Share Joe Pitts
Joe Pitts for Congress Blog
Featured Blogs
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
July 26, 2010
Campaign Staff
The federal government claims Berks has received $245.8 million in stimulus funds. But, using a variety of local, state and federal sources, the Reading Eagle was able to identify only $136.9 million in spending.
And while some of the projects funded by stimulus funds are very much in evidence, the jobs that were supposed to come along with the money are not. In fact, unemployment in Berks rose to 9.9 percent at the end of May, up 1.2 percentage points from May 2009, a few months after the stimulus money became available.
County officials said road and bridge improvements are nice for the community, but what Berks really needs is to get people working.
And while some of the projects funded by stimulus funds are very much in evidence, the jobs that were supposed to come along with the money are not. In fact, unemployment in Berks rose to 9.9 percent at the end of May, up 1.2 percentage points from May 2009, a few months after the stimulus money became available.
County officials said road and bridge improvements are nice for the community, but what Berks really needs is to get people working.
Not much mileage from stimulus funds in Berks
By Mary E. Young
Reading Eagle
A drive on just about any major road in Berks County shows that some of the $787 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is flowing here.
The federal government claims Berks has received $245.8 million in stimulus funds.
But, using a variety of local, state and federal sources, the Reading Eagle was able to identify only $136.9 million in spending.
And while some of the projects funded by stimulus funds are very much in evidence, the jobs that were supposed to come along with the money are not.
In fact, unemployment in Berks rose to 9.9 percent at the end of May, up 1.2 percentage points from May 2009, a few months after the stimulus money became available.
County officials said road and bridge improvements are nice for the community, but what Berks really needs is to get people working.
"The commitment of the (Obama) administration was that this was going to lower unemployment," county Commissioner Christian Y. Leinbach said. "That hasn't happened."
Thomas C. McKeon, executive director of the Berks County Industrial Development Authority, said some businesses have added jobs here and there, but the jobs created for the road projects are likely to be temporary.
"It's not significant," he said. "It's doesn't make a dent in the unemployment rate or the number of jobs we have available for people."
Commissioner Mark C. Scott said he believes the stimulus isn't working because the motivation behind it was political, and the process by which government makes decisions is slow.
A business makes decisions in a few weeks, but government takes much longer because of rules and regulations intended to prevent public corruption, he explained.
"Government spending decisions, in many cases, are political and intuitive as opposed to quantitative and analytical," Scott said. "It's inherently inefficient and tends to be slower.
"It's a suboptimal way of spending scarce resources."
Cutting taxes would have been a better way to put money in the pockets of businesses, Scott said.
Those businesses would return the money to the economy and do it more quickly, he said.
"The turnover of money is slower with government, so the recovery is slower," Scott said.
Some benefits
Still, the stimulus money is doing good things for the community, county Community Development Director Kenneth L. Pick said.
The money is being used to prevent homelessness and for a community re-entry center designed to help prison inmates return to the community, he said.
It's also helping the county pay for improvements that in turn will save taxpayer dollars on energy costs in the long run, Pick said.
A $32.5 million grant to East Penn Manufacturing Co. Inc. in Lyons will have a positive impact on the battery industry and energy conservation, McKeon said.
Alan D. Piper, county transportation planner, said some of the $4.3 million BARTA received will buy four new buses and allow expansion of routes that help people get to their jobs.
Few of these good things - particularly the road and transit projects - would have happened without the stimulus money, Piper said.
"While the road projects may not have increased employment, they kept the people who already had jobs working," he said. "They wouldn't have had those jobs if the funding hadn't been made available.
"None of these projects would have gotten done without the stimulus dollars. The funding wasn't there for them. Every one is a needed project.""The commitment of the (Obama) administration was that this was going to lower unemployment," county Commissioner Christian Y. Leinbach said. "That hasn't happened."
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=236963
-
0
July 12, 2010
Campaign Staff
House Democratic leadership has given up on passing a budget. Instead of the standard budget that projects revenue and spending out five years, the House considered only a weak measure to restrict spending by the Appropriations Committee.
This marks the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget Act that the House has failed to consider a budget resolution. This isn't to say that Congress has always passed a budget. Sometimes the House and Senate have been unable to reach an agreement on a joint budget. This is the first time, however, that the House didn't even try.
This marks the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget Act that the House has failed to consider a budget resolution. This isn't to say that Congress has always passed a budget. Sometimes the House and Senate have been unable to reach an agreement on a joint budget. This is the first time, however, that the House didn't even try.
House Democratic leadership has given up on passing a budget. Instead of the standard budget that projects revenue and spending out five years, the House considered only a weak measure to restrict spending by the Appropriations Committee.
This marks the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget Act that the House has failed to consider a budget resolution. This isn't to say that Congress has always passed a budget. Sometimes the House and Senate have been unable to reach an agreement on a joint budget. This is the first time, however, that the House didn't even try.
The sad irony is that we need a real budget now more than ever before. The June unemployment report showed that an additional 125,000 Americans lost their jobs last month.
Many economists thought that we would be well on our way to recovery by now. The Obama administration even dubbed this as "Recovery Summer" and White House advisors are fanning out across the country to promote the government stimulus bill.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for the sluggish job market is uncertainty. Businesses, worried about a second recession and increased taxes, are holding back on hiring. Individuals, worried about losing their jobs, are holding back on consumer spending.
Congress itself breeds this uncertainty by failing to consider a long-term budget and by calling for increased taxes on job creators. President Obama, while on the campaign trail, frequently promised that he would not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000 "by one dime."
But tax policy starts on Capitol Hill, not the White House. President Obama's allies in the House and the Senate are saying they are not bound by this promise. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) hinted at increasing marginal rates for middle income taxpayers and introducing a new value-added tax in a recent policy address. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) speculated that increased taxes should begin at $200,000 annual income saying, "With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."
For most people that amount of annual income still sounds like a lot of money. The reality is, however, that many small businesses pay taxes at the individual rate. They run their business and pay employees with this income and when the government takes more, they have less for payroll or new equipment.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in just six months, the estate tax returns to Clinton-era levels at the same time, and so far we have no plan from Congressional leadership.
I don't believe our growing deficits are a result of taxes being too low. Our growing national debt is a result of unprecedented levels of government spending.
In 1990, the government spent an inflation adjusted $22,027 per household. Over ten years, this level remained steady and economic growth meant that we had four years of budget surpluses. As a member of the House Budget Committee during those years, I helped write these balanced budgets. We resisted the urge to increase spending and paid down the debt four years in a row.
Today, we are spending $30,543 per household and expect to be spending over $35,000 by the end of the decade. Tax revenue cannot keep up with all this increased spending.
I believe that we can return our government to a sensible level of spending that holds down our deficit and allows private sector businesses to flourish. The alternative is to give the government even more control over how our economy runs.
In the face of 125,000 Americans losing their job this month, all President Obama had to offer was a new government broadband Internet program projected to create 5,000 jobs. We need 13 million new jobs to return to full employment. A small number of expensive government jobs will never get us there. Only providing a stable climate for private sector businesses can truly revive our economy.
This is no time to give up on the budget. This is the time to provide a long-term plan that brings our spending back in line with historical averages and establishes tax policy that gives businesses the certainty to hire and invest.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
This marks the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget Act that the House has failed to consider a budget resolution. This isn't to say that Congress has always passed a budget. Sometimes the House and Senate have been unable to reach an agreement on a joint budget. This is the first time, however, that the House didn't even try.
The sad irony is that we need a real budget now more than ever before. The June unemployment report showed that an additional 125,000 Americans lost their jobs last month.
Many economists thought that we would be well on our way to recovery by now. The Obama administration even dubbed this as "Recovery Summer" and White House advisors are fanning out across the country to promote the government stimulus bill.
One of the most frequently cited reasons for the sluggish job market is uncertainty. Businesses, worried about a second recession and increased taxes, are holding back on hiring. Individuals, worried about losing their jobs, are holding back on consumer spending.
Congress itself breeds this uncertainty by failing to consider a long-term budget and by calling for increased taxes on job creators. President Obama, while on the campaign trail, frequently promised that he would not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000 "by one dime."
But tax policy starts on Capitol Hill, not the White House. President Obama's allies in the House and the Senate are saying they are not bound by this promise. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) hinted at increasing marginal rates for middle income taxpayers and introducing a new value-added tax in a recent policy address. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.) speculated that increased taxes should begin at $200,000 annual income saying, "With the debt and deficit we have, you can't make promises to people."
For most people that amount of annual income still sounds like a lot of money. The reality is, however, that many small businesses pay taxes at the individual rate. They run their business and pay employees with this income and when the government takes more, they have less for payroll or new equipment.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in just six months, the estate tax returns to Clinton-era levels at the same time, and so far we have no plan from Congressional leadership.
I don't believe our growing deficits are a result of taxes being too low. Our growing national debt is a result of unprecedented levels of government spending.
In 1990, the government spent an inflation adjusted $22,027 per household. Over ten years, this level remained steady and economic growth meant that we had four years of budget surpluses. As a member of the House Budget Committee during those years, I helped write these balanced budgets. We resisted the urge to increase spending and paid down the debt four years in a row.
Today, we are spending $30,543 per household and expect to be spending over $35,000 by the end of the decade. Tax revenue cannot keep up with all this increased spending.
I believe that we can return our government to a sensible level of spending that holds down our deficit and allows private sector businesses to flourish. The alternative is to give the government even more control over how our economy runs.
In the face of 125,000 Americans losing their job this month, all President Obama had to offer was a new government broadband Internet program projected to create 5,000 jobs. We need 13 million new jobs to return to full employment. A small number of expensive government jobs will never get us there. Only providing a stable climate for private sector businesses can truly revive our economy.
This is no time to give up on the budget. This is the time to provide a long-term plan that brings our spending back in line with historical averages and establishes tax policy that gives businesses the certainty to hire and invest.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
0
July 06, 2010
Campaign Staff
For two months now, oil and natural gas have escaped from the destroyed Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. In that time, it is estimated that between 75 million and 125 million gallons of oil have flowed from the broken well.
Thousands of ships are in the Gulf of Mexico trying to keep oil from marshes and beaches. Volunteers and BP workers are on the beaches cleaning plants, sand and birds dirtied by the oil. Two relief wells meant to completely plug the leak will not be finished until August.
Thousands of ships are in the Gulf of Mexico trying to keep oil from marshes and beaches. Volunteers and BP workers are on the beaches cleaning plants, sand and birds dirtied by the oil. Two relief wells meant to completely plug the leak will not be finished until August.
For two months now, oil and natural gas have escaped from the destroyed Deepwater Horizon drilling rig. In that time, it is estimated that between 75 million and 125 million gallons of oil have flowed from the broken well.
Thousands of ships are in the Gulf of Mexico trying to keep oil from marshes and beaches. Volunteers and BP workers are on the beaches cleaning plants, sand and birds dirtied by the oil. Two relief wells meant to completely plug the leak will not be finished until August.
With so many working to stop the leak and clean up this tragic environmental disaster, what role should Congress play far off in Washington? Hearings, letters, and press releases are not going to stop the leak or clean the beaches.
First and foremost, the leak must be stopped and the environmental and economic damage must be repaired. I believe that Congress must follow the maxim “first do no harm.” Indeed, Congress should not become just another impediment to the clean up.
Instead, the House and the Senate need to encourage government agencies to stop the bureaucratic confusion that has prevented state and local officials form mobilizing an effective cleanup.
A prime example of recent government-caused confusion has been the EPA’s convoluted instructions regarding the use of dispersants. Additionally, the Administration has not taken steps to wave a law preventing foreign vessels from assisting close to U.S. shores. This same law was waved during the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has had a host of problems dealing with federal agencies. He recently said, “We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast.”
Early in the course of the spill, Louisiana requested permission to build sandbars to prevent oil from spilling into the fragile marshland. It took weeks for a variety of federal agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to determine whether this would be an effective strategy. While the bureaucrats debated, oil began washing ashore. The sandbars were eventually approved, but only after a great deal of frustration and weeks of inactivity.
I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a panel with oversight of oil and gas exploration. I’ve personally participated in multiple hearings, including two this week. At these hearings, we focused extensively on the Administration’s response efforts, BP’s actions before and after the explosion, and potential health concerns.
At this week’s Health Subcommittee hearing with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, I was struck by just how little we know about the long-term, and even short-term, effects of the oil spill on human health. While there have been oil spills before, none of them match the size and scope of this spill, or the particular conditions in which it occurred.
Our Committee has a responsibility to make sure that our health agencies get good information to those working in the spill areas. We do not need to add a health disaster to our already evident environmental and economic difficulties.
One thing needs to be made clear, BP bears responsibility for cleaning up the spill and compensating those whose livelihoods have been threatened. President BP has agreed to establishing a $20 billion escrow account to pay claims for damages and lost wages. It is wholly appropriate that BP should pay all costs, and Congress should ensure that any funding mechanism is well-managed and free of political interference.
We don’t need politics as usual right now. In times of tragedy, our nation has a strong record of putting aside differences to achieve a common goal. I believe this is a time when Congress needs to concentrate our federal government on fighting this spill while avoiding bureaucratic entanglements and in-fighting that do nothing to restore the Gulf.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
Thousands of ships are in the Gulf of Mexico trying to keep oil from marshes and beaches. Volunteers and BP workers are on the beaches cleaning plants, sand and birds dirtied by the oil. Two relief wells meant to completely plug the leak will not be finished until August.
With so many working to stop the leak and clean up this tragic environmental disaster, what role should Congress play far off in Washington? Hearings, letters, and press releases are not going to stop the leak or clean the beaches.
First and foremost, the leak must be stopped and the environmental and economic damage must be repaired. I believe that Congress must follow the maxim “first do no harm.” Indeed, Congress should not become just another impediment to the clean up.
Instead, the House and the Senate need to encourage government agencies to stop the bureaucratic confusion that has prevented state and local officials form mobilizing an effective cleanup.
A prime example of recent government-caused confusion has been the EPA’s convoluted instructions regarding the use of dispersants. Additionally, the Administration has not taken steps to wave a law preventing foreign vessels from assisting close to U.S. shores. This same law was waved during the response to Hurricane Katrina.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has had a host of problems dealing with federal agencies. He recently said, “We’ve been frustrated with the disjointed effort to date that has too often meant too little, too late for the oil hitting our coast.”
Early in the course of the spill, Louisiana requested permission to build sandbars to prevent oil from spilling into the fragile marshland. It took weeks for a variety of federal agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to determine whether this would be an effective strategy. While the bureaucrats debated, oil began washing ashore. The sandbars were eventually approved, but only after a great deal of frustration and weeks of inactivity.
I serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, a panel with oversight of oil and gas exploration. I’ve personally participated in multiple hearings, including two this week. At these hearings, we focused extensively on the Administration’s response efforts, BP’s actions before and after the explosion, and potential health concerns.
At this week’s Health Subcommittee hearing with officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, I was struck by just how little we know about the long-term, and even short-term, effects of the oil spill on human health. While there have been oil spills before, none of them match the size and scope of this spill, or the particular conditions in which it occurred.
Our Committee has a responsibility to make sure that our health agencies get good information to those working in the spill areas. We do not need to add a health disaster to our already evident environmental and economic difficulties.
One thing needs to be made clear, BP bears responsibility for cleaning up the spill and compensating those whose livelihoods have been threatened. President BP has agreed to establishing a $20 billion escrow account to pay claims for damages and lost wages. It is wholly appropriate that BP should pay all costs, and Congress should ensure that any funding mechanism is well-managed and free of political interference.
We don’t need politics as usual right now. In times of tragedy, our nation has a strong record of putting aside differences to achieve a common goal. I believe this is a time when Congress needs to concentrate our federal government on fighting this spill while avoiding bureaucratic entanglements and in-fighting that do nothing to restore the Gulf.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
0
July 02, 2010
Campaign Staff
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) presented the Congressional Award Gold Medal to four students from the 16th Congressional District. The award recognizes students who have completed at least 400 hours of community service, 200 hours of personal development and physical fitness activities, and a four-night expedition or exploration.
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) presented the Congressional Award Gold Medal to four students from the 16th Congressional District. The award recognizes students who have completed at least 400 hours of community service, 200 hours of personal development and physical fitness activities, and a four-night expedition or exploration.
Roberto Ortiz and Rose Neli Zavela were among the winners. Ortiz lives in Avondale, Zavela in Kennett Square.
Ortiz completed his hours of community service with the Pennsylvania Migrant Education Service. For his personal development he volunteered in local law firms and developed a running and exercise regimen. For his expedition, Roberto participated in a primitive camping experience in the Pocono Mountains.
Zavela completed her public service with the Pennsylvania Migrant Education Program and raised money for childhood cancer at Penn State University. For her personal development, she worked to learn and improve English, her second language. She also developed a running and physical fitness program to improve her tennis skills. For her expedition, she participated in a primitive camping experience in the Pocono Mountains.
“I was proud to present awards to young men and women of such extraordinary accomplishment. Each one of them put incredible effort into winning their Congressional Gold Medal,” said Pitts. “They developed their bodies and minds while finding a way to care for their community. Young people like Roberto, Holly, Howard and Rosa are upcoming leaders demonstrating that our country has a bright future.”
CLICK HERE to view original post.
Roberto Ortiz and Rose Neli Zavela were among the winners. Ortiz lives in Avondale, Zavela in Kennett Square.
Ortiz completed his hours of community service with the Pennsylvania Migrant Education Service. For his personal development he volunteered in local law firms and developed a running and exercise regimen. For his expedition, Roberto participated in a primitive camping experience in the Pocono Mountains.
Zavela completed her public service with the Pennsylvania Migrant Education Program and raised money for childhood cancer at Penn State University. For her personal development, she worked to learn and improve English, her second language. She also developed a running and physical fitness program to improve her tennis skills. For her expedition, she participated in a primitive camping experience in the Pocono Mountains.
“I was proud to present awards to young men and women of such extraordinary accomplishment. Each one of them put incredible effort into winning their Congressional Gold Medal,” said Pitts. “They developed their bodies and minds while finding a way to care for their community. Young people like Roberto, Holly, Howard and Rosa are upcoming leaders demonstrating that our country has a bright future.”
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
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
June 24, 2010
Campaign Staff
As you are no doubt aware, the United State receives the majority of our oil from overseas sources. Unfortunately, we are dependent on volatile regions and despotic regimes for the petroleum that runs our cars. Just a few years ago it appeared that the United States would soon be dependent on foreign nations not only for oil, but also for natural gas.
As you are no doubt aware, the United State receives the majority of our oil from overseas sources. Unfortunately, we are dependent on volatile regions and despotic regimes for the petroleum that runs our cars. Just a few years ago it appeared that the United States would soon be dependent on foreign nations not only for oil, but also for natural gas.
With easily acquired natural gas deposits beginning to run dry, energy companies started to look to foreign liquefied natural gas to make up the difference. Gas prices spiked and there were battles over where to locate new industrial facilities to import gas.
Now, however, the Energy Information Agency predicts that we will decrease the percentage of natural gas imported into the U.S. from 13 percent in 2008 to 6 percent in 2035. That's quite a turnaround, and it will happen because of hard working Pennsylvanians unlocking the Marcellus Shale that runs below much of our state.
By now, you've probably heard about the Marcellus Shale, a layer of rock running thousands of feet below the ground. We've known for years that the shale held natural gas, however, standard drilling only yielded small amounts of this gas.
By combining the decades old hydraulic fracturing process with newer methods of horizontal drilling, energy exploration companies are able to extract shale gas in significant quantities for the first time. Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting a water-based mixture into the rock, creating tiny cracks in the shale and releasing gas. The process was first used in Texas to release gas from wells that were considered dry.
A Penn State University estimate shows that there is now enough gas in the Marcellus Shale to supply the entire U.S. for more than 14 years. Obviously, the Shale is not going to be tapped all at once and will not be the sole source of gas in the U.S., meaning that wells in Pennsylvania will provide a source of natural for decades.
It is estimated that natural gas exploration could lead to more than 100,000 jobs statewide. While Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District is not located above the shale, local companies will certainly benefit.
Dutchland Inc. in Gap, Pa. manufactures precast concrete for wastewater facilities. The company is an important part of keeping our environment clean as we take advantage of our domestic resources. Since hydraulic fracture injects water deep into the bedrock, companies must take proper care to deal with dirty water. The Marcellus Shale is thousands of feet below the water table, so drilling does not affect groundwater.
There are environmental precautions that need to be taken as gas is extracted from the shale, but there are a number of environmental advantages to using natural gas. First, since natural gas burns cleanly, electrical plants running on gas have greatly reduced emissions. Extraction of gas also impacts the environment less than extraction of other fossil fuels such as coal. Finally, natural gas vehicles, such as buses, emit far less emissions compared to gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Extracting gas from the nearby Marcellus Shale also has a significant cost savings over piping gas from Texas or the Rocky Mountains. Reducing the consumer price for gas will benefit homeowners and could also attract new manufacturing businesses to the state.
Natural gas is not a solution for all of our energy problems, but I believe we need to develop our domestic natural gas supply while we continue to move forward with renewable sources such as wind and solar. I believe a broad strategy of developing gas, nuclear, clean coal and renewables is the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels while gradually reducing our emissions.
We have to ensure that safety and protection of the environment are priorities for the companies developing the Shale, but with many Pennsylvanians looking for work we shouldn't pass up this opportunity to create new jobs. Responsible development of the Marcellus Shale can reduce energy costs while improving air quality.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
With easily acquired natural gas deposits beginning to run dry, energy companies started to look to foreign liquefied natural gas to make up the difference. Gas prices spiked and there were battles over where to locate new industrial facilities to import gas.
Now, however, the Energy Information Agency predicts that we will decrease the percentage of natural gas imported into the U.S. from 13 percent in 2008 to 6 percent in 2035. That's quite a turnaround, and it will happen because of hard working Pennsylvanians unlocking the Marcellus Shale that runs below much of our state.
By now, you've probably heard about the Marcellus Shale, a layer of rock running thousands of feet below the ground. We've known for years that the shale held natural gas, however, standard drilling only yielded small amounts of this gas.
By combining the decades old hydraulic fracturing process with newer methods of horizontal drilling, energy exploration companies are able to extract shale gas in significant quantities for the first time. Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting a water-based mixture into the rock, creating tiny cracks in the shale and releasing gas. The process was first used in Texas to release gas from wells that were considered dry.
A Penn State University estimate shows that there is now enough gas in the Marcellus Shale to supply the entire U.S. for more than 14 years. Obviously, the Shale is not going to be tapped all at once and will not be the sole source of gas in the U.S., meaning that wells in Pennsylvania will provide a source of natural for decades.
It is estimated that natural gas exploration could lead to more than 100,000 jobs statewide. While Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District is not located above the shale, local companies will certainly benefit.
Dutchland Inc. in Gap, Pa. manufactures precast concrete for wastewater facilities. The company is an important part of keeping our environment clean as we take advantage of our domestic resources. Since hydraulic fracture injects water deep into the bedrock, companies must take proper care to deal with dirty water. The Marcellus Shale is thousands of feet below the water table, so drilling does not affect groundwater.
There are environmental precautions that need to be taken as gas is extracted from the shale, but there are a number of environmental advantages to using natural gas. First, since natural gas burns cleanly, electrical plants running on gas have greatly reduced emissions. Extraction of gas also impacts the environment less than extraction of other fossil fuels such as coal. Finally, natural gas vehicles, such as buses, emit far less emissions compared to gasoline and diesel vehicles.
Extracting gas from the nearby Marcellus Shale also has a significant cost savings over piping gas from Texas or the Rocky Mountains. Reducing the consumer price for gas will benefit homeowners and could also attract new manufacturing businesses to the state.
Natural gas is not a solution for all of our energy problems, but I believe we need to develop our domestic natural gas supply while we continue to move forward with renewable sources such as wind and solar. I believe a broad strategy of developing gas, nuclear, clean coal and renewables is the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign fossil fuels while gradually reducing our emissions.
We have to ensure that safety and protection of the environment are priorities for the companies developing the Shale, but with many Pennsylvanians looking for work we shouldn't pass up this opportunity to create new jobs. Responsible development of the Marcellus Shale can reduce energy costs while improving air quality.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
0
June 21, 2010
Campaign Staff
Joe Pitts participated this week in Congressional hearings and meetings regarding the response and cleanup of the BP oil spill.
Washington- Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) participated this week in Congressional hearings and meetings regarding the response and cleanup of the BP oil spill.
On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Environment Subcommittee heard from five top oil company executives regarding the future of offshore drilling and efforts to prevent future spills. On Wednesday, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the possible health effects of the spill and what actions the government is taking to protect workers and those who live in the Gulf region. Last week, The Energy and Environment Subcommittee examined the environmental effects of the spill.
Today, Admiral Thad Allen, United States Coast Guard, briefed Rep. Pitts and other member of Congress on the government response to the spill. Admiral Allen is the commander of the government’s relief actions in the Gulf Coast region.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“First and foremost, the leak must be stopped and the environmental damage must be repaired. This is an on-going disaster, and we should put aside partisan politics and find a way preserve the Gulf Coast environment and economy. Once this is done, it is imperative that we thoroughly understand what happened aboard the Deepwater Horizon so that it never happens again.
“ At these hearings we focused extensively on the administration’s response efforts, BP’s actions before and after the explosion and potential health concerns.
“Hearings won’t solve the problem, but Congress plays an important role in providing oversight and accountability regarding all aspects of this tragedy, including the appropriateness of the administration and BP response.”
Read full story here
(From PoliticalNews.me)
On Tuesday, the House Energy and Commerce Energy and Environment Subcommittee heard from five top oil company executives regarding the future of offshore drilling and efforts to prevent future spills. On Wednesday, the Health Subcommittee held a hearing on the possible health effects of the spill and what actions the government is taking to protect workers and those who live in the Gulf region. Last week, The Energy and Environment Subcommittee examined the environmental effects of the spill.
Today, Admiral Thad Allen, United States Coast Guard, briefed Rep. Pitts and other member of Congress on the government response to the spill. Admiral Allen is the commander of the government’s relief actions in the Gulf Coast region.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“First and foremost, the leak must be stopped and the environmental damage must be repaired. This is an on-going disaster, and we should put aside partisan politics and find a way preserve the Gulf Coast environment and economy. Once this is done, it is imperative that we thoroughly understand what happened aboard the Deepwater Horizon so that it never happens again.
“ At these hearings we focused extensively on the administration’s response efforts, BP’s actions before and after the explosion and potential health concerns.
“Hearings won’t solve the problem, but Congress plays an important role in providing oversight and accountability regarding all aspects of this tragedy, including the appropriateness of the administration and BP response.”
Read full story here
(From PoliticalNews.me)
-
0
June 16, 2010
Campaign Staff
Yesterday, Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) visited Dutchland, Inc. in Gap, Pa. a company that builds water storage systems and wastewater treatment plants throughout the state. Dutchland manufactures precast concrete structures that are assembled on-site.
Yesterday, Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) visited Dutchland, Inc. in Gap, Pa. a company that builds water storage systems and wastewater treatment plants throughout the state. Dutchland manufactures precast concrete structures that are assembled on-site.
Local municipalities use Dutchland’s products to upgrade facilities discharging water into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In recent years, the federal government has placed increased limits on wastewater discharge as part of the effort to revitalize aquatic life in the Chesapeake.
Dutchland also supports many of the new Marcellus Shale natural gas exploration facilities. Water is an essential tool in the hydraulic fracturing process used to release natural gas from shale rock. Wastewater treatment facilities ensure that water used in the process is properly cleaned.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“I had a great opportunity yesterday to visit a local company that is working to keep our waterways and our drinking water clean. It was fascinating to hear how Dutchland is working in our community to clean the Chesapeake and allow natural resources to be developed cleanly.
“Our actions here in Pennsylvania have a significant impact on the health of the Chesapeake, and local municipalities must act responsibly to work toward healthy waterways. New wastewater treatment and storage facilities will have to be brought online to reduce pollutants.
“I was also impressed to hear about how Dutchland’s systems are supporting development of the Marcellus Shale. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but we must also ensure that companies protect the environment as they take advantage of new drilling methods.”
CLICK HERE to view original post.
Local municipalities use Dutchland’s products to upgrade facilities discharging water into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In recent years, the federal government has placed increased limits on wastewater discharge as part of the effort to revitalize aquatic life in the Chesapeake.
Dutchland also supports many of the new Marcellus Shale natural gas exploration facilities. Water is an essential tool in the hydraulic fracturing process used to release natural gas from shale rock. Wastewater treatment facilities ensure that water used in the process is properly cleaned.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“I had a great opportunity yesterday to visit a local company that is working to keep our waterways and our drinking water clean. It was fascinating to hear how Dutchland is working in our community to clean the Chesapeake and allow natural resources to be developed cleanly.
“Our actions here in Pennsylvania have a significant impact on the health of the Chesapeake, and local municipalities must act responsibly to work toward healthy waterways. New wastewater treatment and storage facilities will have to be brought online to reduce pollutants.
“I was also impressed to hear about how Dutchland’s systems are supporting development of the Marcellus Shale. Natural gas is a clean-burning fuel, but we must also ensure that companies protect the environment as they take advantage of new drilling methods.”
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
0
June 09, 2010
Campaign Staff
If you walk into an Apple store in the United States you can walk out with a brand new iPod for around $212. If you purchase from the same retailer in England, you can expect to pay the equivalent of $230. Why the difference? Much of this disparity is because of a value-added tax paid on manufactured products in Britain.
If you walk into an Apple store in the United States you can walk out with a brand new iPod for around $212. If you purchase from the same retailer in England, you can expect to pay the equivalent of $230. Why the difference? Much of this disparity is because of a value-added tax paid on manufactured products in Britain.
A value-added tax, or VAT, is a type of sales tax paid by raw materials producers, manufacturers, and retailers at each stage of production. This type of tax is common in most European nations, but does not exist in the U.S.
However, this situation may not last much longer. Paul Volcker, one of the President’s top economic advisors, has publicly called for a new VAT. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that Congress should look into creating the new tax.
It is certainly true that our federal government is facing a budget crisis; we just don’t believe that a new VAT would balance our budget or allow our economy to create the millions of new jobs necessary to recover from the current recession.
Greece, Spain, and Portugal have all assessed a VAT for decades. None of these nations has used the added VAT revenue to balance their budget. During the economic bubble, tax revenue from the VAT and other sources encouraged these governments to set up lavish public sector benefits and expand government programs.
Now with the economic downturn, many of these nations are facing catastrophic deficits. The VAT didn’t make European governments responsible, why would we think things would be different in the U.S.?
Instead, the VAT is a drag on job growth. The last thing we want to do right now is reduce the buying power of a dollar through new taxes. But with a VAT, consumers would pay more at the cash register, businesses would pay more for accounting and the government would pay more to police tax payments.
Obviously, if you pay more for an iPod or other consumer goods, you will have less money to spend on something else. The VAT has a direct effect on consumer purchasing power.
Right now, sales taxes are only assessed when someone buys a consumer good. When a manufacturer sells a product to a retailer, no tax is assessed. But under a VAT, each business in the supply chain collects taxes. That means additional paperwork and accounting costs. Accounting is a worthy profession, but hiring another accountant to comply with the VAT isn’t going to make a small business more profitable.
The complexity of the VAT system means that the government needs to hire additional IRS agents and auditors to enforce the tax. A 1984 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office showed that a VAT would lead the IRS to expand its workforce by more than 20,000. A new estimate would probably show a significant increase in the number of workers needed to enforce the VAT.
By the end of the year we could see a very serious debate about whether Congress should look to the VAT to balance the budget. The President’s debt commission is searching for ways to balance the federal budget. In Washington one of the most talked about recommendations is the VAT.
Even the President himself has indicated that a VAT should be considered as a way to increase government revenue. We don’t believe that the primary problem is a lack of revenue. Instead, we have a government that has grown beyond its rightful bounds.
From 1982 to 2007, the U.S. created 45 million new jobs compared to only 10 million in Europe. There are many causes for this disparity, but among the chief reasons is a much higher tax burden on Europeans.
We’ve joined together with 155 Members of Congress in a letter calling on the debt commission to reject the temptation to recommend a VAT and instead look for ways restrain government spending. A balanced budget doesn’t have to come at the expense of American jobs.
The U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that doesn’t impose a VAT. We believe that what makes us different from other nations is what makes our economy the strongest in the world.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
A value-added tax, or VAT, is a type of sales tax paid by raw materials producers, manufacturers, and retailers at each stage of production. This type of tax is common in most European nations, but does not exist in the U.S.
However, this situation may not last much longer. Paul Volcker, one of the President’s top economic advisors, has publicly called for a new VAT. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that Congress should look into creating the new tax.
It is certainly true that our federal government is facing a budget crisis; we just don’t believe that a new VAT would balance our budget or allow our economy to create the millions of new jobs necessary to recover from the current recession.
Greece, Spain, and Portugal have all assessed a VAT for decades. None of these nations has used the added VAT revenue to balance their budget. During the economic bubble, tax revenue from the VAT and other sources encouraged these governments to set up lavish public sector benefits and expand government programs.
Now with the economic downturn, many of these nations are facing catastrophic deficits. The VAT didn’t make European governments responsible, why would we think things would be different in the U.S.?
Instead, the VAT is a drag on job growth. The last thing we want to do right now is reduce the buying power of a dollar through new taxes. But with a VAT, consumers would pay more at the cash register, businesses would pay more for accounting and the government would pay more to police tax payments.
Obviously, if you pay more for an iPod or other consumer goods, you will have less money to spend on something else. The VAT has a direct effect on consumer purchasing power.
Right now, sales taxes are only assessed when someone buys a consumer good. When a manufacturer sells a product to a retailer, no tax is assessed. But under a VAT, each business in the supply chain collects taxes. That means additional paperwork and accounting costs. Accounting is a worthy profession, but hiring another accountant to comply with the VAT isn’t going to make a small business more profitable.
The complexity of the VAT system means that the government needs to hire additional IRS agents and auditors to enforce the tax. A 1984 estimate by the Congressional Budget Office showed that a VAT would lead the IRS to expand its workforce by more than 20,000. A new estimate would probably show a significant increase in the number of workers needed to enforce the VAT.
By the end of the year we could see a very serious debate about whether Congress should look to the VAT to balance the budget. The President’s debt commission is searching for ways to balance the federal budget. In Washington one of the most talked about recommendations is the VAT.
Even the President himself has indicated that a VAT should be considered as a way to increase government revenue. We don’t believe that the primary problem is a lack of revenue. Instead, we have a government that has grown beyond its rightful bounds.
From 1982 to 2007, the U.S. created 45 million new jobs compared to only 10 million in Europe. There are many causes for this disparity, but among the chief reasons is a much higher tax burden on Europeans.
We’ve joined together with 155 Members of Congress in a letter calling on the debt commission to reject the temptation to recommend a VAT and instead look for ways restrain government spending. A balanced budget doesn’t have to come at the expense of American jobs.
The U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that doesn’t impose a VAT. We believe that what makes us different from other nations is what makes our economy the strongest in the world.
CLICK HERE to view original post.
-
0
June 01, 2010
Campaign Staff
In the past year, there have been stark reminders of why our Armed Forces are engaged in foreign battles and why many have sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The Christmas Day bomber nearly killed hundreds in the sky over Detroit. Just a few weeks ago, a terrorist trained in Pakistan tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.
In the past year, there have been stark reminders of why our Armed Forces are engaged in foreign battles and why many have sacrificed their lives for our freedom. The Christmas Day bomber nearly killed hundreds in the sky over Detroit. Just a few weeks ago, a terrorist trained in Pakistan tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.
These attempts make it clear that terrorists are still plotting to use civilians around in the world and in the U.S. as targets. They hate free societies, and especially our own, the most free and prosperous nation in the world.
Indeed, today's battlefield is even being fought on American shores. Sadly, in the past year we lost 13 of our fighting men and women and one unborn baby in an attack by a deranged Army officer who had embraced a radical Islamic ideology.
Those who lost their lives had come together from across the country to serve in our Armed Forces and for the cause of liberty. Their hometowns ranged from Spokane to Pittsburgh and they were both officers and enlisted personnel. Some were on their way to the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others had just returned from overseas.
Unfortunately, Major Nidal Hasan chose to make Fort Hood, Texas, a battlefield. His attack was cowardly as none of his victims were armed. Despite having no weapon to defend himself, Capt. John Gaffaney charged Hasan during the shooting spree but was mortally wounded. All 13 American soldiers died as heroes, even though they certainly did not expect to fight within their own home base.
The terrorist attacks and attempts here at home reinforce the need for our military to root out our enemies overseas. It reminds us why our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.
From their bases in Afghanistan, with the full support of the Taliban government, al Qaeda was able to plan and execute the attacks on September 11, 2001. These attacks are not ancient history, but we must not forget what a dedicated terrorist organization can do when they have safe haven and the tacit support of a government.
In the coming weeks, our troops will undertake a campaign to root out the Taliban from Kandahar, the site of the Taliban's first successful military campaign in 1994. As their virtual capital, Kandahar serves as a major stronghold for the Taliban. This is expected to be the most difficult phase of the new strategy in Afghanistan.
Some question the need for our fight in Afghanistan and, instead, call for negotiation with the Taliban. I believe it is dangerous for us to consider withdrawal or compromise as long as the Taliban embrace international terrorism.
Our success during the surge in Iraq went hand-in-hand with the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which domestic Iraqi groups chose to disassociate from al Qaeda in Iraq. Only after their rejection of terrorism, were we able to work with the Anbar groups to work towards a more peaceful society.
I visited Afghanistan shortly after U.S. forces initially secured the country in 2002. I met with women and children who were brutally oppressed by the Taliban. I witnessed girls eagerly attending school for the first time, delighted by the opportunity to learn and flourish in a freer society. It is my firm belief that we should not abandon the people of Afghanistan to the terrorists who brutalized the country for many years.
The Taliban hope that our resistance to their rule will crumble, but I know that we have dedicated men and women who will stay until we have achieved security for the people of Afghanistan and for our families here at home. They have strong examples of American troops gone before them who fought against persistent and stubborn enemies and returned home victorious.
This Memorial Day we remember those who gave their lives so that we can enjoy freedom. We also think about those who are in harm's way and pray for their safety and for their families here at home. For those families who lost loved ones the war never ends. We will enjoy that freedom with barbeques and swimming pools, but we must also take the time to honor those who have given the full measure so that we can enjoy the fruits of liberty.
To view original post, Click Here
These attempts make it clear that terrorists are still plotting to use civilians around in the world and in the U.S. as targets. They hate free societies, and especially our own, the most free and prosperous nation in the world.
Indeed, today's battlefield is even being fought on American shores. Sadly, in the past year we lost 13 of our fighting men and women and one unborn baby in an attack by a deranged Army officer who had embraced a radical Islamic ideology.
Those who lost their lives had come together from across the country to serve in our Armed Forces and for the cause of liberty. Their hometowns ranged from Spokane to Pittsburgh and they were both officers and enlisted personnel. Some were on their way to the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, and others had just returned from overseas.
Unfortunately, Major Nidal Hasan chose to make Fort Hood, Texas, a battlefield. His attack was cowardly as none of his victims were armed. Despite having no weapon to defend himself, Capt. John Gaffaney charged Hasan during the shooting spree but was mortally wounded. All 13 American soldiers died as heroes, even though they certainly did not expect to fight within their own home base.
The terrorist attacks and attempts here at home reinforce the need for our military to root out our enemies overseas. It reminds us why our soldiers are fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.
From their bases in Afghanistan, with the full support of the Taliban government, al Qaeda was able to plan and execute the attacks on September 11, 2001. These attacks are not ancient history, but we must not forget what a dedicated terrorist organization can do when they have safe haven and the tacit support of a government.
In the coming weeks, our troops will undertake a campaign to root out the Taliban from Kandahar, the site of the Taliban's first successful military campaign in 1994. As their virtual capital, Kandahar serves as a major stronghold for the Taliban. This is expected to be the most difficult phase of the new strategy in Afghanistan.
Some question the need for our fight in Afghanistan and, instead, call for negotiation with the Taliban. I believe it is dangerous for us to consider withdrawal or compromise as long as the Taliban embrace international terrorism.
Our success during the surge in Iraq went hand-in-hand with the Anbar Awakening, a movement in which domestic Iraqi groups chose to disassociate from al Qaeda in Iraq. Only after their rejection of terrorism, were we able to work with the Anbar groups to work towards a more peaceful society.
I visited Afghanistan shortly after U.S. forces initially secured the country in 2002. I met with women and children who were brutally oppressed by the Taliban. I witnessed girls eagerly attending school for the first time, delighted by the opportunity to learn and flourish in a freer society. It is my firm belief that we should not abandon the people of Afghanistan to the terrorists who brutalized the country for many years.
The Taliban hope that our resistance to their rule will crumble, but I know that we have dedicated men and women who will stay until we have achieved security for the people of Afghanistan and for our families here at home. They have strong examples of American troops gone before them who fought against persistent and stubborn enemies and returned home victorious.
This Memorial Day we remember those who gave their lives so that we can enjoy freedom. We also think about those who are in harm's way and pray for their safety and for their families here at home. For those families who lost loved ones the war never ends. We will enjoy that freedom with barbeques and swimming pools, but we must also take the time to honor those who have given the full measure so that we can enjoy the fruits of liberty.
To view original post, Click Here
-
0
May 21, 2010
Campaign Staff
Today, 154 Republicans joined me on a letter to the President’s debt commission asking them to stand against a new value-added tax, or VAT. I’m proud to see our Conference unite against a tax that’s being pushed by Paul Volcker, John Podesta, and Nancy Pelosi.
Today, 154 Republicans joined me on a letter to the President’s debt commission asking them to stand against a new value-added tax, or VAT. I’m proud to see our Conference unite against a tax that’s being pushed by Paul Volcker, John Podesta, and Nancy Pelosi.
The VAT is clearly a job killer. While in the last 20 years American businesses created 45 million jobs, the European economy only created 10 million. The healthcare bill moved us toward European levels of government, but now liberals want European taxes to pay for it. The big problem is that new taxes will severely impede the dynamism of our economy.
I’m glad that so many of my colleagues are willing to sign their name to a strong statement opposing the VAT. Many in Washington see the President’s debt commission as a way to bring in the VAT. We need to stand together and make sure that the commission is not just another way for Democrats to centralize control of our economy in Washington.
The simple fact is that a VAT is not a solution to our debt problem. We have unsustainable levels of government and new taxes won’t do the job of balancing the budget. European nations with the VAT have not used the revenue to pay off their debt. Greece, Spain, Portugal, and other countries going through fiscal crises all gradually raised their VAT rates while ignoring the real problem—spending.
If we want to balance our budget and create new jobs, we have to get a handle on our out of control spending and entitlement programs. I hope the President’s debt commission recognizes that new taxes, like the VAT, are not the solution.
Originally Posted on May 20, 2010 Here
The VAT is clearly a job killer. While in the last 20 years American businesses created 45 million jobs, the European economy only created 10 million. The healthcare bill moved us toward European levels of government, but now liberals want European taxes to pay for it. The big problem is that new taxes will severely impede the dynamism of our economy.
I’m glad that so many of my colleagues are willing to sign their name to a strong statement opposing the VAT. Many in Washington see the President’s debt commission as a way to bring in the VAT. We need to stand together and make sure that the commission is not just another way for Democrats to centralize control of our economy in Washington.
The simple fact is that a VAT is not a solution to our debt problem. We have unsustainable levels of government and new taxes won’t do the job of balancing the budget. European nations with the VAT have not used the revenue to pay off their debt. Greece, Spain, Portugal, and other countries going through fiscal crises all gradually raised their VAT rates while ignoring the real problem—spending.
If we want to balance our budget and create new jobs, we have to get a handle on our out of control spending and entitlement programs. I hope the President’s debt commission recognizes that new taxes, like the VAT, are not the solution.
Originally Posted on May 20, 2010 Here
-
0
May 20, 2010
Joe Pitts
After two straight elections with huge gains for Democrats, Democrats control the entire federal government. You’d think they would be happy--but Democratic voters and officeholders alike are increasingly grumpy.
After two straight elections with huge gains for Democrats, Democrats control the entire federal government. You’d think they would be happy--but Democratic voters and officeholders alike are increasingly grumpy.
Democrats in Congress are increasingly nervous that their leaders’ policies are heading them for big trouble with the voters. At the top of their list of complaints is the lack of even a plan to reverse growing unemployment. Read this very interesting article for more on this.
As for Democratic voters, even Tuesday’s primary—which included a big win for Democrats in western Pennsylvania—contained an ominous sign for Democrats going into the fall: Democrats stayed home in unexpectedly high numbers. Read this from a pollster on what this means.
I’ve had several Democrats call and write to me asking how they can switch parties. I received this email from a woman on Sunday: “Hello, please help me change parties…. I am currently a Democrat. … I was raised a Democrat, my father a carpenter in the union. I can no longer belong to a party I do not believe in,,.please tell me how I change parties.”
If you would like to change your registration or register to vote for the first time, registration forms are available at most public libraries and many other government offices. If you can’t find one, please call my office and I’ll send you one!
Democrats in Congress are increasingly nervous that their leaders’ policies are heading them for big trouble with the voters. At the top of their list of complaints is the lack of even a plan to reverse growing unemployment. Read this very interesting article for more on this.
As for Democratic voters, even Tuesday’s primary—which included a big win for Democrats in western Pennsylvania—contained an ominous sign for Democrats going into the fall: Democrats stayed home in unexpectedly high numbers. Read this from a pollster on what this means.
I’ve had several Democrats call and write to me asking how they can switch parties. I received this email from a woman on Sunday: “Hello, please help me change parties…. I am currently a Democrat. … I was raised a Democrat, my father a carpenter in the union. I can no longer belong to a party I do not believe in,,.please tell me how I change parties.”
If you would like to change your registration or register to vote for the first time, registration forms are available at most public libraries and many other government offices. If you can’t find one, please call my office and I’ll send you one!
-
0
May 20, 2010
Joe Pitts
I sent a letter to the co-chairs of Barack Obama’s debt commission today, co-signed by 154 Republicans, urging them to focus on reduced spending instead of new taxes like the Value Added Tax common in European countries. White House Economic Advisor Paul Volcker has called for a VAT and President Obama has refused to rule it out. New taxes would be a huge mistake. Just like overfishing can put fishermen out of business, high taxes ultimately lead to weaker economies and less government revenue. Our only viable option is to reduce spending. Here’s what the Intelligencer-Journal/Lancaster New Era is reporting about the letter.
I sent a letter to the co-chairs of Barack Obama’s debt commission today, co-signed by 154 Republicans, urging them to focus on reduced spending instead of new taxes like the Value Added Tax common in European countries. White House Economic Advisor Paul Volcker has called for a VAT and President Obama has refused to rule it out. New taxes would be a huge mistake. Just like overfishing can put fishermen out of business, high taxes ultimately lead to weaker economies and less government revenue. Our only viable option is to reduce spending. Here’s what the Intelligencer-Journal/Lancaster New Era is reporting about the letter.
Pitts, GOP lawmakers: spike idea of consumption tax
By TOM MURSE, Staff Writer
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is leading a GOP effort to pressure President Barack Obama's debt commission into spiking the idea of a nationwide consumption tax as a way to close the budget deficit.
"With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job-killing tax," Pitts wrote in a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on Thursday.
The letter was signed by 153 other congressional Republicans, including House GOP Conference leaders including Leader John Boehner, Whip Eric Cantor and Chairman Mike Pence.
White House spokesmen have said repeatedly that the president has not proposed and is not considering such a tax, commonly referred to as a value-added tax. But Obama hasn't completely rejected the idea, either, saying in interviews that the tax is "something that has worked for some countries."
Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer.
Suggestions of imposing a VAT in the United States have grown in the face of a looming $1.6 trillion budget deficit in the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Obama's debt commission began meeting in April and is expected to producing a plan to reduce the deficit.
Republicans lawmakers, however, are suggesting the commission focus on spending cuts, not new taxes.
"A new value-added tax is no way to revitalize an American economy that needs to create millions of new jobs," Pitts said in a statement. "European VAT taxes have not prevented these countries from going into deep debt, they have only slowed job growth."
The lawmakers, who did not identify potential budget cuts in their letter, said a value-added tax of 19 percent did not save Greece from its debt crisis.
"The result of increased government spending and taxation in Greece has been a consistently high unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent and a bankrupt government," the lawmakers wrote in their letter.
Asked where he would cut spending, Pitts said he would freeze discretionary spending and propose a one or two percent across the board cut in spending.
Pitts called, additionally, for a repeal of the new healthcare law and replacing it with cheaper alternatives, as well as saving and strengthening entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
"Long term, entitlements are the biggest problem," said Pitts. "We have $107 trillion in binding entitlement promises Congress has no plan to pay for. Whatever we do, we should not be creating new entitlements we can't afford."
(This report contains information from our wire services.)
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/256394
Pitts, GOP lawmakers: spike idea of consumption tax
By TOM MURSE, Staff Writer
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is leading a GOP effort to pressure President Barack Obama's debt commission into spiking the idea of a nationwide consumption tax as a way to close the budget deficit.
"With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job-killing tax," Pitts wrote in a letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform on Thursday.
The letter was signed by 153 other congressional Republicans, including House GOP Conference leaders including Leader John Boehner, Whip Eric Cantor and Chairman Mike Pence.
White House spokesmen have said repeatedly that the president has not proposed and is not considering such a tax, commonly referred to as a value-added tax. But Obama hasn't completely rejected the idea, either, saying in interviews that the tax is "something that has worked for some countries."
Many European countries impose a VAT, which taxes the value that is added at each stage of production of certain commodities. It could apply, for instance, to raw products delivered to a mill, the mill's production work and so on up the line to the retailer.
Suggestions of imposing a VAT in the United States have grown in the face of a looming $1.6 trillion budget deficit in the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Obama's debt commission began meeting in April and is expected to producing a plan to reduce the deficit.
Republicans lawmakers, however, are suggesting the commission focus on spending cuts, not new taxes.
"A new value-added tax is no way to revitalize an American economy that needs to create millions of new jobs," Pitts said in a statement. "European VAT taxes have not prevented these countries from going into deep debt, they have only slowed job growth."
The lawmakers, who did not identify potential budget cuts in their letter, said a value-added tax of 19 percent did not save Greece from its debt crisis.
"The result of increased government spending and taxation in Greece has been a consistently high unemployment rate of nearly 10 percent and a bankrupt government," the lawmakers wrote in their letter.
Asked where he would cut spending, Pitts said he would freeze discretionary spending and propose a one or two percent across the board cut in spending.
Pitts called, additionally, for a repeal of the new healthcare law and replacing it with cheaper alternatives, as well as saving and strengthening entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
"Long term, entitlements are the biggest problem," said Pitts. "We have $107 trillion in binding entitlement promises Congress has no plan to pay for. Whatever we do, we should not be creating new entitlements we can't afford."
(This report contains information from our wire services.)
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/256394
-
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
May 10, 2010
Joe Pitts
With unemployment now at 9.9 percent, we have to ask, “Where are the jobs?” President Obama promised that if we passed his trillion-dollar stimulus bill, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent. Clearly the stimulus didn’t work. I knew it wouldn’t and I voted against it. But that’s just one reason unemployment continues to go up under the Democrats’ policies. Here are three more.
With unemployment now at 9.9 percent, we have to ask, “Where are the jobs?” President Obama promised that if we passed his trillion-dollar stimulus bill, unemployment would never exceed 8 percent. Clearly the stimulus didn’t work. I knew it wouldn’t and I voted against it. But that’s just one reason unemployment continues to go up under the Democrats’ policies. Here are three more.
Taxes – The Democrats have advocated for dozens of new and increased taxes. Many more taxes, including your income taxes, are scheduled to automatically shoot up in January. If you were an employer and you knew your tax burden was about to go up—but had no idea by how much—would you risk expanding and hiring right now?
Regulation—From Obamacare to Cap and Trade, the Democrats’ have been pushing for huge new burdens on businesses large and small. If you were an employer and you knew the cost of doing business was about to skyrocket, would you risk expanding and hiring right now?
Government debt—The federal government has $107 trillion in spending promises it has no plan to pay for, prompting Moody’s to warn of a downgrade of federal debt securities within the next decade. That’s exactly what started the debt spiral that is embroiling Greece and other European countries right now. Even Britain is realizing how much trouble they are in because of years of liberal spending. Knowing that our massive government debt could lead to an even worse economic crisis within ten years, would you expand your business and hire right now?
The keys to job creation are low and stable taxes, less government, and less spending and debt.
Taxes – The Democrats have advocated for dozens of new and increased taxes. Many more taxes, including your income taxes, are scheduled to automatically shoot up in January. If you were an employer and you knew your tax burden was about to go up—but had no idea by how much—would you risk expanding and hiring right now?
Regulation—From Obamacare to Cap and Trade, the Democrats’ have been pushing for huge new burdens on businesses large and small. If you were an employer and you knew the cost of doing business was about to skyrocket, would you risk expanding and hiring right now?
Government debt—The federal government has $107 trillion in spending promises it has no plan to pay for, prompting Moody’s to warn of a downgrade of federal debt securities within the next decade. That’s exactly what started the debt spiral that is embroiling Greece and other European countries right now. Even Britain is realizing how much trouble they are in because of years of liberal spending. Knowing that our massive government debt could lead to an even worse economic crisis within ten years, would you expand your business and hire right now?
The keys to job creation are low and stable taxes, less government, and less spending and debt.
-
0
April 22, 2010
Campaign Staff
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) received a “Green the Capitol” award. Click below to find out more.
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) received a “Green the Capitol” award from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for adopting sustainable business practices in his Washington and district offices. Rep. Pitts was one of 50 Member offices given the award.
Seventeen Republican offices and 33 Democratic offices were honored for their efforts to reduce electricity usage, reduce waste, and recycle. In just the last few years, the “My Green Office” program that Rep. Pitts participates in has saved 481,650 kilowatts of electricity and 204,020 pounds of landfill waste across Capitol Hill.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“I’m very proud to have my offices honored with this award. Reducing waste contributes to the health of our environment and helps improve the bottom line of the federal government. We’re still looking to make more improvements in the coming year, and I hope that all of my colleagues can take small steps toward maintaining greener offices.”
-
0
April 21, 2010
Campaign Staff
Republican talking points took center stage Saturday morning at the quarterly Lancaster County ACTION breakfast meeting at Leola Restaurant.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Republican talking points took center stage Saturday morning at the quarterly Lancaster County ACTION breakfast meeting at Leola Restaurant.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Pitts and Corbett said they are concerned and worried about where the nation is headed, and spoke about too much government spending.
Corbett expressed concern about "the future of our children."
"They are leaving Pennsylvania because there are better opportunities in other states," he said. "I believe in Pennsylvania. We have to change direction."
Corbett said he wants to change the "mentality coming from Harrisburg."
He called for more government transparency and less spending, and he promised to make decisions based on Pennsylvania's best interests. "I won't worry about re-election. I will only worry about our state right now," he said, and added: "We need to assert our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment," he said, referring to challenges to the recently passed health care reform.
The line drew applause.
Also at the meeting were Republican state lieutenant governor candidates Jim Cawley and Chet Beiler and Republican Tom Garman, who is running against state Rep. Mike Sturla in the 96th House district. Cawley is the endorsed candidate, and Beiler, former Lancaster County party chairman, is running without party backing. ACTION President Bob Kettering said Beiler is "ACTION-endorsed."
Primary elections are Tuesday, May 18.
Garman, who is party-endorsed, said that while he is young and "still learning about the political process," he thinks that in the upcoming elections, "with your help, we will be able to take back Lancaster city."
Pitts, who is seeking his eighth term, spoke mostly about government spending.
"Since this administration came to power, the federal government has taken control of 51 percent of our economy," said Pitts, who will face Democratic challenger Lois Herr.
"We're going down a neo-socialism path," he said. "The things we value — freedom, democracy and capitalism — this administration is about to kill it all."
Pitts said we need not just change, but rather a "new normal."
"I also want the new normal to be Nancy Pelosi giving up her gavel, Harry Reid standing in the unemployment line, and Obama being a one-term president."
All speakers encouraged the ACTION members that the future lies in the people and how they will vote in the upcoming elections.
Pitts reminded everyone that change starts locally, and then goes national in November. "As I read the public mood, I think you'll see a turnout like never before," Pitts said.
"This group is about action, and that's what we need. Not just words, but action. This has the potential to be a good year."
ACTION member Robert William closed the ceremony by reminding the group where faith and hope for the country needs to be placed — not in government or man, only in God.
"Second Chronicles 7:14 has to be our cry: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' That is where we must turn," William said. "That has to be our prayer."
Originally Posted Here on April 18, 2010
By Mandy Stoltzfus, Lancaster Online
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Pitts and Corbett said they are concerned and worried about where the nation is headed, and spoke about too much government spending.
Corbett expressed concern about "the future of our children."
"They are leaving Pennsylvania because there are better opportunities in other states," he said. "I believe in Pennsylvania. We have to change direction."
Corbett said he wants to change the "mentality coming from Harrisburg."
He called for more government transparency and less spending, and he promised to make decisions based on Pennsylvania's best interests. "I won't worry about re-election. I will only worry about our state right now," he said, and added: "We need to assert our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment," he said, referring to challenges to the recently passed health care reform.
The line drew applause.
Also at the meeting were Republican state lieutenant governor candidates Jim Cawley and Chet Beiler and Republican Tom Garman, who is running against state Rep. Mike Sturla in the 96th House district. Cawley is the endorsed candidate, and Beiler, former Lancaster County party chairman, is running without party backing. ACTION President Bob Kettering said Beiler is "ACTION-endorsed."
Primary elections are Tuesday, May 18.
Garman, who is party-endorsed, said that while he is young and "still learning about the political process," he thinks that in the upcoming elections, "with your help, we will be able to take back Lancaster city."
Pitts, who is seeking his eighth term, spoke mostly about government spending.
"Since this administration came to power, the federal government has taken control of 51 percent of our economy," said Pitts, who will face Democratic challenger Lois Herr.
"We're going down a neo-socialism path," he said. "The things we value — freedom, democracy and capitalism — this administration is about to kill it all."
Pitts said we need not just change, but rather a "new normal."
"I also want the new normal to be Nancy Pelosi giving up her gavel, Harry Reid standing in the unemployment line, and Obama being a one-term president."
All speakers encouraged the ACTION members that the future lies in the people and how they will vote in the upcoming elections.
Pitts reminded everyone that change starts locally, and then goes national in November. "As I read the public mood, I think you'll see a turnout like never before," Pitts said.
"This group is about action, and that's what we need. Not just words, but action. This has the potential to be a good year."
ACTION member Robert William closed the ceremony by reminding the group where faith and hope for the country needs to be placed — not in government or man, only in God.
"Second Chronicles 7:14 has to be our cry: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' That is where we must turn," William said. "That has to be our prayer."
Originally Posted Here on April 18, 2010
By Mandy Stoltzfus, Lancaster Online
-
0
April 19, 2010
Joe Pitts
The Democrats in Washington have made so many mistakes in the last year that 2010 looks to be the best year for the Republicans since 1994 and perhaps even better. As a Republican, I’m glad to see it because it will give me a chance to successfully push for many of the things I believe in. But recent polls that show people distrusting the government are not only an indictment of Democrats. To a large degree they are an indictment of Republicans as well.
The Democrats in Washington have made so many mistakes in the last year that 2010 looks to be the best year for the Republicans since 1994 and perhaps even better. As a Republican, I’m glad to see it because it will give me a chance to successfully push for many of the things I believe in. But recent polls that show people distrusting the government are not only an indictment of Democrats. To a large degree they are an indictment of Republicans as well.
In the last half of the 12-year stretch Republicans had in the Congressional majority, we lost faith with the American people--and that’s why the Democrats are in charge to begin with! Republicans spent too much, for starters. But there were also too many scandals, and too many inexcusable mistakes. I found myself voting against my own party more and more. I voted against No Child Left Behind. I voted against TARP (the Bush bank bailout). I voted against nearly two-thirds of the annual appropriations bills the GOP passed during the Bush Administration.
The Tea Party movement has not resulted just from anger at the Democrats. It resulted from anger at both parties. What does that mean for November? This election needs to be about what’s good for America, not just about what’s good for the Grand Old Party. It can be the start of something great for the GOP as well, but only if Republicans stick to their principles and actually deliver on the things we as a party are supposed to believe in: less government, less spending, family values, law and order, and wise national defense.
The Tea Party movement will probably be good for the GOP this year. But after the election, if Republicans win the majority in Congress, the movement will be there to hold the party accountable. If we don’t live up to our promises to be the party that can actually do budget math, we will have the Tea Party folks to reckon with. This is a very good thing for America. Accountability is always a good thing.
In the last half of the 12-year stretch Republicans had in the Congressional majority, we lost faith with the American people--and that’s why the Democrats are in charge to begin with! Republicans spent too much, for starters. But there were also too many scandals, and too many inexcusable mistakes. I found myself voting against my own party more and more. I voted against No Child Left Behind. I voted against TARP (the Bush bank bailout). I voted against nearly two-thirds of the annual appropriations bills the GOP passed during the Bush Administration.
The Tea Party movement has not resulted just from anger at the Democrats. It resulted from anger at both parties. What does that mean for November? This election needs to be about what’s good for America, not just about what’s good for the Grand Old Party. It can be the start of something great for the GOP as well, but only if Republicans stick to their principles and actually deliver on the things we as a party are supposed to believe in: less government, less spending, family values, law and order, and wise national defense.
The Tea Party movement will probably be good for the GOP this year. But after the election, if Republicans win the majority in Congress, the movement will be there to hold the party accountable. If we don’t live up to our promises to be the party that can actually do budget math, we will have the Tea Party folks to reckon with. This is a very good thing for America. Accountability is always a good thing.
-
0
April 19, 2010
Campaign Staff
Two Democratic pollsters wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that the enactment of Obamacare has been “an incontrovertible disaster” for the Democratic Party. They cite one survey that reports “more Americans say they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States.”
Two Democratic pollsters wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that the enactment of Obamacare has been “an incontrovertible disaster” for the Democratic Party. They cite one survey that reports “more Americans say they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States.”
The op-ed was written by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, who were pollsters to Presidents Carter and Clinton. This is not the first op-ed the two have written together. On March 12, before the bill became law, they warned Democrats to back off. They wrote: “CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. ...We are ... concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.”
The op-ed was written by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, who were pollsters to Presidents Carter and Clinton. This is not the first op-ed the two have written together. On March 12, before the bill became law, they warned Democrats to back off. They wrote: “CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. ...We are ... concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.”
-
0
April 15, 2010
Campaign Staff
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Originally Posted at Pottstown Mercury on Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor's confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody's Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes — something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea — a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for "the reduction of the administration of our government."
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don't think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation "unsustainable" and that our problems "cannot be solved with minor tinkering." Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
View Full Story Here
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor's confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody's Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes — something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea — a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for "the reduction of the administration of our government."
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don't think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation "unsustainable" and that our problems "cannot be solved with minor tinkering." Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
View Full Story Here
-
0
