Archive for the ‘Fiscal Restraint’ Category
When Republicans took control of the Minnesota legislature, Minnesota had a $6,000,000,000 deficit. Thanks in large part to GOP reforms, Minnesota was able to erase that deficit without raising taxes. This morning, the final budget forecast was released. Here’s what it said:
For the coming fiscal cycle, which begins in July and lasts through 2015, the state’s deficit will be $627 million. Both are improvements over estimates from late last year. In November, economists predicted the state would have to grapple with a $1.1 billion deficit over the next two years.
That’s the headline information. Here’s the important information found further down in the article:
it also shows slight dips in projected spending, with the biggest savings coming from health and human services spending. “Savings from negotiated reductions in managed care rates for elderly and disabled basic care, adults without children, and families with children, as well as an increase in pharmacy rebates in (fiscal year) 2014-15 contributed to the reductions,” it says.
That’s another way of saying that the reforms authored by former Rep. Steve Gottwalt saved Minnesota taxpayers a significant chunk of money. The question no longer is whether Republican reforms worked. The question now shifts to being whether Gov. Dayton and the DFL legislature will significantly depart from the GOP budget blueprint. Based on Gov. Dayton’s budget and the bills getting committee hearings thus far, the answer to that question is apparently yes.
If passed as is, Gov. Dayton’s tax increase proposals will significantly hurt economic growth:
Dayton has proposed the most extensive rewriting of the state’s tax code in a generation. It would increase state taxes by $2.1 billion over the next two years, with top earners and businesses paying the brunt of the costs.
His budget would increase state spending from $35.2 billion in the current two-year cycle to $37.8 billion in the 2014-15 biennium. That’s a 7.6 percent increase.
The governor has said the state needs the extra money to erase a budget deficit, provide more money for education and property tax relief and stabilize future state budgets.
The biggest change he called for would broaden the sales tax base to include haircuts, car repairs, expensive clothes and, stirring the most controversy, business-to-business services, such as advertising, accounting and legal work that are not taxed now. In exchange, he would lower the sales tax rate from 6.875 percent to 5.5 percent.
Missing from that final paragraph is the fact that smaller cities, especially those that don’t get LGA, will get hit hardest by Gov. Dayton’s sales tax increase. Cities like Sauk Rapids and Sartell have attorneys from local law first on retainer, not on staff. The Dayton/Lenczewski/DFL tax increase bill, in its current form, would devastate smaller cities like Sauk Rapids, Sartell, Foley, St. Joe and Cold Spring.
It’s time to tell DFL legislators representing DFL legislators that it isn’t ok to vote for higher property taxes for small cities in rural Minnesota.
Tagsmaller Minnesota cities that they’ll lose their jobs if they vote for this sales tax increase. It’s time to tell these s: Mark Dayton, Tax Increases, Sales Taxes, Sartell, Sauk Rapids, Cold Spring, Foley, Property Taxes, Deficits, DFL, Steve Gottwalt, HHS Reform, Spending Restraint, MNGOP
John Boehner is failing. He’s playing President Obama’s game on President Obama’s court. He’s prosecuting the wrong case. Rather than discussing the terms of the fiscal cliff debate, Speaker Boehner should be talking about why Republicans’ pro-growth tax policies are America’s only hope for a variety of Obama-created ills.
First, Speaker Boehner should highlight the fact that President Clinton’s high tax rates didn’t trigger the great economy. He should remind the nation that it was Newt’s capital gains tax cuts that sent the economy into high gear. Prior to those tax cuts, the economy was doing ok. After cutting the capital gains tax, growth exploded.
Another thing that Speaker Boehner must do is remind people that Republicans’ insisting on balancing the federal budget helped strengthen the dollar, which led to a dramatic shrinking of America’s trade deficit. That especially affected gas prices.
Third, Speaker Boehner should shout from the rooftops that revenues during the Bush tax cuts were significantly bigger than revenues are today. If Speaker Boehner asked President Obama why he’s insisting on anti-growth policies that tamp the economy down rather than implementing new pro-growth policies that strengthen the economy, President Obama might well blow a gasket.
This is the debate we should start. This is the debate President Obama can’t win. This is the conversation that would expose President Obama’s motivation for imposing higher tax rates.
Rather than the pattern of proposal-counterproposal, then a counter offer to the counterproposal, with each side publicly stating that the other side needs to put forth a serious proposal, Speaker Boehner should ditch that pattern, especially the taunting language.
Instead, Speaker Boehner, followed by every Republican in Congress talking with their local newspapers and TV outlets about how cutting spending is what’s fair to taxpayers and how reforming the tax code, highlighted by fewer deductions and lower tax rates, would strengthen the economy.
Highlight the fact that this was the real reason why the economy was strong during the Clinton administration. Highlight the fact that the economy didn’t take off until Newt changed the trajectory of the debate.
President Obama is too arrogant to be frightened by that debate, which means Speaker Boehner should be able to turn this situation into a discussion on getting America’s economy going for the first time during President Obama’s administration.
With expensive utility bills, shrinking paychecks, high gas and grocery prices and unacceptably high unemployment rates, the indictment against President Obama’s mishandling of the economy should be lengthy and powerful.
Finally, he should unleash Paul Ryan. Speaker Boehner should insist on a televised fiscal cliff summit, with Ryan leading the prosecution of the case against President Obama’s reckless spending. Dave Camp should prosecute the case for why the GOP tax reform plan will strengthen the economy.
GOP senators and governors should take part in this summit, too. One tactic President Obama has overplayed is saying that ‘we can talk about that’ on a variety of policies, then dropping that position the minute he’s out of the room. Republicans should tell him that implementing a pro-growth economic plan is non-negotiable.
Finally, make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates won’t affect the Warren Buffetts of the world because their income comes from investments, not wages. Make the case that raising the top marginal tax rates will hurt small businesses, not the evil Wall Street fatcats President Obama always talks about.
President Obama’s policies are failing. Speaker Boehner’s ineptitude in highlighting those failures has the fiscal cliff conversation heading in the wrong direction. It’s time to change the direction of that conversation.
Tags: Fiscal Cliff, John Boehner, Debate, Fiscal Cliff Summit, Paul Ryan, Dave Camp, John Kasich, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Tax Reform, Spending Reform, GOP, President Obama, Unemployment, Deficits, Gas Prices, Electric Bills, Groceries, Inflation, Median Household Income, Democrats
The closing of the SCSU Aviation Department has Roger Cohen asking where the pilots will come from for the next major pilot shortage, which is looming on the horizon:
Here’s a partial transcript of a key portion of the MPR article on Aviation:
COHEN: The need now for skilled aviation professionals and young people to get into aviation at any level is greater now than it’s ever been. The opportunity now is greater than it’s ever been.
If “the opportunity [for aviation professionals] is greater than it’s ever been”, isn’t that the right time to expand the Aviation program?
When WCCO-TV did an article about the SCSU Aviation program, they interviewed SCSU President Earl Potter. During the interview, President Potter said that SCSU’s focus would now be on STEM, aka Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.
What President Potter didn’t talk about, at least in the portion that aired that Sunday, was that Fedex offered to give one of its cargo planes that it was retiring to SCSU. The plane would’ve been stationed at the St. Cloud Regional Airport and it would’ve been available for STEM projects and studies for college students as well as for field trips from students as young as Kindergarten through to college graduates.
If SCSU genuinely wanted to focus on STEM issues, why did it reject this fantastic gift to the university? Shouldn’t they have accepted it with a smile on their faces?
The reality is that there’s a huge pilot shortage looming on the horizon, a horizon that’s getting very close to becoming reality.
SCSU Provost Malhotra defended the Potter administration’s actions this way:
MALHOTRA: It is not as if we wanted to set out closing Aviation. In fact, when we started out the Strategic Program Appraisal, we did not know that we would be closing Aviation. We knew that we would be closing some programs but which one of those programs would be an outgrowth of a very broad campus-level discussion.
According to Conrad Wilson’s article, shutting down the Aviation Department will save approximately $500,000. That’s roughly the equivalent of what they’re paying EMG for their services. Shouldn’t the Potter administration worry more about not spending big chunks of money on consultants than closing departments?
It seems that they’re only interested in closing programs that actually have great hiring records upon graduation. This part of Wilson’s article is what’s wrong with SCSU thinking:
WILSON: Leaders at St. Cloud State say that the program closure is part of a university restructuring. Devinder Malhotra, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, says St. Cloud State has refocused on creating graduates with a broad base of knowledge, not just ones ready for a specific job.
That’s a rip-off. Those students’ parents aren’t paying tuition so their sons and daughters can get “a broad base of knowledge.” They’re paying for an education that will help their sons and daughters find a high-paying job that offers a promising career path.
Perhaps that’s why enrollment at SCSU dropped precipitously this past year. It isn’t surprising that large percentages of college graduates unable to find jobs are moving home. Why haven’t universities and colleges focused on turning out students that can step into a promising career the minute they graduate?
Employers aren’t looking for employees “with a broad base of knowledge.” They’re looking for people who can positively impact their company the minute that they’re hired.
With the first election test behind us, it’s on to New Hampshire, where Mitt Romney enjoys a dominant lead. With the spotlight now on New Hampshire, though, will come intensified scrutiny and criticism. The NH Union-Leader’s endorsement of Newt will sting Mitt. Witness this editorial:
Mitt Romney’s entire pitch for the White House is based on one premise: He spent his career in business, and therefore he can turn around the economy and create jobs. Romney had a successful business career, but his economic plan would be far less successful than the one offered by Newt Gingrich.
Romney’s plan is, like the candidate, cautious and reserved. It does not go far enough to reduce federal tax and regulatory burdens, or to reform Washington. Economist Paul Hoffmeister, writing in Forbes magazine this week, reached this conclusion about Romney’s plan: “his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.”
By contrast, Newt Gingrich’s plan is remarkably bold and reform-oriented. Not only would Gingrich be more aggressive than Romney in cutting taxes that harm business and job growth, he would be more aggressive in rethinking Washington’s entire regulatory culture. It’s a major reason why he was endorsed by economist Art Laffer, the father of supply-side economics, and famed conservative economist Thomas Sowell. If you want a President who will actually do what’s necessary to spark a swift and broad recovery, it’s not Romney; it’s Gingrich.
Mitt, by his very nature, is timid. The reality is that Mitt’s economic plan looks like George H.W. Bush’s economic plan. Newt’s plan looks strikingly similar to President Reagan’s plan.
Why would people settle for George H.W. Bush’s plan when they could have President Reagan’s plan?
The Union-Leader cited Art Laffer’s and Thomas Sowell’s endorsement of Newt’s plan, which I wrote about here. The question, at least for thoughtful people who care about what’s best for this nation, is simple: why would you pick a former hedge fund manager’s timid economic plan over a plan that created 20,000,000 jobs and that’s been touted by 2 of the economic heavyweights of the conservative movement?
That isn’t saying Mitt’s plan is awful. It’s definitely better than Obamanomics. It’s just that you don’t pick a Pontiac when you can pick a Cadillac for the same price.
Let’s also debunk the myth that Mitt’s still a great businessman. I wrote here that Mitt’s been more than a little tied up in governing and campaigning to pay attention to Bain Capital:
Prior to Mitt running for governor, he was hired to run the Olympic Games in February, 1999. He hasn’t been in the private sector since. After running the Winter Games, he ran for governor in Massachusetts and getting elected. After Mitt announced that he wasn’t seeking a second term in 2006, he essentially started running for president. Now it’s late 2011 and Mitt’s still running for president.
In short, he hasn’t worked in the private sector in almost 13 years.
Mitt Romney is settling for too little. He isn’t a bold reformer. Mitt isn’t the guy who’ll try to fight Washington at a time when Washington needs to be fought against. Mitt Romney is from the go-along-to-get-along school of governance.
That’s better than Obama’s administration but why settle on topping such a low hurdle?
Then again, Mitt’s gone further on greenhouse gas emissions than this administration’s EPA has gone:
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
Mitt Romney imposed expensive regulations on power plants, then initiated price controls on those power plants to stick them with the cost of his expensive regulations.
Combine those things with Mitt’s timid economic plan and you’re looking at a mediocre presidential candidate. It’s like picking George H.W. Bush when you could’ve had President Reagan.
No disrespect to George H.W. Bush but that isn’t too bright, is it?
Expecting (fearing?) that they’d be dealing with another major deficit, legislators were greeted with good news this morning:
Minnesota budget officials on Thursday estimated an $876 million surplus for the rest of their two-year budget, easing fears of another bruising political fight just months after partisan deadlock led to a partial shutdown of state government.
The surplus was a surprise. Most Capitol observers had expected bad news in the economic forecast, with red-ink estimates ranging from $500 million to $1 billion.
Surely, the DFL will attempt to spend the surplus. In fact,that’s dog-bites-man news. The GOP will, at most, use part of the surplus to pay down the school shifts. Even then, that wouldn’t happen until after the February forecast.
Rep. Ryan Winkler released this statement outlining how he’d like the money to get spent:
“The State of Minnesota just found a $20 bill in its pocket. We haven’t solved our money problems. So Minnesota politicians should not repeat past mistakes and use a small budget surplus to offer tax cuts or rebates to tax payers. This surplus should be used to move us toward a responsible budget by paying back tobacco bonds and paying down the school shift.
“We have tremendous obstacles to future prosperity that we must address: a shrinking middle class, reduced research and development, an aging population, and an education system that isn’t preparing enough students for the world economy. We can’t tackle any of these problems without sound state finances.
“The forecast could also change between now and February, and Minnesota faces a huge deficit in the next budget cycle. We must take this opportunity to begin paying off the irresponsible debt racked up as a result of dysfunctional politics and an extremist Republican majority.”
By issuing a statement that essentially says that spening fists full of money is his first priority, Rep. Winkler sounds like other cookie cutter progressives.
His statement is filled with complaints about all that’s wrong with the shrinking middle class, education, people getting older, etc. What’s missing from Rep. Winkler’s statement is a lengthy, detailed list of solutions.
Pat Garofalo’s tweet is totally spot on about Winkler:
RepRyanWinkler Like a 2 year old in a temper tantrum-the Democrats mess their diaper and then complain about how mommy cleans them up.
Apparently, Rep. Winkler hasn’t figured it out that Minnesotans are demanding their elected officials to solve problems, not just whine about them. It’ll become apparent next fall is that Republicans are the political party proposing solutions and the DFL is the political party whining about them.
Thursday evening, Dick Morris tried selling Greta on the Herman Cain surge that Morris says is ongoing. According to Karl Rove’s reporting, Cain’s surge peaked in mid-October, then started falling, albeit slowly. The other thing Morris is peddling is the notion that 9-9-9 is a worthwhile plan that should be taken seriously.
It’s a terrible plan, despite what Art Laffer says. When questioned about the federal government collecting both a national sales tax and a federal income tax, Laffer said that Democrats can do that the next time they control the House, Senate and White House.
That’s true enough but it’s missing the point. If they want to pass that in those circumstances, let them. Then let them take the political beating the next election cycle. Americans won’t stand for both a federal income tax and a national sales tax. PERIOD.
Why 9-9-9 is stupid is because it’s being proposed by a Republican. If Democrats want to propose it, then they own that proposal. If a Republican proposes and passes it, then Democrats raise that rate, Democrats can rationalize it by saying they’re just raising a tax created by Republicans. In essence, they’d be saying ‘it must not be bad because Republicans proposed it’.
Republicans couldn’t argue that point. They would’ve essentially picked up a baseball bat, handed it to the Democrats, then said ‘Here, hit me with the bat I just gave you.’
Frankly, a pretty impressive case can be made that 9-9-9 is capable of doing alot more damage than the current tax code. A fairly easy case can be made that Rick Perry’s flat tax and Newt Gingrich’s tax overhaul are significantly better tax reforms than 9-9-9.
For instance, Speaker Gingrich’s plan calls for a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. That’s only 3.5 points higher than Cain’s plan with the added bonus of not featuring a national sales tax.
That’s a big deal because it doesn’t create a new revenue stream that progressives will use to grow government.
It’s time for more people to tell Mr. Cain why his plan is foolish from a political perspective.
This reporting isn’t surprising. Unfortunately, it’s pretty predictable:
Democrats want tax hikes to be the first item negotiated in “super committee” deficit-reduction talks, trying to force Republicans to confront an issue at the heart of this year’s budget fights, sources told Reuters.
The tough stance by Democratic members of the powerful 12-member congressional panel reflects the party’s wariness that Republicans might try to sideline the issue of revenue increases in the negotiations.
If Democrats insist on pushing tax hikes, whether they’re the first things considered or the last, they’ll find themselves facing an electoral disaster 14 months from now. When the American people are asked if we have a spending problem or if we aren’t taxed enough, they consistently say that we spend too much.
If the supercommittee can’t reach an agreement, then the trainwreck will unfold. Potentially, that’s a positive thing if it’s handled right. If the GOP leadership wages the right messaging war in the media, they’ll win because raising taxes isn’t popular.
This isn’t the time for bipartisanship. This is the time to, proverbially speaking, pound Democrats’ heads into a brick wall on tax hikes. It’s the time to remind people that this administration has increased spending like no other in U.S. history.
It’s time to remind people that the stimulus was just the first egregious spending initiative. In reality, it was a bailout of the public employee unions. Then came the UAW bailouts. After that came President Obama’s budgets, which spiked spending at crazy, irresponsible amounts.
This year, we’ve been treated to stimulus giveaways to companies like Solyndra. Thanks to Steven Chu’s stubborn insistence on granting the loans, the American taxpayers are on the hook to the tune of $535,000,000.
It’s time for Republicans to persistently ask Democrats whether these are problems caused by not taxing the rich enough or if it’s a problem caused by the reckless spending spree pushed through by President Obama, then-Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Then it’s time to ask whether raising taxes would re-invigorate the economy or if it’d plunge it into a second Obama recession. Finally, it’s time to ask these Democrats if they really want to run having pushed for the biggest tax hike in U.S. history.
Now’s the time for the GOP to play hardball. They’re holding all the aces while the Democrats are holding a pair of 7′s.
Most importantly, holding firm against the Democrats’ tax hikes is the right thing to do policywise.
Minnesota’s credit rating was just downgraded, which will inevitably lead to higher interest rates for bonding projects. In fact, those higher interest rates might in Minnesota sooner rather than later. Here’s the details from CNBC:
Minnesota’s last remaining perfect AAA credit rating disappeared on Friday when Standard & Poor’s downgraded the state’s debt, citing lawmakers’ weakness for fixing budget shortfalls with accounting shifts and rainy day funds.
The New York-based agency cut its rating on the state’s bonds to AA+, joining Fitch Ratings and Moody’s Investors Service in giving a less-than-perfect grade to a state long proud of being above average. The downgrade also is likely to lead to higher borrowing costs for the state and local governments including cities and school districts, although the initial increase could be masked by low interest rates. The state is due to sell bonds next week and later this year.
Naturally, the lefties have jumped on this as proof that the GOP legislature should’ve voted to kill businesses:
Minority Leader Paul Thissen (DFL-Minneapolis) put it well in a press release:
Every day that passes, the consequences of the Republicans’ beg, borrow, and steal budget solution become more glaring. Our kids started the school year in debt, with nearly half of their schools asking taxpayers to fill their budget gaps. Now the Republican-forced loans that schools, cities, and counties are seeking will come at a higher cost.
Rep. Thissen shouldn’t be heard until the DFL produces a budget with specific legislative language and spreadsheets. Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk spent last session whining about the GOP’s budget without producing their own budget.
Should these legislators, along with Gov. Dayton, not get blamed for their insistence on spending every penny that taxpayers sent to St. Paul? I don’t think so. Of course, Gov. Dayton
whined weighed in on the issue:
Dayton, who gave up on a plan to raise income taxes on the highest earners because of GOP resistance, blamed Republicans for the downgrade.
He called it “very disappointing but not surprising, given the fiscal irresponsibility of the Legislature’s Republican majority. Standard and Poor’s specifically cited the use of one-time measures, which would not have been necessary had my proposed budget been adopted.”
It’s convenient that he didn’t mention that it was his budget that caused the logjam. Gov. Downgrade’s tax increases wouldn’t have fixed the problem, either in the short- or long-term. It’s time he admitted that. The fix would’ve been momentary. The tax hike would’ve been permanent.
What’s infuriating is that the DFL, led by Mssrs. Bakk and Thissen and backstopped by Gov. Dayton, opposed the GOP’s reforms until the people insisted on them passing.
Let’s remember that Gov. Dayton planned on touring the state to pressure Republican legislators into raising taxes during the shutdown. They initially announced that it’d be a 4 day tour of the state. Gov. Dayton’s staff pulled the plug after 2 days.
Gov. Downgrade and the DFL hoped to hear a cavalcade of cheers for the DFL’s tax-the-rich scheme. Instead, Steve Gottwalt framed things perfectly, which exposed the shutdown tour as a DFL PR stunt. That essentially ended the shutdown.
The reality is that the DFL cared more about paying off their political allies than they cared about being the taxpayers’ watchdog or replenishing the state’s reserve fund. Had they sought a sound policy from the outset, things would’ve been substantially different.
Let’s remember that Gov. Dayton’s initial budget called for $39,000,000,000 in general fund spending for the 2012-13 biennium. That budget called for creating a 10.95% top tax rate plus a 3% surcharge for people making $1,000,000 annually.
With the “Bush tax cuts” extended, the economy experienced a momentary bounce. That triggered a momentary gain of one-time revenue for Minnesota’s general fund. Rather than setting that money aside, the DFL’s spendaholic legislature and governor insisted that we spend it all.
That’s irresponsibility personified.
Isn’t it interesting that the DFL is whining that the state didn’t spend enough even though this is the biggest general fund budget in state history?
The DFL insisted on spending more, which the people didn’t want. The people insisted on spending less. After stripping the DFL’s arguments away, that’s why we got the budget we got.
Let’s understand something about Gov. Downgrade’s tax increases. They would’ve hurt Minnesota’s economy. They wouldn’t have generated the revenues that Gov. Downgrade predicted. (Isn’t that always the case?)
Gov. Downgrade’s tax hikes would’ve caused some businesses to relocate to another state. Other businesses would’ve been hurt while other businesses would’ve cut the cost of doing businesses by laying people off or not giving them raises or by making employees pay for more their insurance premiums.
If the DFL wants to remain relevant over the long-term, they need to stop with their spendaholic,
taxaholic ways. When the DFL was ascendant, they were the party that spent money on a real education system. Now they’re the party that funds higher education.
They’re the party that spends money on higher education to pay off their political allies. When the DFL was ascendant, they were the party that reveled in being the funders of innovation. What we see now in the DFL’s budget is the funding of the stale status quo.
That mindset of complacency led to the bond-rating houses downgrading Minnesota’s bond rating. Couple that with Gov. Downgrade’s dithering on accepting the will of the people and you’ve got the formula for downgrading Minnesota’s bond rating.
What was a busy news morning for Minnesota politics just got hectic. Appearing on Esme Murphy’s program on WCCO-TV this morning, Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Tony Sutton said that he will approach Gov. Pawlenty to see if he’s willing to run against Amy Klobuchar.
Despite solid polling figures, Sen. Klobuchar is exceptionally vulnerable. She’s voted for each of President Obama’s failed economic policies, including his disastrous stimulus and Obamacare.
Minnesota is an innovator in the health care and health insurance industry. Sen. Klobuchar’s vote for Obamacare essentially took away Minnesota’s ability to innovate. What’s worse is that Obamacare raised taxes on 2 important Minnesota companies, Boston Scientific and Medtronic.
Gov. Pawlenty would be a strong advocate for a robust domestic energy production policy. He’d vote to limit the EPA’s and the NLRB’s authority. Finally, he’d vote to repeal Dodd-Frank and for tax reform.
A Pawlenty-Klobuchar match-up would instantly jump to being the most watched Senate race in the nation for 2012. With Sen. Klobuchar’s vulnerabilities and Gov. Pawlenty’s fundraising abilities, plus his substantial policy chops, Sen. Klobuchar’s best bet is to pray Gov. Pawlenty doesn’t jump into the race.
About 90 minutes ago, Michele Bachmann called on President Obama to fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner:
BACHMANN: That’s right Greta. Tonight’s decision by S & P to downgrade our credit rating from AAA to AA+ is historically significant. It’s a very serious event for the United States because our country has had a AAA bond rating since 1917. That rating has never been downgraded since before the Great Depression, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the terrorist attacks on 9-1-1.
This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through failed economic policy and his inability to control government spending by once again raising the debt ceiling. We were warned by all of the credit agencies that a failure to deal with the debt would lead to this downgrade in our credit rating. But instead, this president submitted a budget that had a $1.5 trillion deficit and then he requested a $2.4 trillion blank check on top of that.
President Obama is destroying the foundations of our economy one beam at a time. I call on the president to seek the immediate resignation of Treasury Secretary Geithner and to submit a plan with his list of cuts that balance the budget this year, turn this economy around and put our people back to work.
I’m very concerned that this administration tomorrow might look for anyone else to blame. They may blame the TEA Party. They may blame the rating agencies or anyone else. They knew this was coming this year in January but they didn’t write a plan and they still don’t have a plan.
That’s letting this administration have it with both barrels, something that should’ve happened weeks, possibly months, before this.
There isn’t a sentence in Michele’s statement that I’d disagree with. President Obama’s policies aren’t just failing. It’s that they’re expensive and adding trillions of dollars of debt in just 3 years.
Think about this: This year’s deficit will be equal to or more than the debt added by the Bush administration. What’s worse is that President Obama’s plan hasn’t created enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Obamanomics certainly hasn’t created a real economy, either.
Geithner’s resignation is the minimum requirement, actually. Entitlement reform must be on the Supercommission’s agenda. The Supercomission members must be sober-thinking people, not bombthrowers like Chris van Hollen, Chuck Schumer and the like.
We can’t afford to play politics with this anymore. Naming Paul Ryan as the chair of the committee is essential, as is naming Tom Coburn, Jim Jordan, Dave Camp, Marco Rubio and Jim Demint to the commission.
One part of the group should work on reforming entitlements, with the other group working on reforming government, especially focusing on regulatory reform. The first group should be chaired by Paul Ryan; the other group should be chaired by Jim Jordan.
Obamacare must be repealed. Simply put, we can’t afford it any longer. We never could. Dodd-Frank must be repealed too. The EPA and the NLRB must be reined in. Domestic energy production must start ASAP, too.
In short, hardline progressive policies must be rejected.
Tonight, S & P essentially told President Obama that his isn’t a serious administration in terms of creating a great economy or being fiscally prudent.
Tonight, they, along with Michele Bachmann, told President Obama that his will be a one-term administration.
Technorati: S & P, Bond Rating, AAA, AA+, Great Depression, President Obama, Tim Geithner, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, Repeal, Democrats, Paul Ryan, Entitlements, Regulations, Reforms, Tom Coburn, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann, Republicans, Election 2012