As published in the March 1, 2009 Toledo Business Journal
Robert Latta
US Congressman
Stimulus can not come from pork barrel spending
Toledo Business Journal recently spoke to Congressman Robert E. Latta (R-Bowling Green). He shared the following thoughts.
Toledo Business Journal: You have gone on record opposing H.R. 384, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Can you explain your position?
Robert E. Latta: I have firmly opposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program since its inclusion in the financial market rescue legislation. The vague language and lack of accountability within the TARP program raises serious concerns about how American taxpayer dollars are being spent.
Unfortunately, H.R. 384, the TARP Reform and Accountability Act, inflicts even more harm on American taxpayers and our free-market economy. H.R. 384 grants more widespread discretion and authority to the Treasury Secretary on how to use the hundreds of billions of dollars in the TARP program. With this, the Treasury Secretary will force his way into business decisions companies will make. As I have previously stated, the Federal government should not dictate private business decisions.
TBJ: There is still $350 billion of funds remaining in TARP to be distributed. What is your position on the release of these funds? Is there documentation on the benefits being obtained?
REL: H.R. 384 grants the authority to release the remaining TARP funds, specifically making it easier to release the last $350 billion.
Thus far, we have no solid proof the TARP funds that have been released are stabilizing our financial markets, and we certainly have no solid proof the next release will have a positive impact on our financial markets.
Additionally, there has been no transparency from some of the companies who received TARP funding, as we continue to read stories about how taxpayer dollars are going towards CEO bonuses and lavish staff retreats.
During [a January debate], I supported a motion to recommit that would send H.R. 384 back to the House Financial Services Committee to allow more debate and amendments to this bill. This action would eliminate the release of the [additional] TARP funds and demand a plan from the Treasury Secretary to outline how the TARP funds will be repaid.
TBJ: Along with all 178 House Republicans, you also voted against H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Can you discuss your stance on this issue?
REL: Stimulating our nation’s economy cannot come from pork barrel spending. The Democrat majority have littered H.R. 1 with wasteful government spending that only puts our country further into debt with no real effect on our economy in the immediate future. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projects that 60% of the discretionary spending in this bill will occur after 2010.
Our economy needs fast and immediate relief, and unfortunately, spending $50 million on the National Endowment for the Arts, $600 million for new cars for federal government employees, $1 billion for the census, and $194 million for repairs to the Department of Agriculture headquarters and the Smithsonian Institute do nothing to quickly pull our country out of recession.
Furthermore, members of Congress have asked repeatedly for numbers showing how many jobs will be created with this package. To date, we have yet to see any statistics that prove this package will work in terms of job creation or reducing the growing unemployment rate.
TBJ: What options do you see for stimulating the US economy?
REL: I, along with my Republican colleagues in the House, believe that the fastest way to recover from this recession is immediate tax relief for small businesses and incentives to promote job growth. The private sector, not the Federal government, is best suited to stimulate the economy, and this can be done through tax relief, which will put money directly in the hands of American families and businesses – where it deserves to be.
The Republican alternative reduces the lowest individual income tax rate from 15% to 10% and 10% to 5%, which will put an average of $500 and $1,200 respectively back into the pockets of American taxpayers. This plan would also save married couples up to $3,200 per year as well. This package allows businesses to take a (up to) 20% deduction on their income, which will allow them to put our neighbors and friends back to work.
People in the housing market with 5% down would receive a $7,500 tax credit for new home purchases. By drastically reducing the size of the spending package, including much needed tax relief and an extension of unemployment benefits, our package is far better suited for both short and long-term economic growth.
With our national debt at a staggering $10 trillion, the American people, along with House Republicans, know that we as a country cannot borrow and spend our way out of this recession. Americans already owe foreign governments $3 trillion, with China owning $683 billion of that alone. With the final price tag of H.R. 1 being over $1 trillion, we cannot in good faith continue to drive our national debt higher and place future generations of Americans in peril by enacting a plan that is little more than a “shot in the dark.”
TBJ: Are there any other issues you would like to discuss?
REL: In early January, I re-introduced the following legislation that I sponsored in the 110th Congress: The TRICARE Continuity of Coverage for National Guard and Reserve Families Act of 2009, a bill that allows retired members of National Guard and reserve units with 20 or more years of faithful and honorable service to purchase healthcare that was available to them during their time in active service or after they reach 60 years of age.
Currently, members who have retired but are not yet 60 years of age are not eligible for TRICARE and are referred to as being in the “gray area.” Right now, there are approximately 220,000 retirees that fall within the “gray area” and an additional 12,100 service members retiring and entering this status each year.
Additionally, I supported a resolution outlining a five-point comprehensive energy reform plan to lower energy costs and increase domestic energy production.
The five points are as follows: expand use of renewable and alternative energy sources, increase US domestic refining capacity, promote and incentivize an increase in conservation and energy efficiency, expand and promote additional research and development through new and innovative methods such as public-private partnerships, and enhance consumer awareness and education regarding methods to increase energy efficiency and available alternative fuel sources to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.