Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
October 31, 2012
Joe Pitts
My husband, Joe Pitts, is running for Congress again this year. I'm writing to you to ask for your support. Joe and I know the joy of raising a family. We also know the struggles. When we were first married, we were both school teachers. In those days, teachers did not make much money. We faced difficult choices. When we had our first child I wanted to stay home with her but, like so many families, we simply couldn't make ends meet without my salary.
Dear Friend,
My husband, Joe Pitts, is running for Congress again this year. I'm writing to you to ask for your support.
Joe and I know the joy of raising a family. We also know the struggles. When we were first married, we were both school teachers. In those days, teachers did not make much money. We faced difficult choices. When we had our first child I wanted to stay home with her but, like so many families, we simply couldn't make ends meet without my salary.
It was then that Joe joined the Air Force to fly 116 combat missions in Vietnam. It took him away from us but we were proud to know Dad was serving our country. Like most military families, we prayed for Joe's safety and counted the days when he would return home.
In his busy career Joe has been away a lot - in Southeast Asia, Harrisburg and Washington but he has always found time for me and our kids. He's a good listener. Every night Joe was in Harrisburg he called home and spoke to each of the kids individually. Every month he took one of the children to breakfast, giving each child the individual attention they needed from their father.
Joe hasn't kept that kind of care and concern just for his family. Every time Joe votes on a bill in Congress, he has American families' economic security in mind - a quality education, a good job and a secure and dignified retirement. And Joe is committed to preserving our fundamental values of family, faith and freedom.
Joe is independent minded and works in a bi-partisan fashion. For Joe compromise is not a dirty word, it's a way to get things done in a democracy. Our newspapers have singled Joe out for praise for his willingness to seek common ground for the common good.
I think people are looking for leaders who listen, who care and who can work together for the good of our country. I hope you'll vote for Joe on Tuesday, November 6th, so he can use his experience to help solve problems that affect us all. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ginny Pitts
My husband, Joe Pitts, is running for Congress again this year. I'm writing to you to ask for your support.
Joe and I know the joy of raising a family. We also know the struggles. When we were first married, we were both school teachers. In those days, teachers did not make much money. We faced difficult choices. When we had our first child I wanted to stay home with her but, like so many families, we simply couldn't make ends meet without my salary.
It was then that Joe joined the Air Force to fly 116 combat missions in Vietnam. It took him away from us but we were proud to know Dad was serving our country. Like most military families, we prayed for Joe's safety and counted the days when he would return home.
In his busy career Joe has been away a lot - in Southeast Asia, Harrisburg and Washington but he has always found time for me and our kids. He's a good listener. Every night Joe was in Harrisburg he called home and spoke to each of the kids individually. Every month he took one of the children to breakfast, giving each child the individual attention they needed from their father.
Joe hasn't kept that kind of care and concern just for his family. Every time Joe votes on a bill in Congress, he has American families' economic security in mind - a quality education, a good job and a secure and dignified retirement. And Joe is committed to preserving our fundamental values of family, faith and freedom.
Joe is independent minded and works in a bi-partisan fashion. For Joe compromise is not a dirty word, it's a way to get things done in a democracy. Our newspapers have singled Joe out for praise for his willingness to seek common ground for the common good.
I think people are looking for leaders who listen, who care and who can work together for the good of our country. I hope you'll vote for Joe on Tuesday, November 6th, so he can use his experience to help solve problems that affect us all. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ginny Pitts
-
0
October 30, 2010
Joe Pitts
Still not sure who to vote for? Take a look at this comparison of Joe Pitts and Lois Herr on the issues. It is fully documented so you can check the facts for yourself.
Still not sure who to vote for? Take a look at this comparison of Joe Pitts and Lois Herr on the issues. It is fully documented so you can check the facts for yourself.
-
0
June 09, 2011
Joe Pitts
I’m concerned that our number-one national priority, job creation, is being ignored in Washington. Washington is too distracted by scandals, partisanship, and other things that simply aren’t as important. America is still faced with an unemployment crisis, and Washington needs to stay focused on it.
I’m concerned that our number-one national priority, job creation, is being ignored in Washington. Washington is too distracted by scandals, partisanship, and other things that simply aren’t as important. America is still faced with an unemployment crisis, and Washington needs to stay focused on it.
Government statistics tell us Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate is 7.5 percent, more than a point lower than it was a year ago. That’s not the number I’m most interested in. The number that matters to me is 477,113. That’s the number of Pennsylvanians who don’t have jobs. Almost half a million of our neighbors can’t find work.
But even that number is misleading. It doesn’t count people who have settled for low-paying or part-time jobs. It doesn’t count those who have given up looking. Pennsylvania’s “effective unemployment rate,” which counts these people, is far higher than 7.5 percent: it’s 14.4 percent. That means nearly a million Pennsylvanians are out of work or have taken low-paying jobs out of desperation.
A key reason voters gave Republicans a second chance last year was America’s belief that the trillion-dollar “stimulus” and the multi-billion-dollar bailouts were little more than expensive failures. I and many others pushed hard for better approach.
In January of 2009, and again a year ago, I proposed a path to job creation based on six core principles. If we did each of these things, businesses could quickly begin to invest in new jobs:
Congress cannot force employers to hire. But Washington can create an environment that encourages businesses to hire. Amazingly, Washington has not only failed to act in these areas, it has actually done the opposite of what is necessary to spur job creation. Here’s an update on each of the six action items.
Action Item 1: Helping Right Now
While the best solution to unemployment is a good job, I’ve done my part to help those who need assistance in the meantime. I voted repeatedly to extend unemployment benefits throughout the recession, but I also insisted that they not be paid for with more government IOUs.
Status: When Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate dropped below 8.5 percent, we no longer qualified for these extensions. That makes it even more important that we act quickly to create jobs for people whose benefits have run out.
Action Item 2: More and Cheaper Energy
Every part of our economy runs on energy: from driving to work to turning on the lights when you get there. Manufacturing, a key driver of middle-class job creation, is particularly dependent on energy. When energy sources like electricity, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas are expensive, companies have less money to spend on people. It is essential that we make energy as inexpensive as possible, without endangering the environment.
Status: Continued opposition to domestic energy production is hurting our economy. The Administration’s policy of keeping the dollar weak has also led to high gas prices. The House of Representatives has passed several bills to increase domestic energy production from all sources. If passed by the Senate and signed by the President, we would lower energy prices for everyone and lessen our dependence on imported fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world.
Action Item 3: Low and Stable Taxes
Jobs don’t come from the government. Jobs come from successful business that grow, take risks, and hire. For years, our tax code has been a major disincentive to hiring. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world (though loopholes do allow some businesses to avoid paying their share.) But only half of American businesses pay corporate taxes. The other half pay taxes the way you and I do: using a 1040 form. These are usually the small, entrepreneurial businesses that are the real engines of our economy. Seesawing tax rates and frequent talk of raising taxes on the “rich” (who are often actually just struggling businesses) has made it impossible for employers to plan for the future and hire.
Status: A month after the election last year, a bipartisan agreement was reached to extend the current tax rates for two years. This averted what would have been the largest tax increase in history. While job creators still can’t plan for the long term, they at least know what to expect for the next two years.
Action Item 4: Open New Markets
New markets for American goods would very quickly create tens of thousands of new jobs. Three already-negotiated trade agreements have been left unratified by Congress for almost four years. South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are just three of the countries that are eager to buy more of our goods, but they can’t until Congress acts. That has cost jobs.
Status: While these agreements have been languishing, our competitors have been moving ahead. The European Union ratified its own trade agreement with South Korea on February 17. If we don’t act quickly, Europe, China, and others will beat us to the punch, leaving American employers at a disadvantage. That will cost jobs. Four years of inaction has already cost 250,000 jobs, according to Obama Administration numbers.
Action Item 5: Balance the Budget
Our government is more than $14 trillion in debt. About 40 cents of every dollar our government spends is borrowed. We have over $100 trillion in binding commitments we have no plan to pay for. This is extremely dangerous to our current and future prosperity. It has to stop. In a sign of how serious this is, S&P downgraded its outlook on America’s credit rating to “negative” in April, expressing pessimism that we will get our fiscal house in order. Moody’s Investor Services warned on June 2 that its rating will “depend on the outcome of the negotiations on deficit reduction.”
Status: Politics and demagoguery are the primary reasons for inaction. The truth is, if we raised the top tax bracket to 100 percent and completely shut down the Department of Defense, the budget still would not be balanced. We must save, strengthen, and fix Medicare and other entitlement programs to solve this problem. Until both parties can work together on this, progress won’t happen.
Action Item 6: Wise and Consistent Regulation
“Cap and trade,” increased government control of healthcare, and many of the other initiatives from the last Congress promised major disruptions to America’s regulatory structure. Businesses weren’t only waiting to find out what would happen to their taxes—they were also waiting to find out what new regulations were going to cost them. In the meantime, they didn’t hire. Regardless of the merits of these proposals, the timing of them was terrible.
Status: The President’s healthcare plan is now law, but that has not ended the uncertainty. The Department of Health and Human Services is working overtime to write sweeping regulations that will affect nearly every employer in America. At the same time, the law’s continued unpopularity and a strong challenge to its constitutionality make it uncertain whether the law will survive at all.
Looking Ahead
Despite Washington’s errors, the economy seems to be improving slowly. I believe there is good reason for optimism as we look ahead. Long-term, the American people won’t stand for a government that ignores our nation’s biggest challenges. But we must deal with the situation we are faced with now, and that means doing everything we can to make sure every American—and every Pennsylvanian—who wants a job can find one. This is my top priority.
Government statistics tell us Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate is 7.5 percent, more than a point lower than it was a year ago. That’s not the number I’m most interested in. The number that matters to me is 477,113. That’s the number of Pennsylvanians who don’t have jobs. Almost half a million of our neighbors can’t find work.
But even that number is misleading. It doesn’t count people who have settled for low-paying or part-time jobs. It doesn’t count those who have given up looking. Pennsylvania’s “effective unemployment rate,” which counts these people, is far higher than 7.5 percent: it’s 14.4 percent. That means nearly a million Pennsylvanians are out of work or have taken low-paying jobs out of desperation.
A key reason voters gave Republicans a second chance last year was America’s belief that the trillion-dollar “stimulus” and the multi-billion-dollar bailouts were little more than expensive failures. I and many others pushed hard for better approach.
In January of 2009, and again a year ago, I proposed a path to job creation based on six core principles. If we did each of these things, businesses could quickly begin to invest in new jobs:
1. Help People Right Away
2. Lower Energy Prices
3. Low and Stable Taxes
4. New Markets for American Goods
5. Balance the Budget
6. Wise and Consistent Regulation
2. Lower Energy Prices
3. Low and Stable Taxes
4. New Markets for American Goods
5. Balance the Budget
6. Wise and Consistent Regulation
Congress cannot force employers to hire. But Washington can create an environment that encourages businesses to hire. Amazingly, Washington has not only failed to act in these areas, it has actually done the opposite of what is necessary to spur job creation. Here’s an update on each of the six action items.
Action Item 1: Helping Right Now
While the best solution to unemployment is a good job, I’ve done my part to help those who need assistance in the meantime. I voted repeatedly to extend unemployment benefits throughout the recession, but I also insisted that they not be paid for with more government IOUs.
Status: When Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate dropped below 8.5 percent, we no longer qualified for these extensions. That makes it even more important that we act quickly to create jobs for people whose benefits have run out.
Action Item 2: More and Cheaper Energy
Every part of our economy runs on energy: from driving to work to turning on the lights when you get there. Manufacturing, a key driver of middle-class job creation, is particularly dependent on energy. When energy sources like electricity, diesel, gasoline, and natural gas are expensive, companies have less money to spend on people. It is essential that we make energy as inexpensive as possible, without endangering the environment.
Status: Continued opposition to domestic energy production is hurting our economy. The Administration’s policy of keeping the dollar weak has also led to high gas prices. The House of Representatives has passed several bills to increase domestic energy production from all sources. If passed by the Senate and signed by the President, we would lower energy prices for everyone and lessen our dependence on imported fossil fuels from unstable parts of the world.
Action Item 3: Low and Stable Taxes
Jobs don’t come from the government. Jobs come from successful business that grow, take risks, and hire. For years, our tax code has been a major disincentive to hiring. Our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world (though loopholes do allow some businesses to avoid paying their share.) But only half of American businesses pay corporate taxes. The other half pay taxes the way you and I do: using a 1040 form. These are usually the small, entrepreneurial businesses that are the real engines of our economy. Seesawing tax rates and frequent talk of raising taxes on the “rich” (who are often actually just struggling businesses) has made it impossible for employers to plan for the future and hire.
Status: A month after the election last year, a bipartisan agreement was reached to extend the current tax rates for two years. This averted what would have been the largest tax increase in history. While job creators still can’t plan for the long term, they at least know what to expect for the next two years.
Action Item 4: Open New Markets
New markets for American goods would very quickly create tens of thousands of new jobs. Three already-negotiated trade agreements have been left unratified by Congress for almost four years. South Korea, Panama, and Colombia are just three of the countries that are eager to buy more of our goods, but they can’t until Congress acts. That has cost jobs.
Status: While these agreements have been languishing, our competitors have been moving ahead. The European Union ratified its own trade agreement with South Korea on February 17. If we don’t act quickly, Europe, China, and others will beat us to the punch, leaving American employers at a disadvantage. That will cost jobs. Four years of inaction has already cost 250,000 jobs, according to Obama Administration numbers.
Action Item 5: Balance the Budget
Our government is more than $14 trillion in debt. About 40 cents of every dollar our government spends is borrowed. We have over $100 trillion in binding commitments we have no plan to pay for. This is extremely dangerous to our current and future prosperity. It has to stop. In a sign of how serious this is, S&P downgraded its outlook on America’s credit rating to “negative” in April, expressing pessimism that we will get our fiscal house in order. Moody’s Investor Services warned on June 2 that its rating will “depend on the outcome of the negotiations on deficit reduction.”
Status: Politics and demagoguery are the primary reasons for inaction. The truth is, if we raised the top tax bracket to 100 percent and completely shut down the Department of Defense, the budget still would not be balanced. We must save, strengthen, and fix Medicare and other entitlement programs to solve this problem. Until both parties can work together on this, progress won’t happen.
Action Item 6: Wise and Consistent Regulation
“Cap and trade,” increased government control of healthcare, and many of the other initiatives from the last Congress promised major disruptions to America’s regulatory structure. Businesses weren’t only waiting to find out what would happen to their taxes—they were also waiting to find out what new regulations were going to cost them. In the meantime, they didn’t hire. Regardless of the merits of these proposals, the timing of them was terrible.
Status: The President’s healthcare plan is now law, but that has not ended the uncertainty. The Department of Health and Human Services is working overtime to write sweeping regulations that will affect nearly every employer in America. At the same time, the law’s continued unpopularity and a strong challenge to its constitutionality make it uncertain whether the law will survive at all.
Looking Ahead
Despite Washington’s errors, the economy seems to be improving slowly. I believe there is good reason for optimism as we look ahead. Long-term, the American people won’t stand for a government that ignores our nation’s biggest challenges. But we must deal with the situation we are faced with now, and that means doing everything we can to make sure every American—and every Pennsylvanian—who wants a job can find one. This is my top priority.
-
0
June 25, 2009
Joe Pitts
I endorsed Pat Toomey today for the U.S. Senate. I've known Pat for quite awhile and I'm excited about his candidacy. I think he can win, and I think he'll be very good for Pennsylvania and for America.
Lancaster – Congressman Joe Pitts (R, PA-16) endorsed former three-term congressman Pat Toomey today in the 2010 race for the United States Senate. The Congressman’s statement follows.
“Pat Toomey is the right candidate. No one else comes close.
“I worked with Pat in Congress for six years. He is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. He’s also one of the most caring and passionate people I’ve served with. A lot of politicians have lost credibility in recent years. Pat Toomey isn’t one of them. Pat has good ideas that he actually believes in, and he will work hard to make people’s lives better.
“Pat Toomey is a bona fide fiscal conservative at a time when Washington desperately needs more of them. Pat knows where jobs and prosperity come from, and he knows they don’t come from Washington.
“Pat has strong convictions, but they are convictions with bipartisan appeal. Pat proved during his three terms in Congress that he has the ability to inspire Democrats and Republicans alike.
“Pat Toomey is going to win this race. He is principled, thoughtful, caring, and qualified.”
“Pat Toomey is the right candidate. No one else comes close.
“I worked with Pat in Congress for six years. He is one of the smartest people I’ve ever known. He’s also one of the most caring and passionate people I’ve served with. A lot of politicians have lost credibility in recent years. Pat Toomey isn’t one of them. Pat has good ideas that he actually believes in, and he will work hard to make people’s lives better.
“Pat Toomey is a bona fide fiscal conservative at a time when Washington desperately needs more of them. Pat knows where jobs and prosperity come from, and he knows they don’t come from Washington.
“Pat has strong convictions, but they are convictions with bipartisan appeal. Pat proved during his three terms in Congress that he has the ability to inspire Democrats and Republicans alike.
“Pat Toomey is going to win this race. He is principled, thoughtful, caring, and qualified.”
-
0
June 29, 2010
Joe Pitts
The most fundamental responsibility of anyone entrusted with spending others’ money is to set a budget. Any corporate CFO or charity treasurer who failed in this basic responsibility would be in serious trouble. But that is precisely what Congress is doing right now, for the first time in the history of modern budgeting.
The most fundamental responsibility of anyone entrusted with spending others’ money is to set a budget. Any corporate CFO or charity treasurer who failed in this basic responsibility would be in serious trouble. But that is precisely what Congress is doing right now, for the first time in the history of modern budgeting.
It is true that the House and Senate have failed to agree on budgets before, but never before has the House chosen to skip the process altogether.
Congress is required by law to write a budget every spring: setting spending limits for each area of government, establishing a five-year spending plan, and giving instructions to the powerful Appropriations committees. I served on the House Budget Committee my first two terms in Congress, and we successfully balanced the budget four years in a row. Writing a budget was critical to making that happen.
So why has Congress decided not to write a budget this year? The truth? The numbers would be so shocking to people the Democratic leadership has decided it is better for them politically to just take the hit for not doing their job.
Numbers don’t lie. Trillions of dollars in new spending, combined with a struggling economy, has taken its toll. The price tag is so high Congressional leaders don’t want you to see the numbers. Hence, no budget.
It is true that the House and Senate have failed to agree on budgets before, but never before has the House chosen to skip the process altogether.
Congress is required by law to write a budget every spring: setting spending limits for each area of government, establishing a five-year spending plan, and giving instructions to the powerful Appropriations committees. I served on the House Budget Committee my first two terms in Congress, and we successfully balanced the budget four years in a row. Writing a budget was critical to making that happen.
So why has Congress decided not to write a budget this year? The truth? The numbers would be so shocking to people the Democratic leadership has decided it is better for them politically to just take the hit for not doing their job.
Numbers don’t lie. Trillions of dollars in new spending, combined with a struggling economy, has taken its toll. The price tag is so high Congressional leaders don’t want you to see the numbers. Hence, no budget.
-
0
July 18, 2011
Joe Pitts
There's a video making its way around the Internet trying to visualize what $1 trillion looks like. One hundred million dollars in $100 bills would fit neatly on a wooden pallet. Ten of these pallets would be $1 billion. It would take 10,000 of these pallets to make $1 trillion. You would need quite a warehouse to fit all those bills. You would need more than 14 warehouses to visualize our current national debt, $14.3 trillion.
There's a video making its way around the Internet trying to visualize what $1 trillion looks like. One hundred million dollars in $100 bills would fit neatly on a wooden pallet. Ten of these pallets would be $1 billion. It would take 10,000 of these pallets to make $1 trillion. You would need quite a warehouse to fit all those bills. You would need more than 14 warehouses to visualize our current national debt, $14.3 trillion.
[Please see bottom of this post for the video being referenced]
Just like a home mortgage, the government pays regular interest to lenders. Debt is bought and sold on open markets. While U.S. banks and citizens own the majority of this debt, foreign holdings have increased to more than 47 percent. We owe countries like China and Japan significant sums of money.
While we certainly owe a lot, we cannot forget that the United States is still the world's largest economy. Our annual Gross Domestic Product is still larger than our debt, $14.6 trillion in 2010.
The great debate in Washington now is whether our nation should take on any more debt. This year, for every dollar in spending, 42 cents will be borrowed. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the statutory debt limit set by Congress has already been reached. Right now, Treasury is avoiding potential default by suspending investment in government funds, including employee retirement funds.
There is some debate about whether the debt limit should be raised. Some conservatives say that the Treasury Department could avoid default by prioritizing interest payments. There are some liberals who say that debt limit legislation is unconstitutional and Treasury could act without Congressional approval.
While Treasury may have some flexibility in what government accounts it will pay, we have to consider what may go unpaid without an increase in the debt limit. There may be delays in Social Security or Medicare payments. We may not have the resources to pay our troops in the field, or pay for their equipment.
There are other consequences. Each of the debt rating agencies has indicated that they would downgrade the rating for U.S. debt if the limit is not raised. Our current AAA rating means that we pay low interest rates on debt. Just a small downgrade could mean trillions more dollars in debt service over the coming years.
Some may wonder if there is a way to cut spending enough this year to avoid a debt limit increase? Under President Obama's budget, the debt for this year is projected at $1.3 trillion. The most severe spending cut plan in Congress, proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) cuts only $500 billion.
What do we need to do? The debt rating agencies have threatened to downgrade debt if the limit is not raised, but they have also indicated that our deficit is simply too large. We could also be downgraded if we do not take actions to restore fiscal order.
I support the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan to deal with our debt. This means we need to cut spending now. The House is already working through this year's appropriations bills. These bills will reduce non-security annual appropriations to below 2008 levels.
This year's appropriations bills are a good start, but we need to keep finding savings in the coming years. This means putting in place caps on spending that will reduce spending to sensible levels.
Finally, we need a solid long-term solution to prevent future Congresses from getting us back into the same mess. A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would place the same burden on the federal government as most state governments.
Voting to increase the debt limit without long-term solutions would be irresponsible. I believe that it is possible for us to reach a bipartisan agreement that would set our nation on a better course. I was a member of the House Budget Committee my first four years in office. During that time, we balanced the budget despite having government split between the political parties.
We have different philosophies of government, but we all recognize that our current debt situation is unsustainable. Now is the time to come together and recognize that we are spending too much. If we act responsibly now, we have a chance to make lasting change.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who has represented Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties since 1997.
Read the full article here
[Please see bottom of this post for the video being referenced]
Just like a home mortgage, the government pays regular interest to lenders. Debt is bought and sold on open markets. While U.S. banks and citizens own the majority of this debt, foreign holdings have increased to more than 47 percent. We owe countries like China and Japan significant sums of money.
While we certainly owe a lot, we cannot forget that the United States is still the world's largest economy. Our annual Gross Domestic Product is still larger than our debt, $14.6 trillion in 2010.
The great debate in Washington now is whether our nation should take on any more debt. This year, for every dollar in spending, 42 cents will be borrowed. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the statutory debt limit set by Congress has already been reached. Right now, Treasury is avoiding potential default by suspending investment in government funds, including employee retirement funds.
There is some debate about whether the debt limit should be raised. Some conservatives say that the Treasury Department could avoid default by prioritizing interest payments. There are some liberals who say that debt limit legislation is unconstitutional and Treasury could act without Congressional approval.
While Treasury may have some flexibility in what government accounts it will pay, we have to consider what may go unpaid without an increase in the debt limit. There may be delays in Social Security or Medicare payments. We may not have the resources to pay our troops in the field, or pay for their equipment.
There are other consequences. Each of the debt rating agencies has indicated that they would downgrade the rating for U.S. debt if the limit is not raised. Our current AAA rating means that we pay low interest rates on debt. Just a small downgrade could mean trillions more dollars in debt service over the coming years.
Some may wonder if there is a way to cut spending enough this year to avoid a debt limit increase? Under President Obama's budget, the debt for this year is projected at $1.3 trillion. The most severe spending cut plan in Congress, proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) cuts only $500 billion.
What do we need to do? The debt rating agencies have threatened to downgrade debt if the limit is not raised, but they have also indicated that our deficit is simply too large. We could also be downgraded if we do not take actions to restore fiscal order.
I support the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan to deal with our debt. This means we need to cut spending now. The House is already working through this year's appropriations bills. These bills will reduce non-security annual appropriations to below 2008 levels.
This year's appropriations bills are a good start, but we need to keep finding savings in the coming years. This means putting in place caps on spending that will reduce spending to sensible levels.
Finally, we need a solid long-term solution to prevent future Congresses from getting us back into the same mess. A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would place the same burden on the federal government as most state governments.
Voting to increase the debt limit without long-term solutions would be irresponsible. I believe that it is possible for us to reach a bipartisan agreement that would set our nation on a better course. I was a member of the House Budget Committee my first four years in office. During that time, we balanced the budget despite having government split between the political parties.
We have different philosophies of government, but we all recognize that our current debt situation is unsustainable. Now is the time to come together and recognize that we are spending too much. If we act responsibly now, we have a chance to make lasting change.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who has represented Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties since 1997.
Read the full article here
-
0
October 31, 2012
Joe Pitts
Joe lives here. He knows us. He knows what makes this part of Pennsylvania special. (His opponent lives outside the district and moved to Pennsylvania last year from New York.)
1. THE JOE PITTS JOBS PLAN. Joe Pitts wrote his own comprehensive plan for creating jobs and building our economy. Parts of it have become law with bipartisan support.
2. JOE PITTS IS ONE OF US. Joe lives here. He knows us. He knows what makes this part of Pennsylvania special. (His opponent lives outside the district and moved to Pennsylvania last year from New York.)
3. JOE PITTS HAS BALANCED BUDGETS. Joe Pitts wrote eight balanced budgets in Harrisburg as a state legislator, and helped write four balanced budgets in Washington. It's possible to balance government budgets. Joe Pitts knows how.
4. PROVEN BIPARTISAN RECORD. The Lancaster New Era says "Joe Pitts has worked with Democrats on a number of issues." Columnist Jeff Hawkes calls Joe Pitts "the adult in the room." A Democrat from New Jersey called Joe's leadership on health issues "truly amazing."
5. JOE PITTS STANDS ON PRINCIPLE. Joe fought his own party leaders to stop wasteful pork-barrel spending. He voted repeatedly to eliminate specific earmarks sponsored by members of his own party. He did the right thing. He led by example, and "earmarks" are now a thing of the past.
-
0
February 23, 2012
Joe Pitts
Feb 17, 2012
This morning, approximately 13 million Americans woke up and looked for work. Over 8 million Americans went to a part-time job, but would prefer to work more hours. Millions more Americans gave up looking for a job in the past few years. There are more jobs opening up, but the question for many of these job-seekers is how they will find their new employer and how they will get to work everyday.
This morning, approximately 13 million Americans woke up and looked for work. Over 8 million Americans went to a part-time job, but would prefer to work more hours. Millions more Americans gave up looking for a job in the past few years. There are more jobs opening up, but the question for many of these job-seekers is how they will find their new employer and how they will get to work everyday.
Feb 17, 2012
This morning, approximately 13 million Americans woke up and looked for work. Over 8 million Americans went to a part-time job, but would prefer to work more hours. Millions more Americans gave up looking for a job in the past few years. There are more jobs opening up, but the question for many of these job-seekers is how they will find their new employer and how they will get to work everyday.
Not everyone makes enough to own a car. According to Consumer Reports, the average American car-owner spends around $8,000 a year on their automobile. Because of the recession, fewer Americans can afford a car. In 2009, the number of cars in the U.S. dropped by four million.
Many Americans rely on mass transit to find and keep a job. For many low-income Americans, this is their only option.
For many years, I’ve worked to support local mass transit agencies like the Red Rose Transit Authority in Lancaster County and the Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority. In the late 1990s, Congress passed a law prohibiting transit systems that service urbanized areas exceeding 200,000 in population from using federal transit funds for operating expenses.
This law used an out-dated and arbitrary threshold, the consequences of which were not realized until after the 2000 Census, the first census carried out under this law. Following the 2000 Census, many transit systems, including RRTA and BARTA, were forced to significantly cut routes and raise fares.
I introduced the Transit System Flexibility Protection Act to provide a long-term solution to this problem. Specifically, it adds a provision to current law stating that if an urbanized area exceeds a population of 200,000, but the transit system continues to operate fewer than 100 buses on fixed-route service during peak service hours, that transit system can maintain its funding flexibility. By offering amendments, I’ve been able to have my language included in various transportation bills.
The new House transportation bill that will be considered in a few weeks contains this provision. Unfortunately, it contains no dedicated stream of funding for mass transit. This could make it very difficult for transit systems to plan for the future.
I think this is bad news for job-seekers, especially in our area. Unlike major metropolitan areas like Philadelphia, the bus is the only mass transit available. If local transit agencies have to cut back, workers and the unemployed will face a big setback.
It’s already hard for those relying on mass transit. Last year, the non-partisan Brookings Institution took a look at access to mass transit and where jobs are being created. Seventy percent of residents in major metropolitan areas have access to transit. However, a typical resident can only reach about 30 percent of jobs via transit in 90 minutes. In other words, those who only have access to transit are very limited in the number of jobs they can apply for.
Much of the job growth in our nation has shifted from urban centers to more suburban areas. Suburbs and lower-density areas offer many advantages to new small businesses that need to keep expenses low in order to grow. Cutting back on mass transit makes the climb back to employment even steeper.
The first priority of our transportation bill has to be the maintenance of our roads and bridges. Mass transit funding has always been a small but critical portion of larger transportation bills.
I know that there are many other members who agree with me and I will be working with Democrats and Republicans on an amendment to restore this dedicated funding. In a few weeks, this bill should be coming to the floor. I am hopeful that a bipartisan coalition will be able to correct the bill before it is sent to the Senate.
We want every American to be able to find and keep a job. Transit is especially important for low-income Americans, younger workers, and the elderly. We don’t want lack of an automobile to be a barrier to a job.
-
0
October 19, 2010
Joe Pitts
Please take a moment to read a copy of a letter by Ginny Pitts
To download and read a printable copy of this letter, please Click Here
(Full Text provided in the full blog post)
To download and read a printable copy of this letter, please Click Here
(Full Text provided in the full blog post)
Please take a moment to read a copy of a letter by Ginny Pitts
Dear Friend,
My husband, Joe Pitts, is running for Congress again this year.
I’m writing to you today to ask you to support him.
When we were first married, Joe and I were both school teachers.
In those days, teachers didn’t make much money. When we had our first child I wanted to stay home with her, but we simply couldn’t make ends meet without my salary. So Joe joined the Air Force. It was a way for him to serve his country and provide for his
family at the same time. It was a hard decision, but it led to a
career in public service we’re both very proud of.
After flying 116 combat missions in Vietnam, Joe returned home
and returned to teaching—this time at Great Valley High School.
Just a few years later he ran for the state legislature, beating the
Republican Party “machine” in a close election. Now he is in
Congress, where he continues to work in an independent and
bipartisan way. Not only does he work with Democrats on many
issues, but he also stands up to his own party leaders and tells
them when they’re wrong.
In his career, Joe has been away a lot—in Southeast Asia,
Harrisburg, and Washington. But he has always found a way to
be there for me and our kids. He’s a good listener. When they
were little, Joe would call the kids every night he was away and
talk to them individually about their day. Every month, he took
one of them out for breakfast, giving them the individual attention
every child craves from their father.
But Joe hasn’t kept that kind of care and attention just for our
family. As a Congressman, he takes on causes other politicians
don’t have time for. Right now he’s working to get airlines to
train their flight attendants to identify and rescue victims of sex
trafficking.
He’s also one of the few members of Congress to actually write
a plan for getting us out of this recession by helping people and
creating jobs. Joe and I remember what it was like when we
couldn’t make ends meet, and that’s what motivates him to help
people now.
I think people are looking for leaders who care, listen, and can
work together for the good of our country. That’s who Joe is.
I hope you’ll vote for him on Tuesday.
Sincerely,
To download and read a printable copy of this letter, please Click Here
-
0
May 10, 2010
Joe Pitts
Just before the House passed the healthcare reform bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously remarked that “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” It’s been nearly six weeks now and we’re finding out that what’s in it isn’t necessarily good for health care.
Just before the House passed the healthcare reform bill, Speaker Nancy Pelosi infamously remarked that “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” It’s been nearly six weeks now and we’re finding out that what’s in it isn’t necessarily good for health care.
First of all, we’re finding that medical costs will rise nationwide. According to a report from the federal agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, national health expenditures will increase by $311 billion over ten years because of the new law. There was lots of talk during the debate over health care reform about “bending the cost curve.” Unfortunately, the bill appears to have bent the cost curve up instead of down.
This same report indicated that individuals who purchase health insurance on their own can expect to pay an additional $2,100 a year. The individual market was already pricing out many consumers, but now costs will rise even faster. For now, individuals can choose to drop coverage and pay for medical costs out of pocket. In the future, all Americans will have to purchase insurance or face IRS penalties.
Premiums are not the only area where expenses are projected to rise. Because of new taxes and fees on prescription drugs and medical devices, the agency report states that costs would be “passed through to health consumers.”
Throughout the debate, President Obama insisted that Americans who like their coverage would get to keep it. Just weeks after the law went into effect, it’s already apparent that this was empty rhetoric.
Medicare Advantage programs were established to introduce market reforms to the Medicare program. The flexibility of the Medicare Advantage programs have made them popular with seniors, especially lower income beneficiaries. Nearly 30,000 seniors in the 16th Congressional District elect one of these plans.
Because of deep cuts in the program, Republicans estimated that one in four seniors could see their Medicare Advantage plan cancelled. These estimates were wrong. Now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that half of seniors will lose the coverage that they currently have.
Seniors on Medicare Advantage aren’t the only ones who could see changes to Medicare. The law cuts $575 billion out of Medicare over the next ten years. It’s difficult to clearly identify how this will change the program, but many doctors warn that they may not be able to continue seeing Medicare patients if the cuts are too severe. Already, Medicare reimbursement rates are far below those paid by private insurers.
Shortly after passage of the health care bill, companies such as AT&T, Caterpillar, Verizon and John Deere released statements noting that the new law would affect their bottom line. These companies were immediately attacked by leading Democrats as trying to undermine the health care law.
I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) immediately scheduled a hearing so that he could interrogate the CEOs of these companies. Only after scheduling the hearing did he come to understand that federal regulations require companies to publicly report such information. They were just acting in accordance with the law.
Documents demanded by the Energy and Commerce Committee show that these four companies are evaluating whether to drop their current healthcare coverage and instead pay government penalties established in the new law. Just these four companies cover over 2.3 million workers. There’s no easy way to tell how many other companies are trying to figure out whether dismantling their employee health benefits will benefit their bottom line.
It hasn’t been 100 days since enactment of the new health care law, and there are bound to be other surprises down the road. I opposed the bill because I don’t believe that centralizing decisions about health care in Washington will reduce costs or improve care.
There were good things done in the healthcare law like allowing young people to stay on their parents’ plan longer and ensuring that Americans are not denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. I think we can take action to preserve the parts of the plan that every American agrees on and introduce real market-based reforms. There’s time to make major changes, but we shouldn’t wait long to make improvements.
-
0
November 16, 2009
Joe Pitts
The Congressional Budget Office says the House-passed version of "health reform" (it's not reform, just another entitlement we can't pay for) will cost a little over $1 trillion. If you add the expensive provisions Speaker Pelosi is trying to hide by passing them seperately, CBO says the cost is about $1.3 trillion. The Heritage Foundation says $1.5 trillion. So just how much is a trillion?
The Congressional Budget Office says the House-passed version of "health reform" (it's not reform, just another entitlement we can't pay for) will cost a little over $1 trillion. If you add the expensive provisions Speaker Pelosi is trying to hide by passing them seperately, CBO says the cost is about $1.3 trillion. The Heritage Foundation says $1.5 trillion. So just how much is a trillion?
- A trillion is a thousand times a billion.
- A trillion is ten times the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
- It takes 12 years for a million seconds to pass. It takes almost 32,000 years for a trillion seconds to pass.
- A trillion is just over half the size of this year's federal deficit, if the entire Obama legislative program is passed into law.
-
0
January 30, 2010
Joe Pitts
A year ago, on January 28, 2009, I voted against the Democrats’ “stimulus bill.” I predicted, correctly, that it would be too ineffective to justify the massive price tag. It was supposed to cost $787 billion and keep unemployment from exceeding eight percent. Well, today unemployment is at ten percent and the CBO just announced the stimulus will cost another $75 billion more than advertised.
A year ago, on January 28, 2009, I voted against the Democrats’ “stimulus bill.” I predicted, correctly, that it would be too ineffective to justify the massive price tag. It was supposed to cost $787 billion and keep unemployment from exceeding eight percent. Well, today unemployment is at ten percent and the CBO just announced the stimulus will cost another $75 billion more than advertised.
Not content to just criticize, I issued a memorandum to my constituents on the day Congress passed that bill. I called for tax reduction, increased energy production, and trade promotion as the three things that would genuinely stimulate the economy.
A year later, in Wednesday’s State of the Union Address, the President finally called for these three things in what appears to be a serious way. While I disagree with much of what he called for in his speech, we at last agree on some of the areas we should be focusing our efforts.
It’s a year late. But I’m glad to see the President finally realize that tax cuts are the quickest and surest form of stimulus. I’m glad to see him recognize that we need to expand energy production, not constrict it as his “cap and trade” proposal would do. I’m glad to see him realize that we must open new markets for manufacturers to sell their wares to.
If he had acted on these things a year ago, unemployment might really have stayed under eight percent. It remains to be seen if he will actually act on them even now.
Not content to just criticize, I issued a memorandum to my constituents on the day Congress passed that bill. I called for tax reduction, increased energy production, and trade promotion as the three things that would genuinely stimulate the economy.
A year later, in Wednesday’s State of the Union Address, the President finally called for these three things in what appears to be a serious way. While I disagree with much of what he called for in his speech, we at last agree on some of the areas we should be focusing our efforts.
It’s a year late. But I’m glad to see the President finally realize that tax cuts are the quickest and surest form of stimulus. I’m glad to see him recognize that we need to expand energy production, not constrict it as his “cap and trade” proposal would do. I’m glad to see him realize that we must open new markets for manufacturers to sell their wares to.
If he had acted on these things a year ago, unemployment might really have stayed under eight percent. It remains to be seen if he will actually act on them even now.
-
0
February 18, 2011
Joe Pitts
For decades, the United States has been the world leader in medical innovation. Individuals come from around the world to receive the best and latest care. What was experimental just a few years ago becomes common medical practice saving and improving American lives. Unfortunately, we are quickly losing this lead.
For decades, the United States has been the world leader in medical innovation. Individuals come from around the world to receive the best and latest care. What was experimental just a few years ago becomes common medical practice saving and improving American lives.
Unfortunately, we are quickly losing this lead. There may soon come a day when wealthy Americans jet off to Europe or the Caribbean to get the latest surgeries while poor and middle class Americans suffer as bureaucracy delays life-saving medical devices.
In the United States today we have a vibrant medical device industry. More than 420,000 Americans work in this industry. In my home state of Pennsylvania, there are 22,000 workers.
These are good, high-paying jobs with average compensation in the industry 40 percent above the national earnings average. The field employs doctors and engineers, but also Americans with undergraduate and high school degrees. These companies compete on a global level and their products are shipped around the world.
When most Americans think of foreign competition, Chinese factories and Indian call centers are what come to mind. But in the medical device field, most of the foreign competitors are based in the European Union.
U.S. companies must have their devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has two responsibilities: protecting public health by ensuring safety and helping to speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable.
Unfortunately, the FDA has become risk-averse in recent years. Approval times have crept up, nearly doubling the time required in some cases. This means that European patients are receiving access to devices two years before American patients. In some cases, devices approved in Europe have never been legal in the U.S.
Certainly, there may be disagreement between governments about the safety of devices. We don’t want our regulatory process to be a race to the bottom where we must beat the Europeans to the market regardless of safety. But according to recent studies, medical devices marketed through the shorter and more transparent European regulatory processes are statistically as safe as FDA- approved devices and have comparable patient outcomes.
The experience of NuVasive, a San Diego-based company, demonstrates how American companies are being hurt by FDA inefficiency. In the last two years, NuVasive estimates that FDA approval times have led to revenue losses of $70 million, increased operating expenses, and the loss of hundreds of new jobs.
In a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee NuVasive describes their difficulties: “It is becoming far more efficient and faster to innovate outside the USA in such places as Europe. Non-USA systems have more timely, predictable and transparent processes. We have seen USA delays of three to 70 months which has forced NuVasive to rethink longer term strategies around where to place research & development jobs and even whether or not to invest in innovation of new products.”
Recently, venture capitalists have stated that they are far more likely to put money into European medical device companies. With capital flowing out of the U.S., it’s only a matter of time before we see a corresponding “brain drain.”
This week, the House of Representatives issued direction to the various committees to investigate federal government rules affect on jobs and the economy. The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee has oversight over the FDA and, as Chairman, I want us to explore why Europe has gained such a significant advantage over American companies.
Medical device industry jobs are great jobs. With unemployment already high, we need this industry to grow and flourish, not be shipped overseas. We cannot let our lead in medical innovation be destroyed by poorly constructed bureaucracy. It’s not just jobs that are at stake. There are suffering Americans waiting for cures.
Bill Walton, the great college and professional basketball player, suffered such incredible back pain that at one point he even contemplated ending his life. This pain—so great that it prevented him from doing everyday tasks like tying his own shoes—was radically reduced by a NuVasive device. Life-saving cures are possible, the question is whether these discoveries will be made here in the U.S. or on foreign shores.
Unfortunately, we are quickly losing this lead. There may soon come a day when wealthy Americans jet off to Europe or the Caribbean to get the latest surgeries while poor and middle class Americans suffer as bureaucracy delays life-saving medical devices.
In the United States today we have a vibrant medical device industry. More than 420,000 Americans work in this industry. In my home state of Pennsylvania, there are 22,000 workers.
These are good, high-paying jobs with average compensation in the industry 40 percent above the national earnings average. The field employs doctors and engineers, but also Americans with undergraduate and high school degrees. These companies compete on a global level and their products are shipped around the world.
When most Americans think of foreign competition, Chinese factories and Indian call centers are what come to mind. But in the medical device field, most of the foreign competitors are based in the European Union.
U.S. companies must have their devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has two responsibilities: protecting public health by ensuring safety and helping to speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable.
Unfortunately, the FDA has become risk-averse in recent years. Approval times have crept up, nearly doubling the time required in some cases. This means that European patients are receiving access to devices two years before American patients. In some cases, devices approved in Europe have never been legal in the U.S.
Certainly, there may be disagreement between governments about the safety of devices. We don’t want our regulatory process to be a race to the bottom where we must beat the Europeans to the market regardless of safety. But according to recent studies, medical devices marketed through the shorter and more transparent European regulatory processes are statistically as safe as FDA- approved devices and have comparable patient outcomes.
The experience of NuVasive, a San Diego-based company, demonstrates how American companies are being hurt by FDA inefficiency. In the last two years, NuVasive estimates that FDA approval times have led to revenue losses of $70 million, increased operating expenses, and the loss of hundreds of new jobs.
In a letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee NuVasive describes their difficulties: “It is becoming far more efficient and faster to innovate outside the USA in such places as Europe. Non-USA systems have more timely, predictable and transparent processes. We have seen USA delays of three to 70 months which has forced NuVasive to rethink longer term strategies around where to place research & development jobs and even whether or not to invest in innovation of new products.”
Recently, venture capitalists have stated that they are far more likely to put money into European medical device companies. With capital flowing out of the U.S., it’s only a matter of time before we see a corresponding “brain drain.”
This week, the House of Representatives issued direction to the various committees to investigate federal government rules affect on jobs and the economy. The Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee has oversight over the FDA and, as Chairman, I want us to explore why Europe has gained such a significant advantage over American companies.
Medical device industry jobs are great jobs. With unemployment already high, we need this industry to grow and flourish, not be shipped overseas. We cannot let our lead in medical innovation be destroyed by poorly constructed bureaucracy. It’s not just jobs that are at stake. There are suffering Americans waiting for cures.
Bill Walton, the great college and professional basketball player, suffered such incredible back pain that at one point he even contemplated ending his life. This pain—so great that it prevented him from doing everyday tasks like tying his own shoes—was radically reduced by a NuVasive device. Life-saving cures are possible, the question is whether these discoveries will be made here in the U.S. or on foreign shores.
-
0
November 12, 2010
Joe Pitts
"Many thanks for all of your hard work and votes in the recent campaign. your efforts were very much appreciated!"
-Joe
-Joe
-
0
April 18, 2012
Joe Pitts
By: John Gizzi
Human Events
LANCASTER, Pa. -- Three days after Human Events went to West Virginia to hear Republicans respond to what they consider the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” we went to Pennsylvania and heard almost eerily-similar outrage over an assault on that state’s coal industry.
Human Events
LANCASTER, Pa. -- Three days after Human Events went to West Virginia to hear Republicans respond to what they consider the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” we went to Pennsylvania and heard almost eerily-similar outrage over an assault on that state’s coal industry.
LANCASTER, Pa. -- Three days after Human Events went to West Virginia to hear Republicans respond to what they consider the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” we went to Pennsylvania and heard almost eerily-similar outrage over an assault on that state’s coal industry.
“This administration is restricting our opportunities to get resources from beneath our own feet,” businessman and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch told us before the Lancaster County Republican dinner Tuesday night. Like the Republicans in West Virginia, Welch cited a hostile attitude by the Environmental Protection Agency toward the coal industry in Pennsylvania.
“And it’s not just the coal industry, but it’s natural gas and the production of low-cost energy in general that have suffered as a result of the EPA,” said Welch, one of five Republicans vying for nomination to oppose Democratic Sen. Bob Casey in the April 24 primary.
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), a senior Republican on the House Energy Committee, agreed. As he put it, “here in Pennsylvania, 58 percent of our electricity comes from coal. So when the administration is going after the coal industry, we feel it, all right.”
Pitts and others said that the hostility from the EPA is directed not only at the coal industry but the energy industry in general. The congressman specifically cited the bureaucratic hurdles that the power plants in the Keystone State which, Pitts warned, “could well shut them down.”
“There is a tendency in this administration to overreach and this is an example. They couldn’t get cap-and-trade legislation enacted in Congress so they try to accomplish its goals through regulations,” he said.
State Rep. Ryan Aument (R-Lancaster County) told us that “without a doubt, there is a war on coal being waged by the Obama administration. And because of the pressure from the extreme environmentalists the administration feels it has to cultivate, the EPA also makes it more difficult for us to develop the Marcellus Shale that is a tremendous source of energy in Pennsylvania. And when you deal with extreme environmentalists, you are dealing with people who are not interested in finding common ground with the business community.”
Even Mitt Romney made some not-so-subtle hints about the issue of EPA hostility to the energy industry in Pennsylvania. In his address to the 1,100-plus Republicans at the Lancaster Convention Center, the presidential hopeful said he finally figured out what the president meant when he said he supported “all of the above for energy resources -- he means all of the above ground [resources], like wind and solar [power] and nothing below.” Identifying himself with the energy industry, Romney went on to say “we like coal and gas” and promised that, if elected president, “I’ll get America to be independent” as an energy source.
Virtually all evidence Human Events gathered in West Virginia over the weekend pointed to the “war on coal” putting that state’s five electoral votes in Republican hands with ease this fall. As to whether a similar effort in Pennsylvania will put that state’s 20 electoral votes in the Republican Party column is uncertain for now. But it is clear that if Pennsylvania does reverse itself from going for Barack Obama in 2008, one key factor will be what is increasingly called Obama's "war on energy."
Read Original Story Here
“This administration is restricting our opportunities to get resources from beneath our own feet,” businessman and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steve Welch told us before the Lancaster County Republican dinner Tuesday night. Like the Republicans in West Virginia, Welch cited a hostile attitude by the Environmental Protection Agency toward the coal industry in Pennsylvania.
“And it’s not just the coal industry, but it’s natural gas and the production of low-cost energy in general that have suffered as a result of the EPA,” said Welch, one of five Republicans vying for nomination to oppose Democratic Sen. Bob Casey in the April 24 primary.
Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), a senior Republican on the House Energy Committee, agreed. As he put it, “here in Pennsylvania, 58 percent of our electricity comes from coal. So when the administration is going after the coal industry, we feel it, all right.”
Pitts and others said that the hostility from the EPA is directed not only at the coal industry but the energy industry in general. The congressman specifically cited the bureaucratic hurdles that the power plants in the Keystone State which, Pitts warned, “could well shut them down.”
“There is a tendency in this administration to overreach and this is an example. They couldn’t get cap-and-trade legislation enacted in Congress so they try to accomplish its goals through regulations,” he said.
State Rep. Ryan Aument (R-Lancaster County) told us that “without a doubt, there is a war on coal being waged by the Obama administration. And because of the pressure from the extreme environmentalists the administration feels it has to cultivate, the EPA also makes it more difficult for us to develop the Marcellus Shale that is a tremendous source of energy in Pennsylvania. And when you deal with extreme environmentalists, you are dealing with people who are not interested in finding common ground with the business community.”
Even Mitt Romney made some not-so-subtle hints about the issue of EPA hostility to the energy industry in Pennsylvania. In his address to the 1,100-plus Republicans at the Lancaster Convention Center, the presidential hopeful said he finally figured out what the president meant when he said he supported “all of the above for energy resources -- he means all of the above ground [resources], like wind and solar [power] and nothing below.” Identifying himself with the energy industry, Romney went on to say “we like coal and gas” and promised that, if elected president, “I’ll get America to be independent” as an energy source.
Virtually all evidence Human Events gathered in West Virginia over the weekend pointed to the “war on coal” putting that state’s five electoral votes in Republican hands with ease this fall. As to whether a similar effort in Pennsylvania will put that state’s 20 electoral votes in the Republican Party column is uncertain for now. But it is clear that if Pennsylvania does reverse itself from going for Barack Obama in 2008, one key factor will be what is increasingly called Obama's "war on energy."
Read Original Story Here
-
0
July 08, 2011
Joe Pitts
Originally Published: Wednesday, June 29, 2011
I know that President Obama wants to see job growth as much as anyone in Washington, but a recent comment displayed a lack of economic understanding: "There's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
New technologies can certainly be disruptive, but if the ATM can be blamed for today's recession, then why couldn't the Model T be blamed for the Great Depression?
I know that President Obama wants to see job growth as much as anyone in Washington, but a recent comment displayed a lack of economic understanding: "There's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
New technologies can certainly be disruptive, but if the ATM can be blamed for today's recession, then why couldn't the Model T be blamed for the Great Depression?
I know that President Obama wants to see job growth as much as anyone in Washington, but a recent comment displayed a lack of economic understanding: "There's some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport, and you're using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate."
New technologies can certainly be disruptive, but if the ATM can be blamed for today's recession, then why couldn't the Model T be blamed for the Great Depression?
Most new technologies increase efficiency in one way or another. The ATM was no exception, but the ATM did not actually replace bank tellers. In fact, the number of bank teller jobs in the U.S. has increased in the last ten years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 607,960 bank tellers in the U.S. in 2007. In 1985, there were only 485,000 tellers. From 1985 to 2007, the number of ATMs increased from around 60,000 to nearly 400,000.
The ATM is not an illustration of how automation takes away jobs. In fact, it almost perfectly illustrates how technological advancement makes our economy grow. U.S. companies like Diebold and NCR manufacture ATMs in the U.S., employing thousands of workers. The networking and maintenance of ATM machines also create jobs in the banking industry.
At the same time this technology directly creates jobs, it makes every bank-using American more efficient. Wait times at banks are dramatically decreased and consumers have access to their money when they want it, not when the bank is open.
The President's words this week concern me greatly. We are facing 9.1 percent unemployment. The average time the unemployed spend looking for a job has risen above 40 weeks.
Many economists have downgraded their predictions for this year's economic growth. Our number one priority in Washington needs to be job growth.
But if the President does not understand how jobs are created, then Washington is going to continue to make life hard for job creators. This week, the President's chief of staff, Bill Daley, met with hundreds of manufacturing executives. According to the Washington Post, one executive stood up and said that the government, "Throws sand into the gears of progress."
Daley had to admit that the number of rules and regulations "that come out of agencies is overwhelming." He tried to point out that the Administration is working to identify rules for elimination. The problem, however, isn't just decades old rules that don't make much sense. New rules in pipeline will do incredible damage to American industries large and small.
The President's chief of staff is a former executive himself, but there is little that understanding and empathy can do when the bureaucratic machinery of Washington is spreading red tape across the country.
In the House of Representatives this year, we have passed nine major bills to help job growth. Two of these bills try to hold back a specific job-destroying regulation that the Obama administration is working on right now. Another one of these bills directs every Congressional committee to identify ways that Washington is holding back job growth and introduce bills to correct what is wrong with the bureaucracy.
Only one of these bills has been signed by the President: the legislation eliminating the burdensome 1099 tax mandate created in last year's health care law. Frankly, we need to do more than just stop government from taking actions that hurt employment. While the House has passed legislation to reduce energy prices, no similar bill has been considered by the Senate or proposed by the President.
The Small Business Optimism Index monitored by the National Federation of Independent Business has fallen for three straight months. When Americans are confident, they start new and innovative businesses. Washington is making it harder for job creators to come up with the next ATM or to manufacture it here in the U.S. We need leadership that recognizes that innovation is what drives the American economy, not what drives it into a ditch.
New technologies can certainly be disruptive, but if the ATM can be blamed for today's recession, then why couldn't the Model T be blamed for the Great Depression?
Most new technologies increase efficiency in one way or another. The ATM was no exception, but the ATM did not actually replace bank tellers. In fact, the number of bank teller jobs in the U.S. has increased in the last ten years. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 607,960 bank tellers in the U.S. in 2007. In 1985, there were only 485,000 tellers. From 1985 to 2007, the number of ATMs increased from around 60,000 to nearly 400,000.
The ATM is not an illustration of how automation takes away jobs. In fact, it almost perfectly illustrates how technological advancement makes our economy grow. U.S. companies like Diebold and NCR manufacture ATMs in the U.S., employing thousands of workers. The networking and maintenance of ATM machines also create jobs in the banking industry.
At the same time this technology directly creates jobs, it makes every bank-using American more efficient. Wait times at banks are dramatically decreased and consumers have access to their money when they want it, not when the bank is open.
The President's words this week concern me greatly. We are facing 9.1 percent unemployment. The average time the unemployed spend looking for a job has risen above 40 weeks.
Many economists have downgraded their predictions for this year's economic growth. Our number one priority in Washington needs to be job growth.
But if the President does not understand how jobs are created, then Washington is going to continue to make life hard for job creators. This week, the President's chief of staff, Bill Daley, met with hundreds of manufacturing executives. According to the Washington Post, one executive stood up and said that the government, "Throws sand into the gears of progress."
Daley had to admit that the number of rules and regulations "that come out of agencies is overwhelming." He tried to point out that the Administration is working to identify rules for elimination. The problem, however, isn't just decades old rules that don't make much sense. New rules in pipeline will do incredible damage to American industries large and small.
The President's chief of staff is a former executive himself, but there is little that understanding and empathy can do when the bureaucratic machinery of Washington is spreading red tape across the country.
In the House of Representatives this year, we have passed nine major bills to help job growth. Two of these bills try to hold back a specific job-destroying regulation that the Obama administration is working on right now. Another one of these bills directs every Congressional committee to identify ways that Washington is holding back job growth and introduce bills to correct what is wrong with the bureaucracy.
Only one of these bills has been signed by the President: the legislation eliminating the burdensome 1099 tax mandate created in last year's health care law. Frankly, we need to do more than just stop government from taking actions that hurt employment. While the House has passed legislation to reduce energy prices, no similar bill has been considered by the Senate or proposed by the President.
The Small Business Optimism Index monitored by the National Federation of Independent Business has fallen for three straight months. When Americans are confident, they start new and innovative businesses. Washington is making it harder for job creators to come up with the next ATM or to manufacture it here in the U.S. We need leadership that recognizes that innovation is what drives the American economy, not what drives it into a ditch.
-
0
March 16, 2010
Joe Pitts
After weeks of arm-twisting, back-room deals and outright threats, Nancy Pelosi still doesn’t have the votes to force Obamacare through the House. While the lobbyists who support the bill are out in force, there are far more regular Americans speaking out. The halls of the House office buildings are filled with regular Americans who have traveled to Washington to oppose the bill and urge their Members of Congress to vote “no.” We will know soon if Congress has listened. I will vote no. Please urge anyone you know who lives in the district of an “undecided” Democrat to call their Member of Congress right away! It’s still not too late!
-
0
February 25, 2011
Joe Pitts
The Land Trust Alliance honored Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) for his work on behalf of farmland and open space conservation. Rep. Pitts co-chairs the Land Conservation Caucus and pushed for the Conservation Easement Incentive Act in the 112th Congress.
Washington (2/16/11)--Last night at a reception on Capitol Hill, the Land Trust Alliance honored Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) for his work on behalf of farmland and open space conservation. Rep. Pitts co-chairs the Land Conservation Caucus and supported the Conservation Easement Incentive Act in the 112th Congress.
The Act was included in the tax relief package signed by President Obama in December. The Land Trust Alliance estimates that the credit has increased conservation easement donations by a third—to over one million acres a year.
The Land Conservation Caucus seeks to educate Members of Congress and their staffs about issues of importance to the conservation and preservation of open space and farmland. Along with Rep. Pitts, the Land Conservation Caucus is co-chaired by Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-06), and Democrats Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM-01) and Rep. Christopher Murphy (CT-05).
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“Our home in southeastern Pennsylvania has some of the richest and most beautiful farmland and open space in the nation. Protecting these lands from development is about protecting the quality of life in our community.
“For years, I’ve worked with local conservation groups to find innovative ways to encourage easement donation. It’s an honor to be recognized for this ongoing work. I’m going to continue to work in a bipartisan way to make credits for conservation easement donation a permanent part of the tax code. In my district, this credit has helped preserve 11,000 acres.”
The Act was included in the tax relief package signed by President Obama in December. The Land Trust Alliance estimates that the credit has increased conservation easement donations by a third—to over one million acres a year.
The Land Conservation Caucus seeks to educate Members of Congress and their staffs about issues of importance to the conservation and preservation of open space and farmland. Along with Rep. Pitts, the Land Conservation Caucus is co-chaired by Republican Rep. Jim Gerlach (PA-06), and Democrats Rep. Martin Heinrich (NM-01) and Rep. Christopher Murphy (CT-05).
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“Our home in southeastern Pennsylvania has some of the richest and most beautiful farmland and open space in the nation. Protecting these lands from development is about protecting the quality of life in our community.
“For years, I’ve worked with local conservation groups to find innovative ways to encourage easement donation. It’s an honor to be recognized for this ongoing work. I’m going to continue to work in a bipartisan way to make credits for conservation easement donation a permanent part of the tax code. In my district, this credit has helped preserve 11,000 acres.”
-
0
June 28, 2012
Joe Pitts
"The stakes of this election just went way up. We now know that we cannot get rid of Obamacare until we get rid of Obama. This law violates the clear and express will of the people. Obama once swore he would never raise taxes on people who made less than $250,000 a year. The Supreme Court just ruled that Obamacare is a tax—and it is a tax on the poor and middle class. That is just one reason is a bad law. It must be repealed. November is the only recourse we have left."
-Joe
-Joe
"The stakes of this election just went way up. We now know that we cannot get rid of Obamacare until we get rid of Obama. This law violates the clear and express will of the people. Obama once swore he would never raise taxes on people who made less than $250,000 a year. The Supreme Court just ruled that Obamacare is a tax—and it is a tax on the poor and middle class. That is just one reason is a bad law. It must be repealed. November is the only recourse we have left."
-Joe
What do you think?
Click Here to join the conversation on Facebook
-Joe
What do you think?
Click Here to join the conversation on Facebook
-
0
August 13, 2012
Joe Pitts
How many individual taxpayers would you expect to live at a single address? If you’ve got a big family, and a bunch of kids who are working, maybe you have a few returns being filed from your home. But what if you filed hundreds of separate returns from the same address? Wouldn’t you expect an IRS inspector to come knocking at your door?Actually, you have a pretty good chance at getting away with it.
How many individual taxpayers would you expect to live at a single address? If you’ve got a big family, and a bunch of kids who are working, maybe you have a few returns being filed from your home. But what if you filed hundreds of separate returns from the same address? Wouldn’t you expect an IRS inspector to come knocking at your door?Actually, you have a pretty good chance at getting away with it. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, who is in charge of monitoring the IRS, reported this week on a number of shocking cases of fraud missed by the agency.
The Inspector General took a look at fraudulent returns and applications for the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). In one case in Michigan, an address had initially been rejected for an ITIN. However, the agency eventually approved the number and then went on to issue 640 separate refunds totaling more than $1.5 million to that one single address. All told, the IRS could lose more than $21 billion over the next five years to similar fraud.
You would think an agency with such blatant fraud perpetrated against it would do everything it can to identify lawbreakers. Unfortunately, the Inspector General found that IRS management has actually created an environment that discourages tax examiners from questioning suspect applications. In fact, the agency eliminated a working group that was actively fighting against ITIN fraud.
From 2007 to 2010, the Questionable Identification Detection Team worked to identify some $43 million in fraud and uncovered thousands of questionable applications. Instead of giving a successful team more resources, IRS management shut down the unit saying that other programs would identify the same type of fraud.
Instead of picking up where the Questionable Identification Detection Team left off, other investigative units left cases hanging allowing fraud to continue. Seven schemes identified by the team continued to operate, collecting some $9 million in fraudulent refunds.
Clearly, the IRS is doing a poor job of stopping quite obvious forms of fraud. Detecting this type of fraud should be much easier than detecting problems within a single return. This isn’t a case where an individual is fudging how much money they made or how much they gave to charity. Shouldn’t there be giant red flags when a single home tries to file hundreds of returns?
All told, underpayment of taxes costs around $345 billion a year. The IRS only has the time and resources to examine about 1 percent of individual tax returns. I’ll admit, the IRS has a very big job.
The federal tax code has grown from some 400 pages in 1913 to more than 70,000 today. There are hundreds of millions of documents being filed with the IRS by individuals, businesses and non-profits across the country and across the globe.
The more complex the tax code gets, the easier it is to perpetrate fraud. The job of the IRS is now about to get vastly more complex. The President’s health care law will require the IRS to verify whether individuals and companies are purchasing government-approved health insurance. Those who fail to purchase the insurance will pay the new penalty that the Supreme Court recently declared a new tax.
The IRS is estimating that they will hire an additional 4,000 investigators to help enforce the new rules. The agency will spend $303 million to develop new systems to support Obamacare’s complex system of tax penalties and credits.
To put it frankly, there will be plenty of new ways to defraud the IRS in the coming years. Making the tax system more complex creates openings for criminals to get money that they don’t deserve.
We should be making our tax system simpler through reform. The House Republican budget, which I supported, calls for simplification of the tax code through the elimination of many of the lobbyist loopholes and special tax breaks that have built up over the years. If the code is simpler, then the IRS’s job of hunting down tax cheats will get easier and honest taxpaying Americans won’t see their hard-earned dollars end up in the hands of criminals.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania’s 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
Read Full Story Here
-
0