The Pelosi Recession
By Rep. Tom Feeney Posted in Congress — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
There has been much talk about recessions and stimulus packages on nightly news programs in the last few days. And this talk certainly doesn't come cheap.
After an impressive 24 quarters of economic growth, it only took newly anointed Speaker Pelosi and her liberal colleagues less than one year to hobble a previously growing economy.
A year ago this week, Congress began to impose dangerous1970’s economic policies – high taxes, escalating regulatory burdens, and special favors for politically-connected businesses. If history truly does repeat itself, then how can we be surprised that today’s economy now teeters towards recession?
During Jimmy Carter's era, most of us remember the result: hyperinflation, stagnant growth, and imperiled economic prosperity for all Americans. If you liked the 1970’s – gasoline rationing, the Ford Pinto, limited air conditioning in the summer, and burning the furniture for heat in the winter – you’ll love Speaker Pelosi's “no energy” energy policy.
Read on . . .
We must not revert to a failed command-and-control system worthy of the former Soviet Union – mandates, higher taxes, wagering on yet-to-be-achieved technological breakthroughs, and choking off tried-and-true ways of producing reliable and inexpensive energy. America’s future depends on developing all energy sources. Instead, Democrats are looking to deliver higher prices, unreliable supplies (such as electricity brownouts and gas lines), and a stagnant and shackled economy.
America’s economy relies on abundant, available, and inexpensive energy. Energy is the lifeblood of modern, dynamic, and growing economies. America has been blessed with a multitude of energy sources. If we release our demonstrated talent and expertise, energy will be generated from these sources and result in comfort, mobility, and prosperity.
America's economy is also in desperate need of permanent tax reductions for hardworking taxpayers. The recent economic stimulus package that President Bush and Speaker Pelosi approved--while doing no harm--it does not offer genuine reforms to stimulate the economy. Real stimulus involves permanent tax reductions on hardworking taxpayers and businesses to create 'permanent income' that results in long term productivity, economic growth, and jobs.
Hardworking Americans know the keys to generating prosperity: remove the dead weight of government taxes and regulations to unleash the creativity and entrepreneurial risk taking of the American people. Don’t punish hardworking taxpayers, business owners, and entrepreneurs. Remove unnecessary regulations imposed by faceless bureaucrats. Permanently reduce their taxes—and not with the knee-jerk, Band-Aid fixes of temporary relief that the American people have sadly come to expect from Congress.
We must look towards the future with renewed enthusiasm while remembering the mistakes of our past. If we do this, I am confident that America can continue its global economic leadership without saddling tomorrow's generation with poor and hasty decisions. Speaker Pelosi wants to lead America backwards. I, along with fellow pro-growth Republicans, want to lead it into the future.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | The Hanging Chairman — Comments (9) »
The Pelosi Recession 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Every Republican on the Hill should be heading to a microphone to pin this on the Dems. Is there a good explanation as to why we are not?
--roxer
The explanation is that people understand that the current slow down is the result of the Housing / Credit bubble which isn't the donks fault. Trying to pin this particular slow down on the dem congress isn't going to work; having said that, knock yourself out.
-exits
You might be able to pin the entire thing on Greenspan when you read after you read some of his remarks from 2004:
"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage. To the degree that households are driven by fears of payment shocks but are willing to manage their own interest rate risks, the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardDocs/speeches/2004/20040223/default.h...
Essentially he is promoting the variable rate loans which caused so much of the current problems.
How have we gotten to a point where we blame inanimate ideas (variable rate loans) instead of putting responsibility on the individual investor. I am sick of bailing people out who don't even bother to educate themselves as to what they are being bailed out of. This is so ridiculous. Now I understand that some of the people hurt by these loans were pressured into them and I get it, they need help.
I went out last year and was going to buy a house. Once I realized that I was not in the right position to buy, I made a plan. I didn't try to force myself into a house that I could not afford. Unfortunately many people did. I would guess that some of these people are the same people who write a hot check for groceries and get cash back, then deposit the cash in there bank acct...thinking that will cover them.
The whole thing just makes me sick!!!
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
I guess if you could actually point to the specific piece/pieces of legislation passed by congress that caused the downturn then you might have something but then you'd have to account for why the Administration didn't veto it.
As much as you might want to try and pin this on democrats it simply wont' stick. Maybe if the Administration lead by example and proposed a balanced budget instead of the largest deficits in US history that might be helpful.
"We have a once in a life time opportunity here and we are blowing it."
The Dems will have four more years to wreck up the economy beginning in 2009.
And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law, and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they may be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. ~ Winston Churchill
hammer this home.
America always does better when conservatives govern. :>)
I love that things haven't worked out so well for Nanc.
Tell me again, what exactly has she accomplished?
...Nancy and Harry are focusing on the use of steroids in Major League Baseball. Why fight AQ or Social security reform when Roger Clemens is a much easier target?
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
I am all for sticking it to Pelosi and her crowd whenever we can, but trying to blame them for "hobbl[ing] a previously growing economy" is going to go nowhere. First, the President always takes the bullet on the economy, whether deservedly or not. Second, what exactly did the dems do to screw up the economy? Nice try, but this won't fly.
All the rhetoric, both from Congress and the the Dem president candidates, has been about raising taxes and increasing spending. Since we already have an increasing deficit and the economy is slowing, the Democrat proposals are exactly what we don't need.
Even though they haven't been able to get any of their idiotic agenda passed, just talking about it for the last 15 months has been enough to trash the economy. I guarantee if they made the Bush tax cuts permanent you would see a 10% rally in the stock market and the recession fears would recede.
Have you considered they may want a broken economy heading into an election year? You are naive if you think they wouldn't kill the economy on purpose.
Will the markets down-tick again when the person who will be the D nominee is decided? I heard Obama talking about raising corporate tax rates - exactly what we do not need - as more business flies oversea's.
And I don't think the D's understand that their statements causes some changes in the market conditions. But, all you have to do is look at Greenspan's remarks over the years to see the direct effect he has. The D's statements have these effects as well - but much more limited.
More taxes on business, more spending by government. That means business goes oversea's. But the people left behind, the poor, the middle-class still buy stuff...made in "anywhere but U.S.".
Ok, I'm getting off track.
Good point Spartan.
Erik
It has nothing to do with the Bush deficits; the housing collapse with foreclosures on the rise; the credit crunch; banks writing off billions in assets; debt laden U.S. consumers spending less; inflation ticking up; the Fed's panicked lowering of interest rates; blue chip companies lowering expectations for the year; etc. etc. etc.
Don't Tread on Me
he thinks we're intelligent enough to know how the economy works? Giving up before even trying is not a good idea. How about, with the dismal ratings of congress, to point out their tax & spend stupidity? There's where the real stupidity lies...
It's what they've failed to do, and what they promise to do should they win the White House.
The failure to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent weighs heavily on those who create jobs and rely on long-term capital investments and expenditures.
The failure to produce an energy bill that actually produces energy has contributed to rising fuel prices and skyrocketing food prices. Increased transportation costs have begun to affect all consumer goods.
They promise to legislate mandatory participation in a government take-over of approximately 17% of our economy.
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
But it may fly with the general public. And the Rep is spot on with escalating regulatory burdens on business. And he is absolutely right with the rest of his message.
Is it spin? Yes, but it is spin we can certainly use. And it should be used NOW versus later when the Dem nominee will try to pin the slowdown on Bush. Which as most bloggers know can't be pinned on him...
Erik
Not rightfully so, but it will.
The naive forgive and forget.
The foolish forget but do not forgive.
The wise forgive but do not forget.
To anyone who has even casually followed the years of utter stupidity in the financial services sector (liar's loans, anyone?), it will simply be insulting.
I'd be open to what Rep. Feeney has to say about regulatory burdens and the need for lower taxes. But when he tries to blame the current downturn on a party that has just barely controlled Congress for 12 months, I can't take him the least bit seriously.
Congress is at low approval, lower than President Bush. Why not point out how a feckless, inept, & corrupt bunch of tax increasers & over-regulators can harm an economy? No reason to accept the BS that will come from the left on this...
I was 14 when Reagan took office. I remember exactly what malaise felt like, what stagflation was like. I remember how the national mood was, & how much a breath of fresh air Reagan was. Why let it happen again?
games?
A word search and casual reading shows that the current housing bubble took years to develop before the current dismal situation, over the last ten years.
The week that was -Paulson or Bernanke back in January- said the stimulus package needed to be temporary, among other things was the week that the stock market broke its 1982 bull market trendline.
I appreciate the Congressman's post, but talking about tax cuts here is singing alleluia to the choir.
What about abolishing the $.18 fuel tax, which is twice as much profit as the oil companies make after expenses.
What about ditching global warming as part of the Republican National Committee platform so that they recognize the scientists who can prove that global warming is not caused by man, are being outspent 3-1 by the environmentalists.
The Sarbanes-Oxley law that's supposed to prevent another Enron, is driving IPOs overseas, and may require jail time over the decisions made in regard for the subprime losses. As it is, there is nothing in the current Republican platform that shows a bold break from the liberal's agenda other than tax breaks and a choice in income tax schemes if I were to go by the Republican Study Committe flat tax plan.
What will happen when all the beneficiaries spend all their refund checks on fuel, and the prices go up another record amount? I mean I've read projections of $120/barrel fuel, whether or not I believe it, gas is at 2.95ish in high gas tax NC, and then comes the refinery maintenance season, egads- this situation sucks and our leading presidential candidates don't want to drill in ANWR. What a crock!!!
Congrssman Feeney has been a leader on reforming Sarbanes-Oxley and has gotten about every Taxpayer's Hero award in existence. While I'm very supportive of the Congressman, I'm not sure if I buy the argument blaming the Democrats the way he phrased it, but I like the idea of saying that the Democrats did nothing to make the tax cuts permanent, that they did nothing to make energy more affordable, that their energy bill actually made food more expensive by mandating so much ethanol (something our nominee opposes), and that their promises to increase taxes, increase spending, and burden businesses with more regulations made businesses and investors uncertain and pessimistic about the future. We could make a case that their inaction contributed to, but was not the sole cause of, this slowdown or recession.
You clearly touched off some anger in a few self-conscious lefties, heh.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Does this mean we need to give the Dems credit for improvements in the security in Iraq over the last year?
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Learn to spell. It's REAGAN. Also, save the sheep[le] stuff for Daily Kos. In any case, you don't get to come here and be so disrespectful of our guests. Blam.
P.S. It really hurts to have such a functionally
pro-victory in Iraq Speaker, doesn't it? – N. Stevens
Congressman, this is why we (GOP) are going to lose the White House. This is why Americans believe (rightfully so) that Republicans have lost their way. Because if our Congressman are all as clueless as you then it speaks sadly for our future. To think that so many Republican congressman I have read in the last year know so little of history is frightening. Please read this to understand the 70's economic crisis which you clearly are ignorant of.
In 1970 Richard Nixon appointed Arthur Burns as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He appointed Burns with specific instructions: Unemployment was to drop and inflation was to lower going into the next election. Burns, not being an incompetent economist knew this would be tricky. One takes on unemployment by lowering interest rates and providing easy credit and cash flow, referred to as an Expansionary Monetary Policy (EMP). Problem is, to take on inflation, one raises interest rates and slows the cash flow, referred to as a Contractionary Monetary Policy (CMP). How does one run two different economies at the same time? Easy. The EMP is used to deal with unemployment and since a CMP cannot run concurrently with an EMP the President installs wage and price controls to deal with the inflation. Surely Burns and Nixon both knew this would be disastrous but Burns wanted to keep his job and Nixon wanted to get re-elected. Burns tried to back out, so to speak, but according to William Safire, Nixon had negative stories planted in the press about Burns which finally forced him to cede. Nixon - what a guy!
By the time the price and wage controls finally ended the most dire predictions had come true: shortage of goods, lower quality of product (often resulting from cost-cutting to get around price controls) and of course, once the controls were lifted, sky-rocketing inflation. But Nixon got what he wanted - re-election (although he may have later regretted that) and Burns sold his soul to the devil.
Oh yeah, and then there was that little thing OPAEC (Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, which is the Arab members of OPEC) announced on October 17, 1973. They said they wouldn't give any more oil to any nation supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War. In other words, the United States, Japan, and their western allies. After only five months they ended the embargo on March 17th, 1974 (hey, let's face it, you can't not sell to your best customer for very long without going bankrupt). Of course by then enough havoc had been wreaked upon the economy to make anyone's head swim.
And just to pour salt in the wound, most of the bills for Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society programs were coming due. The work world had yet to adjust to just how many new employees it was going to have to make room for with the baby boomers entering their late twenties. The auto-industry and steel industry in America were in dire shape and Americans had lost much confidence in their leaders and their government after Watergate.
Enter Jimmy Carter: Post-Watergate-Oil Crisis-Recession-Dueling Economies-Vietnam Pullout 39th President. Poor guy.
When Burns came up for re-appointment in 1978 Carter wisely passed and appointed G. William Miller, briefly, and then Paul Volcker in 1979. And guess who's the Federal Reserve Chairman that many Reaganites and Supply-Siders credit with getting interest rates under control and tightening the monetary policies to restrict borrowing when interest rates were high thus bringing the economy into full recovery? Oh that's right, Paul Volcker, the guy Carter appointed - in August, 1979. Not exactly a lot of time to fully repair everything before the election fifteen months later. Of course Carter could have enacted price and wage controls and ordered Volcker to free up the money supply but it seems Jimmy Carter, for some bizarre reason, felt that the future well-being of the economy was more important than his own re-election aspirations. What a weirdo.
So by examining the economic policies of Nixon and Burns, and their short-sighted motivations, we can clearly see that Carter really wasn't to blame for the economic disaster that was the 1970's. It was Nixon.
And look - oh dear - I even gave props to Carter. Gasp. Yet another problem we Repubs have right now. A titanic insecurity where everyone, EVERYONE, of any political ilk besides Conservatism is considered evil. Obama can praise Reagen and win primaries but if a GOP Candidate dared praise a Democrat the rabid righters like yourself would pop a vein. It's so insecure - it's so embarrassing. And no offense sir, but after reading your post I think you really need to step down. You're not very smart, that much is clear, but you seem to be completely lacking in critical thinking skills, something I would hope all congress members of both parties would have. I don't want someone who could quite possibly be outwitted by Uno the Wonder Beagle writing this great nation's legislation. And think of the free time you'll have. You and your wife can have intense intellectual conversations about, oh gosh I don't know, your favorite flavors of bubblegum or something. That'll be fun.
G. Starkwell
allows you to implement a fairly restrained monetary policy w/o the intendant inflation. You'll notice that the economy has grown significantly since GWB took office and inflation is nowhere near what it was in the late 70's.
Also, I'm happy you aren't popping any veins while you write this offensive, disengenuous and blatantly dishonest grab bag of seething personal angst.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
intended as a reply to Mr. Stackwell. I must be too hung up on my favorite bubblegum flavors.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
"...this offensive, disengenuous and blatantly dishonest grab bag of seething personal angst." What!?!?? I was stating facts from the economic crisis of the seventies - how in God's name is that an "offensive, disengenuous and blatantly dishonest grab bag of seething personal angst."
But sadly, you have provided a great example of what I was saying. We Republicans (at least I am assuming you are one) are too ready to defend EVERY thing we have ever done and ATTACK every thing any other party has done. That just doesn't help matters - it makes us look petty.
You also mention inflation with Bush. I don't disagree with you - that's why I headlined my comment "70s Economy". I wasn't talking about now but the Congressman implied with his statements that a return to the seventies is what the Democrats were crafting and since the seventies economic problems resulted from Conservative policies (as well as LBJ and Vietnam debt) I felt it a good idea to clue him in. I mean, really, he does seem pretty clueless about all of it.
Don't be angry with me for pointing out some facts from the seventies. Be angry with Congressman like Feeney who have never met a problem they couldn't blame on someone else. They are not helping our party. And blind loyalty to them is not helping either. No one wants to belong to a party of sheep.
We've got some good people in Congress with the GOP and I am of the mind that Nancy Pelosi is, Democrat or Republican, man or woman, the most incompetent and inept Speaker we have ever had. Lordy, what a buffoon. But come on, I'm not blaming a recession on her. Hell, I don't know if she's even smart enough to start one.
Now if you're an Adam Smith fan then I am further assuming you are well versed with economic policy structures and everything I wrote in my first comment is merely a reiteration of the policies in place in the seventies - and I know you know that. All of this is easily researched if anyone doubts what I wrote about Burns and Nixon.
And notice further I made no mention of Carter on countless other issues where he failed miserably as President. But by appointing Volcker he succeeded admirably.
So there you go. I hope you will read my response openly and realize that none of it is disingenuous angst. They are the words of a conservative minded man who feels the GOP has been suffering for too long from blindly loyal sheep infiltrating the party, terrified to say a word against the party and thus leading us down a path where we hear or read facts and view them as angry opinion.
And by the way, I like grape but sometimes strawberry gum really hits the spot.
(P.S. If you know economics as well as I assume you to you should run for Congress. We need all the good men we can get. I'll be the advisor that drives you crazy.)
G. Starkwell
Why are we NOT taking political advantage of the Dems being in charge of Congress with the economic whoas that are happening? They had no problem trying to stick the last recession to Bush, even though it was not his fault. We have a once in a life time opportunity here and we are blowing it. Make this issue stick to them like glue - i.e. since the Dems have gained power in Congress and because of their tax and spend policies, the economy has moved closer to a recession. They know it. That's why they moved so quickly to get a stimulus in place. They DO NOT want this hanging over their heads during the election.