until well into 2012, which will not allow those non-incumbents to campaign or solicit donations, or even file for office. Ms. Bucher should have been allowed much more than the 2 minute (doubled for her) allotted time to express the issues as she saw them. At the end of the meeting, her issues were dismissed by Rep. Stephen Precourt, R-Orlando, the vice chairman of the House Redistricting Committee. He said that most county election supervisors said that the information would be there in plenty of time for proper preparation for upcoming elections. He cited Seminole County (population 423,000) as an example. The population of Palm Beach County is 1,320,000 – considerably larger. – Advantage: Incumbent?
– No Florida Legislature proposed maps were presented for public comment: The rationale given was that the panel would solicit public input, and then use that input (along with maps submitted by the public) to devise new legislative boundaries. But three months of public meetings throughout the state dedicated to input prior to seeing any official maps, while only allowing a fraction of that for future public comment on the official maps, only in Tallahassee, sometime in the future, smacks of self-protection by incumbents of either party. (It is too similar to what is happening on the national level where our President or the Democrat party refuses to present a serious budget.) Once a redistricting plan is out there – it is immediately subject to criticism and attack. So why not take the safer route and not present anything until the last minute. Advantage: Incumbent?
– Perceived arrogance by the legislative panel: At least one representative was not in his seat for the bulk of the meeting. Another key leader seemed to get up and leave frequently, cell phone in hand. This is a common occurrence by our elected officials at County Commission meetings. Apparently it also is common practice at higher levels of office. We had to remain seated, if we wanted to ensure our turn to speak. Please do us the courtesy of remaining in place to hear us out. We think the Republican Majority in Tallahassee is doing good work, but we also remember it was arrogance that brought down the 2006 Congressional Majority. Think about it.
I am not one of the 70+ percent of the voters who voted FOR amendments 5 or 6. I believe that there is a clear agenda behind those two amendments and that there will possibly be valid cases against these in the courts. However, as several proponents of the measures said at the meeting, Redistricting is one of the most important roles of this Legislative session in Tallahassee, and I’d feel better served if I felt that my Tallahassee representatives were looking out for my interests as a citizen, rather their own.
One last point – the purpose of redistricting is to balance the districts to reflect the 2010 census. The overwhelming majority of the speakers were more concerned with the ramifications of the Fair Districts Amendments, as if they could be used to redraw the districts on a blank sheet of paper and “right the wrongs” of the past 100 years. It would be a mistake to attempt such a thing, full of unintended consequences. Redistricting works best when adjustments are made on the margins of existing districts. We hope both sides remember that.
Ruby Red Tape- A Case study in the costs of regulation
An article below appearing in the Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal in August 16, 2011 edition is worthy of reading and understanding what Allen West said last night at the Palm Beach County Tea Party meeting. The current administration has so many barriers in place to constrain businesses from investing—the EPA’s environmental impact statement process is tantamount to putting shackles and handcuffs on private sector investment. We as citizens are paying for this—and can you only imagine the impact this has on job creation? You multiply this Ruby Red Tape scenerio by thousands upon thousands of proposed projects in the US and it does not take a rocket scientist to see why we continue to be in recession and it is almost impossible to break out!
See Ruby Red Tape for the article.
Our Congressmen Respond
When the debt ceiling was raised, we wondered “Now What?”
The four Congressmen who represent Palm Beach County cast their votes for different reasons and many of their constituents were not happy with their votes. So we asked them some specific questions about their reasoning and where we go from here. We also asked them to respond in writing for posting here on the website. Congressman Alcee Hastings voted against the debt limit bill while Ted Deutch, Tom Rooney and Allen West all voted for it.
 Ted Deutch 19th District |
 Alcee Hastings 23rd District |
 Tom Rooney 16th District |
 Allen West 22nd District |
As of today, only Tom Rooney and Allen West have responded and their answers can be found below. When responses are received from the others, their answers will be added to the table, so check back from time to time. If we get no response from a Congressman, we will report that as well. That is an answer of sorts.
| 1. The bill cuts about $1T over 10 years, but the reduction from planned spending over the next two years is pocket change. | |
| a. Since this Congress can’t bind a future Congress to a course of action, why is anything in the out years even relevant? |
Tom Rooney: It is not binding and it is pocket change. There is no dispute there. The very fact that that we are getting cuts this year, though they are small, is much better than what we would have gotten with a Democrat-controlled House. In the past, the debt ceiling increases were not even reported on in the media. This time we were able to get dollar for dollar decreases in spending for each dollar increase in the debt ceiling. The Tea Party had much to do with this. Allen West: I, along with millions of Americans, are frustrated with what has occurred over the last six months in the United States Congress and its dealing with President Barack Obama. The New Republican Majority in the House of Representatives was elected to change the way Washington does business. However, the Republicans only control one-half or one-third of the Federal Government. While the Budget Control Act is not what Republicans would have written if they controlled the United States Senate and White House, it’s a step in the right direction. While I, and my Freshman colleagues, wanted to come to Washington and make immediate changes, the intransient US Senate and President Barack Obama are making us make incremental changes – but make no mistake, they are happening. We moved the discussion from a clean debt ceiling increase which the President wanted – to an acceptance, with his signature, that we are moving to cut spending – $917 billion in immediate spending cuts. The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls it “a victory for the cause of smaller government, arguably the biggest since welfare reform in 1996.” If we had done nothing, the Treasury Department would have been forced to use incoming tax revenues (approximately $200 billion per month) to pay obligations as they came due. With approximately $300 billion in expenses each month, there was no way to ensure that the Obama Administration would appropriately prioritize payment of the federal government’s bills. America has always paid its debt, and I would not be part of a default by the United States Government. The President’s irresponsible lack of a Plan B, and a willingness to lead by intimidation, meant he was willing to have seniors miss a Social Security check or soldiers in the field not paid on time in the name of politics. Regardless of how President Obama would prioritize spending, the fact of the matter is that there would come to a point when the Federal Government could not meet some of its obligations. I believe that I have a Constitutional obligation to not allow that to happen. This bill ensures that the Federal Government will meet all of its commitments in the immediate term while we make substantial cuts in the coming years and put the Federal Government on a path to finally live within its means. This is absolutely correct (can’t bind a future Congress), a future United States Congress could choose not to follow through and could change the law. However, it is also true that a future Congress can change the law to do anything they see fit even increase the amount of spending cuts. In order to ensure that we continue on a path to meet these reductions we need to elect a US Senate and a President committed to reducing spending. It is my belief the American people will elect legislators who will represent their principles that each bill we have sent to the US Senate, such as the repeal of Obamacare and Cut, Cap, and Balance, has met a brick wall. It will take a strong majority in the Senate, and a Republican in the White House to ensure that the principles we believe in are enacted. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| b. What can be done to insure that the planned reductions after two years are met? |
Tom Rooney: There is nothing that can be done except get another Senate. Get rid of Obama; get rid of Nelson. Then we can get even more reductions because I realize that the cuts we made were indeed pocket change. Allen West: As mentioned above, the US Congress must meet its obligations of planned reductions or face the prospect of being fired by their constituents. Based on the savings identified in our Budget Resolution and in the Biden Group negotiations, I hope we can find a bipartisan agreement on savings from mandatory programs that can be agreed to without tax increases. I believe this is what we must demand from the Joint Committee as it begins its work. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| 2. The second “tranche” requires agreement of six Republicans and six Democrats, yet to be named, or else massive cuts will be applied to the military budget and to Medicare providers. | |
| a. How do you justify risking the possibility of significantly reducing our military budget? |
Tom Rooney: That is the tough one that keeps me awake at night. I am putting my faith in the Super Committee that they can get to the $1.2 trillion in cuts. If I am wrong, I will fully admit that this was a mistake. Allen West: I will not support raising the debt limit – by any amount – without first cutting a larger amount of wasteful federal government spending. I did not, and I will not, give the President a blank check. If Democrats want the help of the Majority in the House to pay the bills they have racked-up after their historic spending binge over the last four years, Democrat appointees to the Joint Select Committee will be forced to work with us to find $1.5 trillion in savings. Only then can the President request another increase in the debt ceiling in an amount that will take him past the date on the calendar that he is focused on – Election Day. In the event that this Joint Committee does not achieve its deficit reduction target, then across-the-board spending cuts, subject to certain exemptions, would occur. This amount would equal the amount of the increase of the debt ceiling. In the Budget Control Act defense funding would be a range of plus-or-minus two percent from last year’s level. During negotiations, Democrats tried to insist on locking in defense cuts, but Republicans strongly opposed this. Instead the legislation creates a “firewall” that separates all security spending (including Defense, Homeland Security, and foreign aid) from non-security spending. This structure allows House Republican committee leaders to work with both parties to protect defense funding and ensure our troops get the resources they need, while cutting spending elsewhere. The discretionary caps put in place by this bill are designed to change the trajectory of federal spending in the next decade. That means that hard choices will have to be made to prioritize the spending of taxpayer money. House Conservatives remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring that troops in the field have the equipment they need to perform their jobs safely and effectively and that any cuts to slim down the Department of Defense bureaucracy will not put that at risk. The sequestration spending cuts that would be triggered in this bill, if the Joint Select Committee does not report sufficient deficit reduction legislation, would be severe for all programs so it is important that this group reach a bipartisan and balanced approach to reduce the deficit that does not jeopardize our national defense. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| b. Which specific cuts in the military budget would you support? |
Tom Rooney: There is waste, fraud, and abuse in all the departments in the government, and we need to find them in the Department of Defense. For example, contracting with GE for a 2nd jet engine that would probably never be used was something that needed to be cut. The fact is that we will lose our Super Power status in 10 years if we cut much beyond the waste, fraud, and abuse. That could happen with the trigger Allen West: On March 29, 2011, less than 90 days since first being sworn in as a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced three bills aimed at cutting wasteful spending at the Department of Defense. • H.R. 1246 – reduces the printing and reproduction budget by 10%. It would generate $35.7 million in savings in Fiscal Year 2012, reaching nearly $180 million in savings through Fiscal Year 2016. This resolution passed the House of Representatives on April 4, 2011 by a bipartisan vote of 393-0. • H.R. 1247 – reduces funding for Defense studies, analysis and evaluations by 10%. Would generate a savings of $24 million in Fiscal Year 2012, returning up to $120 million to the treasury through Fiscal Year 2016. • H.R. 1248 – restricts payout of annual nationwide adjustment and locality pay for below satisfactory workers. Would generate approximately $21 million in savings while increasing productivity in the workforce. As employees become more satisfactory in future years, the savings would be approximately $80 million through Fiscal Year 2016. All three of these bills were accepted as amendments to the Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which passed the House of Representatives on May 26, 2011. In total, my three bills cut wasteful defense spending by over $80 million in Fiscal Year 2012 alone, with $380 million in savings through Fiscal Year 2016. So to answer this question, there are plenty of wasteful programs at the Department of Defense that can be cut without cutting funding to programs necessary for both the war fighter, as well as our national security as a whole. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I look forward to working with my colleagues to identify areas where we can trim the fat. But as a retired Lieutenant Colonel with over 22 years in the US Army, I will fight to make sure that any cuts in defense spending are not at the expense of our national security, nor at the expense of those who are wearing or have worn the uniform Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| c. How will you address unconstitutional military actions that cost all of us? |
Tom Rooney: We have to follow the rule of law. For example, with regard to Libya, the president violated the War Powers Act and the intent of the founders who left it to the Congress to declare war. I was the lead sponsor for defunding the kinetic military action in Libya, which is Obama-speak for ‘war’. My bill was defeated by only a handful of votes. The only power we have in Congress now is the ‘power of the purse’. President Obama will have to come back to us for more money. Allen West: On June 3, 2011, I voted for H. Con Res 51 by Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) that called for the immediate cessation of military operations against Libya. On June 19, 2011, 90 days had passed since President Obama informed the United States Congress of the introduction of American forces into Libya. To this day, since the introduction of American forces into Libya, Congress has not declared war nor enacted a specific authorization for the use of force. While President Obama used the provision on the War Powers Act to give notification to Congress that he was going to take military action on Libya, after the 90 days had passed the President claimed that our Armed Forces are not in ‘harm’s way,’ and thus the conflict in Libya does not require the approval of the United States Congress because there is ‘little risk’ to our Armed Forces. As a 22 year US Army combat veteran, I know that every time our American men and women are committed to military action, they are in harm’s way. As the Commander in Chief, the President should realize that as well. It is an affront to the family members of the pilots flying in this conflict and supporting this mission to say that they have not been placed in harm’s way. Since the opening hours of military action on March 19, 2011, President Barack Obama has had no clear direction in Libya. The President has not defined the mission nor the end state of this conflict. Further, the President has not identified who the so-called rebels are that continue to receive millions of dollars of American support in terms of weapons, ammunition, and resources. President Barack Obama is in violation of the law – plain and simple – and he must be held accountable. We do not need to give the President any more time. Many Americans, myself included, still do not understand how America is benefitting from having forces in Libya in the first place. The very foundation of our Republic lies on the system of checks and balances, and as a Member of the United States Congress, I have a Constitutional obligation to ensure this system is upheld. It is my opinion that the United States Congress should hold hearings on the President’s violation of the War Powers Act. The Leadership should also move forward to eliminate funding for these military operations. Finally, the Leadership must hold the President accountable to the law in order to ensure the checks and balances that have been in place since the enactment of the War Powers Resolution are upheld. As one of 435 Members of Congress and 100 Senators, there is only so much I can do, but I have been adamant on this since the very beginning Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| d. With regard to Medicare, won’t cutting doctors and hospitals create massive supply disruptions that will make care for seniors difficult to obtain? Please explain. |
Tom Rooney: If the trigger happens, what you are going to see is doctors and hospitals dropping Medicare patients. For this reason both the Republicans and Democrats will be incented to revise the tax code rather than move to the triggers. The Ryan plan will not move us to this situation. It will be based on a ‘means testing’ for care and only impacts people who are under 55 today. Allen West: Cutting funding for doctors and hospitals will have a negative effect on senior health care. The Obama Administration’s health care reform legislation –the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – which was signed into law in 2010, provided for a reduction of $575 billion in the Medicare system over the next 10 years. Further, the legislation created a panel of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats – the Independent Payment Advisory Board – who will be involved in patient medical decisions to enforce price controls and reduce the volume of care which could lead to rationing and seniors being denied certain treatments. The Board, instead of your doctor, will constitute what is “necessary care” and will move to create a “one size fits all” solution when it comes to medical care. The Board recommendations must be adopted and Congress is denied the power to overrule its decisions with the first report scheduled for release in July 2014. You are also aware, that reduced reimbursement even today means even fewer doctors will accept Medicare and seniors are already facing reduced access. Nearly a third of primary care physicians are already restricting the number of Medicare patients in their medical practices. The Medicare Trustees have made the situation clear. Medicare’s trust fund will be insolvent in 2024, less than 13 years from today. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities are more than $24 trillion and growing, which means there is a $24 trillion gap between Medicare’s future benefit costs and the future taxes and premiums it already expects to collect. Since President Obama has not submitted a plan to save Medicare, earlier this year, I voted in the House of Representatives for Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2012. I voted in favor of this budget because I understand Americans are ready to embrace a bold path forward to ensure that our nation pays down its debt and sustains a solvent Medicare program for both you and future generations. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| e. What free market alternatives for Medicare are you going to support? |
Tom Rooney: Let’s start with the Ryan Plan that allows for competition in Medicare. It works a lot like Medicare Advantage where seniors can pick and choose what is best for them. That is free market.” Allen West: House of Representatives Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2012 (H. Con. Res. 34) on April 11, 2011. On April 15, 2011, H. Con. Res. 34 passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 235-193. I supported this resolution because I believe it is an important step to rein in out of control Federal Government spending. This budget resolution cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from President Barack Obama’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off the national debt. The budget’s reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked—but because government should reorient its policies without forcing people to reorganize their lives, the budget’s reforms will not affect those in or near retirement, at the age of 55, in any way. Starting in 2022, new Medicare beneficiaries will be enrolled in the same kind of health care program that members of Congress enjoy. Future Medicare recipients will be able to choose a plan that works best for them from a list of guaranteed coverage options. This is not a voucher program, but rather a premium-support model. A Medicare premium-support payment would be paid, by Medicare, to the plan chosen by the beneficiary, subsidizing its cost. In addition, Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| f. Why would any of the members on the commission have incentive to compromise? |
Tom Rooney: The triggers are not acceptable for either side. The Democrats do not want the Commission to end in deadlock because the trigger would be unacceptable cuts in Medicare. The Military cuts would be not be acceptable for the Republicans. Allen West: If the motivation is to think about the next election rather than the next generation then we have reason to be very concerned. Further, if President Obama and Capitol Hill Democrats believe that a “balanced” approach means advocating job-killing tax increases on the American taxpayers and small business and in return smoke-and-mirror entitlement reforms, then we have reason to be concerned. However, the Joint Select Committee’s reported legislation will be judged against the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) current law baseline, which already projects that revenues will increase by $3.5 trillion over the next decade due to across-the-board tax rate increases coming in 2013. Additionally, due to the way CBO measures deficit reduction, any reduction of these taxes would increase the deficit—the opposite of the Committee’s assigned task. For this reason, the de facto mission of the Committee will be to cut spending in order to achieve the deficit reduction directed. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| g. Where would you support or not support compromise? |
Tom Rooney: I would not support increasing tax rates period. I would support reforming the tax code to close loopholes that enable large corporations, for example, GE, Verizon, and others, not to pay any taxes at all. GE even got a refund Allen West: At this point in time, I cannot make a prediction on what the Joint Select Committee compromise will entail. I can assure constituents that I will look at the recommendations from the Committee and will make a decision on what I believe are in the best interest of the Congressional District and the United States. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| h. Speaker Boehner’s says that the commission will not be able to raise taxes. President Obama and Harry Reid said that “balance”, i.e., tax increases, is the whole point of the commission. How are these points of view to be reconciled? |
Tom Rooney: The compromise is reforming the tax code; not increasing tax rates but looking at what is unfair, e.g., loopholes that reward corporations with high paid lawyers. Allen West: In the unlikely event the Joint Select Committee was to propose tax increases without a complete restructuring led by the President of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security , I believe House Republicans would defeat the increase on the American Taxpayer, and the automatic across-the-board sequestration of $1.2 trillion would be implemented. I will not allow Capitol Hill Democrats to use a spending-driven debt crisis to increase job-destroying taxes, especially when our employment situation is the worst since the Great Depression Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| 3. The CBO scoring of the bill assumes the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, possibly accounting for all the “savings” from the bill over 10 years. | |
| What is the plan to prevent this massive tax increase on small businesses and the middle class? |
Tom Rooney: I think this is a false assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire. I will not support this. In fact, it would be catastrophic to the economy. This could only come up after the next election, which means the Commission has to work harder to reduce spending right now . . . and we have to get our people out to the polls! Allen West: The Bush Tax Cuts were set to expire in 2010 and President Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress extended the tax cuts until 2012. The tax cuts were set to expire next year whether they were included in the Budget Control Act or not. As mentioned above, if the Joint Select Committee were to propose any tax increases, including letting the Bush tax cuts expire, I expect the House to defeat them on the floor. I will strongly oppose any effort to raise taxes, I support the Bush Tax Cuts, and I will hope that we can provide even greater tax relief on the American Taxpayer and small business owners. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| 4. Balanced Budget Amendment | |
| What are you going to do to promote and support a Balanced Budget Amendment? |
Tom Rooney: We are voting on a Balanced Budget Amendment in October and I am voting for it. I hope to God that it passes! This is the only hope for this country to stay great! Allen West: The Budget Control Act that I supported requires both the House and Senate to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. I ran on a platform to enact a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. I support H.J. Res. 2, a Balanced Budget Amendment introduced by Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) on January 5, 2011. In fact, I was among the first cosponsors of this legislation, signing onto it on January 19, 2011. This bipartisan legislation has 240 cosponsors, and is nearly identical to a Balanced Budget Amendment that narrowly failed to pass out of the Congress more than 10 years ago. I will bring to the attention my constituents, and to the American people, Members of Congress who vote against a Balanced Budget Amendment who have supported this or similar Balanced Budget Amendments in the past. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| 5. We, the Palm Beach County Tea Party are committed to promoting fiscal responsibility in our governing bodies. | |
| What is your office’s agenda in the next 15 months to curb runaway spending? |
Tom Rooney: Personally, we are cutting our office budget by 20%. In Congress, I am co-sponsoring the Connie Mack Penny Proposal that basically cuts some every year to eventually balance the budget. I will also be working to get like-minded fiscal conservatives elected to the House and Senate so that we can do more than “pocket change.” We really need to take the Senate and the White House! Everything rides on this election! Allen West: I, too, as your Congressman in the House of Representatives am committed to fiscal responsibility in our federal government. President Obama and the Senate Democrats have proven that fiscal responsibility is the last thing on their agenda. The Budget Control Act is far from perfect, but the hard reality is that fiscal conservatives control only one half of one third of the Federal Government. Remember, thanks to the support of the Tea Party, we were able to change the entire debate in Washington. With the support of the Tea Party we were able to pass the Cut, Cap and Balance Act – with a bipartisan vote. But before we even voted for it, the Democrat-controlled Senate declared it “dead on arrival,” and the President promised to veto. We are dealing with an ultra Liberal White House and Senate – they refuse to acknowledge reality, and refuse to accept responsibility of the mess they got us in. The reality is that we will not get what we all know is the right kind of package that will set our economy on the proper course as long as President Obama is in the White House and liberals like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid control the Senate. Another reality is this – the only way we will be able to bring real reform to all branches of the Federal Government is for conservatives to accept this reality we are in and unite behind a common goal of defeating Liberals in the House, Senate and White House. On April 15, 2011, the House of Representatives passed a federal budget for Fiscal Year 2012. It has now been more than 825 days and the Democrat-controlled Senate has still not produced a budget. Since January, the House of Representatives has passed six out of 12 appropriations bills to fund the federal government. The House is presently considering the seventh bill, while the United States Senate has considered and voted on only one. All 12 appropriations bills are to be considered and sent to the President by September 30th each year. Upon return from the August district work period, only 24 days will be left to finish the budget for Fiscal Year 2012. Clearly, the Senate is setting up the House to consider an Omnibus Appropriations Bill with the only alternative being to shut down the federal government. Simply put, the Senate is putting Congress on a path toward failure. I have supported each of the appropriations bills the House has considered this year because each of them makes substantial cuts to the Federal Government’s budget – each in line with what Paul Ryan’s budget has allocated for spending. I will not support any appropriations bill unless it makes substantial cuts to the Federal Government that are in line with the budget allocations of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. I will continue to support legislation that shrinks the Federal Government, with the ultimate goal of getting our fiscal house in order. I remain firmly dedicated to passing a Balanced Budget Amendment through Congress to be sent to the states before the end of the year. A Balanced Budget Amendment represents the best opportunity to ensure fiscal responsibility by the federal government. Further, please find an open letter to the Constituents of the 22nd Congressional District outlining the issues I believe the Congress needs to address. Most importantly, I will continue to support legislation that will help spur economic growth by creating jobs. I will continue to push the Small Business Encouragement Act – legislation I introduced that will provide a tax credit to small businesses for hiring unemployed individuals. The only way to get our economy back on track is to get Americans back to work. The reason the unemployment problem in American has worsened is because the stimulus package, burdensome regulations, and economic policies of the President that have been a failure. The President’s policies have resulted in disaster for our economy. Since Obama took office, unemployment has remained at or near 9 percent for 28 months, America has added $3.4 trillion in debt in 29 months — the equivalent of about $4 billion per day — we have an anemic housing market with record foreclosures, and an average price of nearly $4 for a gallon of gas. The House has sent nine job creating bills to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senators Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer and the Democrat Leadership, yet they have collectively decided these pieces of legislation were not even worth consideration in the first six months of Congress. Alcee Hastings: Ted Deutch: |
| Concluding Thoughts | |
|
Tom Rooney: Allen West: When I ran for office in 2010, I made it perfectly clear that a Republican House would not be able to reverse all the damage done by the Obama Administration and previous Congresses, but that it would only stop the bleeding. House Republicans passed bipartisan legislation that would solve our nation’s debt problems once and for all, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. True to form, Majority Leader Reid and his Democrat Senate colleagues killed it in the U.S. Senate. The President and Liberal Democrats wanted a clean raising of the debt ceiling. Instead, because of voices like yours throughout the country, we were able to set the precedent for any raising of the debt ceiling to be contingent on spending cuts. The Budget Control Act ensures that: 1) we will cut spending more than any increase in the debt ceiling, 2) taxes are not increased on America’s job creators and families during these difficult economic times, and 3) both the House and Senate are required to vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The measure also places tough caps on future spending – restraining the growth of government so the economy can get back to creating jobs – while guaranteeing the American people a vote in both houses of Congress this fall on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. To the Members of the Tea Party: It was not everything that we wanted – but it is a first step for the future of our republic. |
|
The Debt Ceiling is Raised – Now What?
Many press accounts of the debt ceiling compromise say “… the tea party won…”, and President Obama was forced to capitulate. It does not feel that way to me. For some reason, this feels as bad as the malaise that followed the passage of the Affordable Care Act. For days it seemed like the sun would not shine again.
Many in the tea party and 912 world are very disappointed in the outcome, and for some reasons that have not been widely explored. Yes it may have been difficult to get more from the divided Congress. But several aspects of the bill seem to have given the initiative for further action completely to the Democrats. The question that hangs in the air like smoke after a firefight is …. what now? What is the strategy to fend off the coming tax increases. How will the “select committee” resolve ideological differences over the role of government and fend off the “trigger” that will decimate the military?
Many tea party and 912 members worked hard to get Congressman Allen West elected, some going back to the 2008 race. We want to be loyal, we want to support him in 2012. But we really need to understand. This is some of what we need to know:
- The bill cuts about $1T over 10 years, but the reduction from planned spending over the next two years is pocket change. Since this Congress can’t bind a future Congress to a course of action, why is anything in the out years even relevant?
- The second “tranche” requires agreement of 6 Republicans and 6 Democrats, yet to be named, or else massive cuts are applied to the military budget and to Medicare providers. Since cuts of the suggested size would severely impact our war fighting capablility and leave us weak in a world of increasing danger and instability, how could this even be contemplated? And as to Medicare providers – will not cutting doctors and hospitals create massive supply disruptions that will make care for seniors difficult to obtain?
- Since both aspects of the mandatory actions on failure of the commission could be considered results sought by a majority of Democrats (based on past actions), hasn’t this bill essentially handed all the leverage over to that party? Why would the 6 Democrats on the commission have any incentive to compromise?
- Speaker Boehner’s PowerPoint charts say that the commission will not be able to raise taxes. Both Harry Reid and President Obama on the other hand, say “balance” – (meaning tax increases on “the rich”), is what they expect of the commission. How are these points of view to be reconciled?
- The CBO scoring of the bill assumes the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, raising taxes by several trillion, possibly accounting for all the “savings” from the bill over 10 years. What is the plan to prevent this massive tax increase on small businesses and the middle class?
- We understand that necessary changes cannot be made in one step, and that control of only the House and not the Senate and White House makes progress difficult. Accepting the premise that August 2 was a drop-dead date narrowed the range of options. That said, what leverage is remaining to the conservatives and what further steps can be taken short of defeating the President and winning control of the Senate in 2012? How do we continue the fight?
- And lest we forget, what happened to the pledge to have bills published on the Internet for a few days before a vote?
Note:
Both of our local conservative Congressmen from districts 22 and 16 voted for this bill. The Palm Beach County Tea Party is preparing a set of questions for them to help us understand their positions. Congressmen Allen West is a guest for the 8/15 PBCTP meeting and will have plenty of time to address these areas. Congressmen Rooney will also be a guest at the Labor Day Barbecue and can do the same. Watch this space.
So is it a GOOD DEAL?
So what’s in this new “deal”?
According to the Powerpoint released by the Speaker’s office (CLICK HERE), it is a good deal. Response from both sides of the aisle have been mixed though, and most are waiting to read the real bill. They better be quick though as they will likely have to vote on it tomorrow.
Here’s what seem like good things:
- No Tax Hikes are included in the bill
- Cuts more over 10 years than the debt ceiling is raised
- Cuts and caps discretionary spending
- First “tranche” is $900B increase now, second “tranche” needs to be acted on by Congress next year
- Second “tranche” of $1.5T enacted if BBA sent to the states by year end OR joint committee cuts spending (by Thanksgiving) more than another $1.5T
- Triggers require across the board cuts if caps are violated
- According to the Powerpoint, it makes it “impossible” for the Joint Committee to increase taxes
Some not so good things (not all mentioned in the Powerpoint):
- Spending cuts are back loaded – first two years are pocket change.
- Requires 12 member bipartisan “joint committee” to agree on second round of cuts – if no agreement, automatic cuts are applied to Medicare (doctors and providers get cut – not beneficiaries) and Defense. Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans and military pay are exempt
- Powerpoint claims that committee cannot raise taxes, yet one analysis implies that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire – effectively Obama’s tax on “the rich”. Will have to wait and see on that one.
So is this a good deal or not? My thought is that we may have been snookered again, just like with the continuing resolution earlier in the year. The democrats orchestrated this to be resolved at the last minute and the House will be asked to vote on it without having even a full day to consider the ramifications. Washington at its UGLIEST!
I withhold my judgement until I can read the bill. So should you.
Are You Really Interested in Creating Jobs, Mr. President?
Earlier in the year, I had the privilege of speaking to a local Tea Party group on why it is imperative that we have a national energy policy. I have spent much of my professional career in the energy field, particularly the electric utility industry. It is incredulous to me how our President cannot see or understand the severe damage he is creating by supporting and endorsing the ridiculous EPA regulations now being promulgated and the impact these regulations will have on job creation and getting things “built in America.”
To think President Obama won praise from businesses in January when he promised to bring “reason and balance” to a 21st century regulatory system is a real crock. Once again, watch what he does vs what he says because most of the time, they are diametrically opposed. Six months later after making this statement, he is preparing to issue the single most expensive environmental regulation in US history. There is simply nothing “reasonable or balanced” about the EPA’s proposal to tighten national air quality standards on ozone emissions. The EPA’s new standards are currently under review by the OMB but could end up on the President’s desk very soon. The tightening of the standards from 0.075ppm to 0-.070 ppm or even 0.060ppm would mean that 85% of the counties in the country would fall into nonattainment status.
The EPA estimates and their estimates are always way low is the cost of attainment is anywhere from $20 to $90BB annually. The estimate itself further should convince us they do not have a clue! Existing businesses or new businesses will be bound by these new regulations and will result in significantly higher costs and uncertainty of marginal facilities that would have to be retrofitted.
The EPA readily admits based on their own data that between 1990, when the Clean Air Act underwent its last major revision, and 2008, emissions of the six common pollutants including ozone were down 41! The EPA and President Obama simply have no understanding of the economic penalties that these regulations have on businesses and job creation. They have no concept of the “law of diminishing returns” that is to say, once you get down to a certain emission levels with respect to many of these regulated substances, the cost of incremental increases exponentially, far greater than the benefit to society. In other words, what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable! What is the cost vs benefits of tighten down further on these regulations?
In my talk to the Tea Party I referred to earlier, I quoted a few statements that Newt Gingrich made while campaigning in Iowa. He stated, “the EPA has rarely been innovative and has focused only on issuing regulations and litigation. What you have is a very expensive bureaucracy that across the board makes it hard to solve problems, and slows down the development of new innovations.” He goes on to say “we need to have an agency that is first of all limited, but cooperates with the 50 states. The EPA is based on bureaucrats centered in Washington issuing regulations and litigation and basically opposing things.
I would replace it with an environmental solution agency—we need an agency that would get up every morning, very much like the national institutes of health or the NSF, and try to figure out what do we need to do today to get a better environment that also gets us a better economy. The level of control that Washington bureaucrats want to extend over topics they don’t understand and communities they don’t live in is wrong. Having an attitude of getting up every morning and trying to stop the economy is just a very destructive attitude.”
If Obama was acting as he is saying, he would send the new ozone rules back to the EPA until a thorough scientific review was done as planned, to confirm the likely outcomes of the legislation. He would also ask for an accurate cost of implementation and then make an reasonable assessment on how this might affect recovery and job growth. But, he won’t!
Being a Grandparent
Being a Grandparent: I have been a grandparent for the last six years. Need I tell anyone the joys and heartaches that come with it? I do not think so. The demands, the crying, the laughs, the kisses and hugs are all a part of this wonderful journey. I did not have the benefit of my Grandparents. They passed away before we got to know one another. My dad told stories as do most families. These stories included gossip, medical remedies, tall tales and moments of courage. It is the moments of courage I remember most. My Dad and I were close but he, having raised his five kids alone, was not the typical grandparent. For me that was fine and very understandable. When I began my journey of grandparenthood I was very committed to the idea that I would take the very best of my and my dad’s life experiences and pass them on. Little did I know at the time I would be talking about the national debt. I would have talked about personal financial responsibility, i.e. saving your allowance, do not spend more than you have, do not use credit cards to get what you want unless you can pay it off the next month. Your financial profile tells a lot about who you are.
When I go on like this people say to me Janet you are forgetting a generation. What about your own kids. I say that I and most of the people of my generation spoiled our kids. We worked hard and believed it was better to make life easier for them. Unfortunately, we were wrong. We did not prepare them. They did not have the benefit of the experiences of people who lived thru the depression. I had many relatives talk about how hard it was. I sat with them and heard their stories of courage. Regrettably when I tried to repeat those stories I was silenced with the “yeh I know you walked five miles in the snow to go to school”. I did not demand they listen and learn. What can I expect of a generation that was raised in the good life. Is it their fault? There are exceptions to this and they are making their voices heard. God willing, one by one we shall all stand side by side to right this wrong.
I tell them to be concerned with the National debt. Pay attention for the sake of your children. I tell them that now because rightfully or wrongfully I am a part of a generation that has taken their future. I have to apologize to them. I have to tell them I am doing everything I can do to reverse it. I have to tell them I do not know if I will be successful.
Am I willing to cut back, stand up for what is right and quit the blame game to look for viable answers …yes. Are you? If you are, join the fight, put your boxing gloves on and fight a good fight. Win or lose, the most important lesson I can pass on to the next generation is be personally accountable for everything you say, do and how you vote.
God Bless Janet
Let The Truth Be Told
The real culprit in the current financial crisis is the current administration and the previous democratic controlled Pelosi-Reid congress. Americans need to understand (and of course with no support or help from the press) that the current debt ceiling is only a trigger on the proverbial “gun”—the gun has been the enormous spending boom of the last three years under the complete control of Obama-Pelosi-Reid. What makes matters worse is that two of the these three players and the press lack the political will to reduce spending in years to come—and are simply doing everything in their power to focus away from spending and instead muddying the water with tax revenue promotion. What a crock!
Spending is the problem and in the last three years the Obama-Pelosi-Reid regime has had an extraordinary blowout. We have not seen anything like it since WWII. Nothing even close—and no, not even during Bush’s second term. The chart below gives a graphical depiction of what we are talking about—and this should be place on every news wire day after day after day until folks can understand what the real problem is.
This chart clearly tracks federal outlays as a share of Gross Domestic Product since 1960. The early peaks represent the Johnson “Great Society” spending and then the high of 23.5% with the recession of 1982 coincident with Reagan’s defense buildup.
From this point, spending declined mostly during the 90’s when Clinton radically cut back defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000 from Reagan’s peak of 6.2% in 1986. During George W Bush’s years spending bounced back up to roughly 20% of GDP, but no more than 20.7% as recently as 2008!
Then the Obama “blowout” in concert with his team in Congress—Pelosi-Reid! The Democrats basically blew up the national balance sheet, lifting federal spending to 25% in 2009, the highest level since 1945. Though the supposed recession ended in 2009, spending in 2010 stayed high at nearly 24%, and this year, 2011, it is heading back toward 25%.
Federal debt held by the public as a share of GDP is another interesting perspective. In 2008, it was 40.3%, then 53.5% in 2009, 62.2% in 2010 and an estimated 72% this year, and is expected to continue rising in the future—driven of course by ObamaCare. These are heights not seen since the Korean War, and many analysts think the US debt will soon hit 90% or 100% of GDP—-think Greece boys and girls!
Now, Congress, under the leadership of Pelosi-Reid was responsible for the way so much spending was wasted, resulting in little job creation and the slowest economic recovery since 1930s. In the US system however, historically, President’s are supposed to be the fiscal watchdogs. When they fail to do so, the Congress if allowed spends like they are on steroids! This is exactly what has happened.
Now, what is all ironic about this is that all of a sudden, President Obama has got religion, and is claiming to now have found “fiscal virtue.” In fact, what he is really doing is using the debt-ceiling debate as a battering ram not to control spending but to command a tax increase! Why is the press not demanding specifics from Obama on the spending side of the equation! He has provided nothing—that is fact and what little he has said about cuts in spending are negligible. The only things that I have heard is his offer for immediate domestic nondefense discretionary cuts of $2BB—a drop in the proverbial bucket!
As for Obama’s proposed entitlement cuts—nada! His vague suggestions are nibbling around the edges of programs that are growing faster than inflation—and ObamaCare—is untouchable despite its $1 trillion in additional spending over the next several years and growing faster even afterwards!
So, now the showdown over the debt limit which has to be raised to accommodate all of “his” spending. And Obama of course instead of taking responsibility for the spending and focusing on reducing it is blaming the Republicans for being irresponsible because they won’t raise taxes in return for modest future spending restraints. And people are falling for this BS and the media does not have the guts to speak the truth! What a sad state of affairs!
