An Update from Congressman Bishop
The Party of No?
I recently attended the President’s State of the Union Address. I admit I was put off when he claimed to “not point fingers” and not “re-litigate the past” while he blamed Bush for every difficulty America faces. He also claimed to “change the tone” of debate in Washington just before he pitted the Senate against the House, discourteously railed on the Supreme Court and labeled the GOP as the Party of No, with no ideas.
I was also in attendance at the GOP meeting when Obama spoke to us. I found it interesting that when individual Republican members stood and told the President of alternative bills the GOP had introduced, the President consistently admitted he had read the bill and rejected the idea. At one point he took the compilation of GOP alternatives presented to him, turned quickly to a page and read a specific quote. He was obviously familiar with the document. What I saw was, contrary to allegations, the President indeed knew of our alternative ideas and rejected them out of hand. Apparently there is a Party of No in Washington, but it is not the one to which I belong.
The President contended in his State of the Union Address, and elsewhere, that his health care agenda was in trouble only because he had not explained it well enough. He said the issue was “complex” and obviously the people didn’t understand it. I disagree. Obama’s plan is unpopular because people DO understand it. His 29 major speeches last year on the issue were clear, and his proposal is still wrong. He’s proven he can be a good speaker; he needs to start showing he can be a better listener.
Missile Defense and NASA
The proposed Obama budget was recently presented. It is a staggering $3.8 trillion. It carries a deficit of $1.6 trillion. It raises $2 trillion in new taxes over ten years. It spends too much and taxes too much. In every family budget one distinguishes between needs and wants. Unfortunately, this budget does not distinguish between needs and wants.
One issue of the budget is of particular concern to Northern Utah. Obama proposes to end NASA’s Constellation program (and the Ares rocket) and replace it with an unclear, “commercial” rocket scheme. This decision will cost 20,000 private sector jobs. Coupled with the Administration’s cut in our missile defense system last year, I estimate around 2,000 private sector jobs will be eliminated in Utah. It will have a profound impact on Utah’s economy. Were the loss of these jobs the only issue, that would have been enough to energize me to fight the Obama proposal. It is, however, much more than just about jobs. These are special jobs that if lost will not only hamper our efforts in space (I don’t want the Russians and Chinese controlling the space above us. We spent too much time winning the Cold War to concede control of space), but at the same time will destroy our ability to defend America against missile attack. The industrial base that produces rocket motors to send astronauts to the Space Station, Moon and beyond is the same industrial base that produces rocket motors for missiles to defend this country against rogue nations like North Korea and Iran. Let me put it in perspective. To fully fund this Constellation program would require an additional $3 billion annually. Last year’s Stimulus Bill spent over $800 billion and included almost $5 billion for ACORN. This year’s proposed budget asks for $450 million from the Defense Budget alone to move prisoners and trials of terrorists from Guantanamo and pay for expanded security in the lucky American city to get the trial venue. Already New York City has rejected the honor. Other federal budget areas will also come up with around $500 million for the trials as well as move terrorists from Guantanamo to American jails. I am sorry, but these are not examples of my priorities.
The sad part is the cancellation of the NASA rocket program doesn’t save money. The budget proposal authorized a new $1.5 billion to close the program, and the rest of the money is shuffled around in the budget.
Last summer, a Pentagon report cautioned that delay in the Constellation program would have “significant negative impact” on our defense posture. It doesn’t take a rocket science to figure out what impact cancellation of the program would have. Contrary to some naive comments, this is not about jobs; it is about our national security and missile defense capability.
I have attached an op-ed I wrote about this whole issue which could appear as early as tomorrow in the Ogden Standard Examiner.
History Repeats Itself
Perhaps it is because I taught history, but I see us re-making the same mistakes. The House and Senate leaders just raised the debt limit to a staggering $1.9 trillion, and justified it by re-establishing Pay-Go requirements. It sounds great to say we will “pay as we go,” but it is a trick. Remember when the first President Bush said “read my lips, no new taxes” and then raised taxes? There had to be some way to justify such an action. It was Pay-go! Government can balance a budget by cutting spending or raising taxes. Guess which one Reid and Pelosi would choose? Pay-go is only a justification for raising taxes.
During the early days of the Great Depression, investors had money to put into the economy but they sat on it. Business investment was down because both Hoover and Roosevelt raised taxes and threatened business with fees, fines and legal action. The current Administration appears to be charting the same strategy and probably with the same result. The government can not create jobs, although this Administration keeps trying. Only the private sector creates real and lasting jobs, and the private sector will not expand if there is an anti-business agenda or threat of higher business taxes from the White House and Congressional leadership. Class conflict does not make the business community feel secure. Raising taxes on those making over $250,000 sounds great if one is a salaried employee, but this threshold applies to business as well. Almost all small businesses fall in this category to be taxed. Where is their incentive to grow, expand and hire? The anti-business attitude and blame-everything-on-the wealthy approach didn’t work in the 1930’s. I am afraid we are repeating history.
Thanks for reading this. I sometimes wish I was not so negative, but I do work in Washington. We will keep up the fight, though. Thanks for what you do in that regard.