As Democrats' "Stimulus" Price Tag Reaches $700 Billion, House GOP Promotes Economic Growth Plan Based on Tax Relief, Job Creation
Boehner: "The American People Know that More Washington Spending Isn't the Answer"

Washington, Nov 24 - As families and small businesses struggle through the economic slowdown, Washington Democrats continue to lay the groundwork for a blizzard of new taxpayer-funded government spending…and the price tag of the plan keeps on rising.  Today, it stands at as much as $700 billion, according to the Washington Post, and Congress hasn’t even started drafting it.  In this morning’s Post, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) cautioned against a new government spending spree, repeating the warning that many economists have already given: bigger government inside the Beltway won’t spur economic growth the way Democratic leaders claim it will:

 

 

“‘Democrats can’t seem to stop trying to outbid each other – with the taxpayers’ money,’ House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement.  ‘We’re in tough economic times.  Folks are hurting.  But the American people know that more Washington spending isn’t the answer.’”

 

The Post reports that the Democratic plan calls for taxpayers to bankroll a slate of new infrastructure spending, even though non-partisan studies by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) have challenged the Democrats’ argument that additional highway spending will create jobs and boost the economy, saying such expenditures would likely just substitute federal dollars for state dollars.  Noted economists agree.  In a recent Washington Post story titled “Critics Say Roads Projects Won’t Jump-Start Economy” published last month, economist Alan Viard said, Changes in infrastructure spending are not an effective method of creating jobs or providing short-run fiscal stimulus to the economy.”

 

Rather than asking taxpayers to pay for more bureaucracy in Washington, DC, Boehner has proposed a rapid economic recovery plan that relies on tax relief for families and small businesses, rebuilding Americans’ 401(k)s through a zero capital gains tax, stopping unnecessary lawsuits, and an “all of the above” energy plan that would create up to one million new American jobs.  Boehner discussed the plan yesterday on Fox News Sunday:

 

“I think American families and small businesses are struggling.  I put an economic stimulus plan out some six or eight weeks ago that basically says, if we’re really serious about creating jobs, what we ought to do is eliminate the capital gains tax for the next two years on any equities that are purchased.  Why not lower capital gains taxes and corporate income taxes for corporations in America to help keep jobs here?  And if we’re really serious about creating jobs in America, why wouldn’t we do the American Energy Act, our ‘all of the above’ plan that will create a million new jobs over the next five years and keep more of our energy money here in the United States?”

 

Public opinion polls show that this type of pro-growth package – rather than one based on hundreds of billions in taxpayer-funded government spending – is what the American people support to get the economy back on track.  With that in mind, Boehner yesterday called for more tax relief and urged President-elect Obama to take tax hikes off the table during economic recovery discussion, stating, “If we want to create jobs now and we want to create certainty now, why wouldn’t we lower taxes?  And, if we really want to help the economy, why wouldn’t we have the President-Elect say, ‘I’m not going to raise taxes on any American my first two years in office.’”

 

As Congress and the incoming Obama Administration begin shaping plans to jump-start the economy, will they ignore the advice of noted economists and the will of the American people and force taxpayers to foot the bill for a pork-laden “stimulus” bill?  Or will they join Republicans in supporting a real plan to create jobs, rebuild 401(k)s, and get our economy moving again?

 

READ MORE:

Print version of this document