Orrin Hatch for U.S. Senate

Orrin's Blog

Tag >> Fiscal Responsibility

With today's news that 9 banks repaid more than $66 billion they received from the TARP program, we're reminded of the importance of passing Senator Hatch's bipartisan bill to close a loophole in the program that allows the treasury to recycle these funds rather than using them to pay down the national debt.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this video

Previous: Leading Efforts To Close TARP Loophole


President Obama's health care proposal hit a major snag on Monday after the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their first cost first cost estimate of the plan.

The report CBO concluded that the President's plan will:

  • Cost at least $1 trillion
  • Cause 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage
  • Decrease the number of uninsured by 16 million at a cost of $62,500 per currently uninsured person

Senator Hatch commented on the report:

At a time when the president is working with congressional Democrats to quickly cram an ultra-costly health care plan through the Senate HELP Committee, followed by a similar approach in the Senate Finance Committee, we were all stunned today to learn from the CBO that the bill will cause more than 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage. This proposal flies in the face of the president's pledge to American families that they could keep the health care coverage of their choice. The CBO estimate shows that the Democratic proposal will decrease the number of uninsured by about 16 million at a cost of 1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years, or $62,500 per uninsured.

It should be noted that the CBO's estimate does not reflect the final cost of the President's bill -- since it does not take into account the cost of a massive expansion of Medicaid, a new government-run plan nor a job-killing employer mandate -- however the costs are only expected to increase!


Right now, when banks pay back TARP funds there's no requirement that the funds be used to pay down the national debt. Without that restriction, Treasury department can reuse that money over-and-over again -- meaning that instead of being an emergency program, TARP could become a perpetual program.

That's why Senator Hatch, along with Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln, introduced a bill yesterday to close the loophole by requiring that when TARP funds are repaid they are used to pay down the national debt.

Senator Hatch comments:

TARP has become a revolving slush fund for the Obama administration to nationalize our nation's private sector by using taxpayer money to acquire banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers. When TARP was signed into law last fall, it was authorized to purchase $700 billion in toxic or troubled assets from financial institutions to restore liquidity to the system. Unfortunately, it is now being misused as a go-to solution to address all of our nation's economic ills. That must not be allowed to continue.

This money belongs to the American people, not to the Obama administration to further its far left agenda. Taxpayers have been told to foot the bill for rescuing the financial sector, but now they are being forced to bail out any company this administration deems fit. It is time for Congress to ensure that TARP is used for its intended purpose and to require any money repaid to the Treasury Department be returned to the general fund.

Ten large banks have recently the Treasury Department's approval to repay $68 billion under TARP. It is time to restrict Treasury's access to these funds, thereby ensuring that the taxpayers' investment is protected.


During a Senate Finance Committee hearing yesterday, Senator Hatch grilled economists on the impact of the Democrats' cap-and-tax scheme.

Here are a few of the questions and answers with Anne Smith, Practice Leader of Climate and Sustainability of CRA International:

Q. Do you believe that implementing a cap-and-trade program or a carbon tax would result in net job losses?

A. Yes

Q. Some climatologists believe that implementing a cap-and-trade or a program that would reduce carbon emissions by 83 percent in the year 2050 would reduce temperatures by only nine-hundredths of 1 degree Fahrenheit. Are we sacrificing million of jobs in order to reduce climate change by nine-hundredths of 1 degree?

A. The precise level of U.S. emissions will not affect climate risks in any quantifiable way if they are on a general track towards near-zero emissions. This is particularly true because global climate outcomes over the next century will be determined by controls on developing country emissions much more so than by a few percentage points of difference in U.S. emissions during the next couple of decades.


The following originally appeared as an op-ed in the The Uintah Basin Standard and St. George Spectrum. -Staff

Last week, the country's political echo chamber was abuzz with discussions and evaluations of President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office. While this was, of course, an arbitrary milestone with little meaning outside of the cable news shows, the past 100 days have provided us with some unique insight into this president and how he intends to govern.

The president came into office facing unprecedented expectations after campaigning on a platform of big promises. Not the least of these was a promise to move the country past the bitter partisan divides that have kept us polarized in recent years.

Unfortunately, I don't believe he's delivered on that promise.

Today, our government is as polarized as it has ever been. And, even under these conditions, this administration and the congressional Democrats have opted to push forward a far-left agenda the likes of which has not been seen since the "New Deal" in the 1930s.

Right out of the gate, the president eschewed what was a hard-fought, bipartisan compromise on the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and pushed through Congress a decidedly more expansive and liberal approach to the program. Not surprisingly, the final vote was divided along partisan lines.

Next, the administration brought to Congress a $790 billion "stimulus package" that basically read like a wish list of longtime Democratic policy priorities and had very little to do with actually stimulating the economy. Small businesses, which create 70 percent of the new jobs in this country, went virtually unnoticed in the "stimulus" bill, which focused more on expanding the federal government and providing "tax credits" for millions of Americans who don't pay any taxes.

The president had an opportunity to work with Republicans and include ideas that are proven to have immediate economic impacts -- ideas such as reducing the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world to keep businesses in the U.S. or increasing the home-buyer tax credit. Instead, he chose to cut Republicans almost entirely out of the negotiations and then blame them for being too partisan when the votes came down divided.


Senator Hatch introduced legislation today to put the brakes to the runaway growth in government spending -- 22% in just two years.

The Limitation on Government Spending Act of 2009 would limit government spending to 20% of GDP (Gross Domestic Product -- essentially the size of the U.S. economy).

 Senator Hatch discusses the bill:

At a time when Utahns and Americans are tightening their wallets, this budget grows the size of government, excluding nondefense-related spending in just two years by 22 percent.

Many Americans, as demonstrated last week through TEA parties, are asking if this government spending will ever stop. After trillions for bailouts and other government spending, this budget makes no hard choices to reform runaway spending.

...

It is time that we restrict government spending. It will cause us to make some tough decisions about what is really important. One thing is certain, we cannot continue down the path we are headed. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to change course and get back on the path to fiscal sanity.

Read more of Senator Hatch's speech.

Orrin PAC has more on the ongoing impact of President Obama's spending plan on deficits and national debt.

Updated: Watch this video of Senator Hatch introducing the Limitation on Government Spending Act.


Every April 15th reminds us of the necessity of raising revenue to operate our government. Most will agree that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. It is not that we have to pay taxes that brings you all here today, but rather the fact that we have to pay so much. Simply put, the Federal government should spend less so that we are not taxed so much. However, under the proposed budget of President Obama and the Democratic Majority in Congress, we are moving in the wrong direction.

Erwin Griswold, former solicitor general under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, once said, "We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. At least, as one man said, there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."

Unfortunately, the proposed Obama budget would lead to taxes getting worse. In fact, they would get much worse, and not just for the so-called "well-off and well-connected," as the budget refers to those who are targeted for explicit tax increases.

Rather than cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, as the President promised, the budget includes a number of tax increases that would directly and indirectly hit lower and middle income wage earners, as well as the so-called wealthy. I refer to them as tax hikes on America's industrial output and energy, tax hikes on America's job creation, and tax hikes on America's competitiveness.

The first proposal is designed to deal with climate change, and would effectively place as much as $1.9 trillion in new taxes on energy and industrial companies throughout America. These businesses would have to either pass these gargantuan costs on to their customers and employees, or go out of business. The taxes would show up in the form of higher utility and other energy bills, higher costs for consumer goods, lost jobs, and a lower standard of living for everyone.

The second proposal would undermine the already-weak stimulus bill enacted in February by increasing taxes that would stifle job creation. It would do this by raising taxes on capital gains, dividends, and the top individual rates, where most small business income is taxed. Small businesses create about 70 percent of all jobs. The nearly 200,000 small businesses in Utah, and millions more across the U.S., cannot generate substantial job growth if they face big tax increases.

The third way the Obama budget assaults job creation is by attacking America's competitiveness in the global economy.

Beyond strengthening job growth through small businesses, we must also create an environment that encourages companies to invest in the United States and also to expand worldwide to meet growing opportunities. According to last year's listings of the world's largest companies, the so-called Global 500, only eight of the top 25 corporations in the world were headquartered in the United States. Forty years ago, almost all of the top 25 were American firms.

Our system of worldwide taxation, coupled with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, is enough to cause any firm to think twice about locating or keeping its worldwide headquarters and jobs here. And this is before the changes included in the Obama budget, which would make the business landscape far less friendly.

Taxes are already too high, and we need to find a way to lower them and to lower our irresponsible federal spending. Instead, the new Obama Administration and its supporters in Congress are choosing this time of severe recession to announce more spending and higher taxes.

The spending in this budget is so massive that independent estimates suggest roughly 250,000 new federal bureaucrats may be needed to spend it all.

Washington should do what millions of Utahns and other Americans are doing to weather the financial storm -- find ways to cut and make do with less. By cutting wasteful spending, eliminating ineffective government programs, and dealing with our long-term entitlement crisis, we can put our fiscal house in order without raising taxes.

I join in your outrage in the direction our country is headed. I am fighting in Washington to stop tax increases and to find ways to reduce growth in spending. That is why I filed an amendment to the budget on the Senate floor that would limit government spending to 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product, which has been the historical average. Given today's out-of-control spending in Washington, we are seeing this historical average of 20 percent being abandoned for 29 percent on the way to 39 percent. Continued spending and tax increases to support it will lead America down the same dead-end road that many European nations have gone down -- leading to the Europeanization of America.

I plan to introduce legislation that would install a cap of 20 percent of GDP on all future spending, and I call on all Utahns, and other Americans who love their Country, to support this effort. Lower spending should lead to lower taxes and I am convinced a hard cap on spending may be the only answer that Washington politicians understand. We need to instill fiscal constraints to ensure a responsible budget.

I appreciate your willingness to show your strong feelings on this vital issue and wish you well as you continue your efforts to secure the future for our children and grandchildren.

Sincerely,

Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator


Senator Hatch was on Don Imus' radio show yesterday, where he discussed President Obama's budget, cap-and-tax plan and the Employee "No" Choice Act.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this video

"The Democrat budget promises to not raise taxes on 95% of Americans, but, then, it indirectly raises the cost of living by taxing gas, businesses and jobs."


Senator Hatch was on CNBC's Squawk Box Monday morning to discuss President Obama's budget:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this video

Work Of Fiction

Posted by: Staff in Fiscal Responsibility on

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on Senator Hatch's speech on the President's job-killing budget:

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, blasted President Barack Obama's budget as a "work of fiction" in a floor speech Wednesday, calling out the Democratic administration for what he says robs the rich to pay the poor.

Hatch said the real title of the budget act should be, "How to End America's Global Leadership and Prosperity Without Really Trying."

"Simply stated, Mr. President, this budget declares war on American jobs and on the ability of American businesses to save or create them," Hatch said.

He called the fiscal year 2010 spending plan a "masterpiece of contradiction," which includes the "largest tax increases known to humankind" while also promising tax breaks for 95 percent of Americans.

Read Senator Hatch's speech.


<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>