Columns
By: Sens John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte and Ron Johnson
Originally printed in The Washington Times, October 31, 2012
Nearly two months after the murder of four American citizens in Benghazi, Libya, including U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, there remain many more questions surrounding this tragedy than credible answers provided by the Obama administration. The American people want to know what happened on Sept. 11, 2012, and they deserve to hear an explanation directly from the president. Among the many questions that still need to be answered about the Benghazi attack, here are five of the most important ones.
Why was security at the consulate so inadequate despite two previous attacks this year and the repeated pleas over many months from security agents on the ground and our ambassador for greater assistance?
On the anniversary of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and after multiple attacks this year on our consulate and other Western interests in Benghazi, why were our forces in the region not ready and positioned to respond rapidly to this foreseeable emergency?
Why did President Obama and his administration spend nearly two weeks insisting that the Benghazi attack had been the result of a spontaneous protest to a hateful video, when all evidence clearly concluded that it was a planned terrorist attack by an al Qaeda affiliate?
At any point during the attack in Benghazi, did any member of the U.S. government, including senior administration officials, reject requests for greater military and intelligence assistance for our personnel on the ground in Benghazi? Did anyone order U.S. military and intelligence personnel in Benghazi or nearby in the region who offered help to stand down?
How can the president insist that “the tide of war is receding” when al Qaeda affiliates have grown stronger on his watch across the region, including Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Mali, Iraq and Syria — and when one of these al Qaeda-affiliated groups has killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans and driven us out of Benghazi?
Rather than providing straightforward answers to the American people on these and other questions, the administration has been playing a blame game ever since the attack occurred. First, officials sought to blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration caused by a hateful video. When it was reported that no such demonstration had occurred and the attack clearly had been committed by terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda, the administration next sought to shift blame to the intelligence community. Now the administration is citing a lack of situational awareness in Benghazi as why no U.S. military personnel or assets were called in to respond to the attack, which lasted nearly seven hours.
Emails sent from our personnel on the ground in Benghazi within hours after the attack began clearly identified it as a sophisticated militant attack. There never should have been any debate over this point. The administration knew within hours after the assault on our consulate began that it was a terrorist attack. Though the attack occurred on the anniversary of the worst terrorist atrocity in our history, and though it was preceded by two earlier attacks on our consulate in Benghazi this year, the administration did not have adequate forces ready and in position in the region to respond to this foreseeable attack.
Regardless of what the president said in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, the fact is that he and members of his administration refused to characterize the attack in Benghazi as an act of terrorism for as long as two weeks after the attack. The president himself spoke about the events in Benghazi at length in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25 and never once characterized the attack as an act of terrorism. In press interviews around the same time, the president instead sought to blame the attack on a demonstration against the video.
Ultimately, the reason it is so important to learn all of the facts surrounding the attack in Benghazi is because there are larger national security issues at stake. The administration wants us to believe it has diminished the threats posed by terrorism — that “the tide of war is receding,” as Mr. Obama has said — and now we can focus on “nation-building at home.” The tragic events in Benghazi show how false and misleading the administration’s narrative is. The fact that it continues to act under this misguided assumption is only increasing the dangers we face around the world.
We do not need an administration-led investigation to answer the question of what the president knew, what he was told and what action he chose to take before, during and after the Benghazi attack. The American people deserve to know the facts about the attack in Benghazi, and the facts that have come to light thus far paint a disturbing picture the president needs to step forward and explain.
By Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Sen. Ron Johnson
Originally printed in Politico, July 31, 2012
There is widespread agreement across America that cybersecurity is an urgent national priority and the federal government needs to play a major role. The threat of a cyberattack is real, and its consequences could prove devastating to our economic and national security. Effective action cannot come too soon.
Any solution to cybersecurity must allow the private sector, which owns 85 percent of our nation’s critical infrastructure, the freedom to use all tools at its disposal to protect against cyber intrusions. Business owners understand the need to protect themselves in the cyber domain and are devoting considerable resources to do so. Industry is right to expect that any Senate legislation will complement their current efforts.
As much as possible, Washington should facilitate — rather than dictate — cybersecurity.
When the Cybersecurity Act was brought to the floor last week, without either a hearing or a markup, industry understandably mobilized to express alarm. The bill’s proposed framework creates a government-based solution that hampers the private sector’s agility and ingenuity to meet this rapidly evolving threat.
The list of those opposed is telling. It includes the Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, the Internet Security Alliance, the Business Roundtable, IBM, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and the National Association of Manufacturers.
They are raising legitimate concerns that the “voluntary” framework offered to industry is overly burdensome and prescriptive. It could quickly turn into a mandatory regulatory scheme. Increased bureaucracy and uncertain liability protections would actually slow the sharing of threat information between business and government. Resources better spent on innovation and deterrence would be diverted to satisfy government notions of compliance.
Meanwhile, the number of cyberattacks on federal networks rose 39 percent in 2010, according to the Office of Management and Budget, while the number of incidents on private networks went down.
In 2011, incidents on federal networks went up again — this time by 5 percent. At the same time, only 18 percent of federal agencies’ nearly $76 billion information technology budget was spent on security. Of that amount, 76 percent of IT security costs at nondefense agencies were spent feeding a bloated bureaucracy.
The federal bureaucracy simply cannot compete with the private sector’s expertise and dexterity in identifying and implementing effective solutions. Before dictating standards to businesses, the government should certify that it meets the same levels of IT security and efficiency that it intends to impose on the private sector.
There is a legitimate role for government in protecting the Internet. But we must work with — not against — business to identify a solution.
Unfortunately, the message to industry this week is: We’ve run out of time and we’re passing a bill. If it’s flawed, don’t worry; we’ll fix it in conference.
That is a risk we cannot take. The impact that this legislation will have on the economy and the private sector is still unknown. The Congressional Budget Office has not had an opportunity to analyze its cost — which is an expected step under standard procedure.
Any analysis would undoubtedly be complicated by one provision that allows up to six months after enactment for the Office of Management and Budget to tell Congress what resources and staff would be needed for specific responsibilities. Meanwhile, our national debt nears $16 trillion, real unemployment is almost 11 percent and there is a $1.75 trillion annual regulatory burden on the economy.
Affected parties have legitimate concerns about the effects this legislation will have if it becomes law. These should have been addressed before the floor debate. Congress can and should solve the problem this year.
But in doing so, we must not lose sight of our obligation to deliver to the American people the best product for both our economy and our national security.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) is the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) serves on the Budget and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees.
Jul 25 2012
Obama's vision puts government first
Originally published in the Wausau Daily Herald, July 25, 2012
Like many Americans still enduring Obama's broken economy, I was astounded by the president’s recent comments. It was another Joe-the-Plumber moment where — detached from a teleprompter — he committed the classic gaffe of revealing what he truly believes.
“If you’ve got a business,” President Obama said, “you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
This comment is incredibly insulting to entrepreneurs who work 60 hours a week building businesses that provide products, services, and employment to society.
The president said he is “always struck” by businessmen who think they alone deserve all the credit for their own success. Instead, “we do things together,” he said. Congratulations, Mr. President — nearly every adult who has succeeded in American business realized that long ago.
The president believes he is spouting some profound truth. Instead, he is highlighting his own ignorance and lack of respect for free enterprise.
As someone who spent 31 years building a manufacturing business, of course I would tell you that I didn’t do it alone. Anyone who’s talked to businessmen has heard the same thing: We couldn’t have made it without our dedicated employees. We owe it all to our customers. Our families provided great support. Our communities were crucial. And, yes, government provided infrastructure — from roads to the stable legal environment of a free society.
Obviously, government infrastructure is important to free enterprise’s success. But it is free enterprise that funded it, by giving us the most successful economy the world has ever seen. This circle of prosperity is threatened when the president disparages the role of business.
What the president does not understand, is entrepreneurial spirit and the role of leadership. He knows so little about it that he imagines people rise to lead companies without learning the importance of cooperating with others. He has so little respect for the private sector that he hasn’t bothered to figure out what any successful entrepreneur knows — that you succeed by keeping your customers and employees happy. He doesn’t understand the private sector depends on people working together voluntarily. It’s as if he never heard of making a deal.
It’s from this position of ignorance that he presumes he’ll teach businessmen a lesson.
Yet it’s the president whose vision is too narrow. “There are some things,” he said, “we do better together.” He then listed these things. All his examples involve the federal government. This is incredible, but not surprising from a man who really does believe the center of economic activity lies inWashington.
If President Obama had any experience in the private sector, his definition of “we” would be much richer. “We” do many things better together in a free market thriving within a civil society.
Shortly after our independence, Alexis de Tocqueville was struck by how good Americans were at working together — in businesses, in charities, in towns, and by building schools, libraries, associations and communities. That’s still striking today. It’s no wonder that the people who organize the voluntary good works in our communities are often the people most successful in business. Entrepreneurship teaches you to work with others. President Obama might have known this if he had respect for any actual business people.
Instead, he believes all goodness flows from government. His vision seems to be a nation of citizens grateful mainly for whatever benefits an all-powerful government deems they deserve. We’ll all wait to be told by federal authorities what to eat, what to drive, how to run our town’s schools, how to get our health care, how much money we can keep and how to succeed in business. He talks of us all being “in this together.” But for Obama, “this” amounts to making us clients of an ever more controlling federal government.
The problem isn’t just that we cannot afford this. Obama’s effort is bankrupting America. But worse, as government grows, our freedom recedes. The citizen’s relationship to government becomes the most important relationship in his or her life. The more important government is and the more that it tries giving us, the less room there is for others. We become more like the France that de Tocqueville knew — where the people did not work together voluntarily the way Americans did because they instead relied on the state, not each other.
There’s a better vision. It’s one where we work together, under the discipline of Adam Smith's invisible hand, for mutual benefit without Washington directing every move. It’s one where government has a place — but the extraordinary spirit of the entrepreneur is primary.
View original article.
Jul 18 2012
GOP must prevent a lame-duck looting session
By Senators Ron Johnson, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham
Originally printed in the Washington Examiner, July 18, 2012
If Republicans want to win big in November, we must do more than show voters how we plan to govern in 2013. We must also demonstrate how we're working right now to stop the last-minute spending spree the Democrats have planned for December.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants to force a postelection lame-duck session of Congress, in which defeated politicians will no longer be accountable to voters. In that context, he will have more leverage to raise taxes and increase spending against the threat of yet another government shutdown, leaving taxpayers on the hook for more borrowing, debts and deficits.
Republicans in the House and the Senate must work together to avert a disastrous postelection looting of the taxpayer. We urge House Republicans to pass -- before the August break -- a responsible plan that funds the government into the next year, leaving major issues for the newly elected president and Congress.
Should Republicans fail to do this, Americans can expect another carefully choreographed crisis that will needlessly take government to the brink of a shutdown, without concern for voters, consumers and businesses that desperately need stability amid these fragile economic times.
A series of terrible events will occur at or near the year's end if Congress does not act soon. The current tax rates are set to jump beginning next year. Medicare payments to physicians will expire. Defense spending will be gutted. The government is also likely to reach the debt ceiling again.
Despite this coming "fiscal cliff," Congress will take its monthlong break in August. The delay is deliberate. History shows that by waiting until the last minute, creating an atmosphere of confusion, fear and alarm, proponents of big government give themselves a much better shot at getting what they want. Lame-duck sessions have been used in the past to ram through gas tax hikes, congressional pay raises, debt limit increases, thousands of wasteful earmarks and trillions of dollars in new spending.
When Congress returns the second week of September, there will only be three short weeks until the next government shutdown. That's due to Reid's refusal to pass a budget in the last three years and his failure this year to pass a single government funding bill.
In these moments of planned chaos, Reid will do all he can to divide Republicans and depress their supporters over matters of taxes and spending. But we know his primary goal is to force Republicans into accepting a stopgap, temporary, two-month government spending bill, called a continuing resolution. If he accomplishes this, Congress will be forced to reconvene for a lame-duck session in late November or December to complete its work for the year.
That's when the real mischief can begin.
During that time, under the gloomy cloud of yet another government shutdown, members of Congress who lose in the 2012 elections can freely vote to raise taxes, increase spending, pass international treaties, increase the debt limit and gut national defense. They will never have to answer to voters again.
These important issues should not be decided in panicked moments. And it would be a complete disservice to the public if we chose to let an old Congress, completely unaccountable to voters, determine the major issues of our day.
We cannot give Reid this chance. Let us repeat: House Republicans need to pass the plan to keep the government funded through 2013 before the August recess.
Republicans should use the August recess to discuss their plan to keep the government running until next year. Senate Republicans can then force a vote on the House-passed government funding legislation. This will make it very difficult for Reid and President Obama to make an honest case that Republicans are threatening to shut down the government.
Responsible leadership never would have created this mess, but we need responsible leadership to get us out of it. If Republicans don't take bold action today to save our nation from fiscal collapse, there is little reason for voters to believe we ever will.
Sens. Jim DeMint, R, and Lindsey Graham, R, represent South Carolina. Sen. Ron Johnson, R, represents Wisconsin.
May 31 2012
Unlike Obama, Scott Walker delivers
Originally printed in Politico, May 31, 2012
Starting Wednesday, most of the folks I know in Wisconsin will be looking forward to a well-earned respite from what seems like a permanent campaign.
Instead of taking a break from politics between elections, Wisconsin has for months been dealing with fugitive legislators, ugly protests, legal challenges and a series of recall contests allegedly aimed at overturning Gov. Scott Walker’s legislative agenda. There’s virtually no possibility that his successful reforms will be overturned, so one has to wonder: What exactly is the point of Tuesday’s recall vote?
The simple facts are the governor’s reforms have worked, and Wisconsin is open for business.
Since Walker and his allies in the Wisconsin state Legislature passed reforms that asked public-sector employees to contribute a small amount to their retirement and health care plans, prevented unions from automatically collecting dues from workers’ paychecks and granted local governments more flexibility in dealing with public-sector unions, property taxes have actually gone down. Counties and municipalities have balanced their budgets. And the state has gone from a budget deficit of $1.8 billion to a surplus of $275 million.
These reforms have worked, and the people of Wisconsin recognize there’s no reason to return to the deficits of the past.
When Republicans took control of Madison in 2011, the Legislature was dealing with a gaping budget deficit. While most elected officials prefer to decide whether to boost spending or cut taxes, this team was different.
The serious-minded legislators elected in 2010 recognized that business as usual was ruining the state. Wisconsin’s business climate was worsening. Jobs were leaving. Budget deficits were growing.
The leaders stepped up and adopted reforms they knew might not be popular at first, but would — over time — put the state on sound fiscal footing. Facing serious fiscal challenges, they made the hard decisions and took the tough votes. So far, it looks like they were right.
We could use some of that fortitude in Washington. At the federal level, the problem is nearly 1,000 times worse than it was in Wisconsin — with Washington running annual deficits of well over $1 trillion every year since President Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
Given the size of the problem and the consequences if we fail to act, the last signal the people of Wisconsin should send to our nation is that elected officials who make tough decisions will be booted out of office. Instead, we should encourage elected officials — in Washington and elsewhere — to take practical steps to control spending and rising deficits.
That has not been the case in Washington, where the president has simply refused to lead. He has presented four federal budgets. None of them included reforms to save Social Security and Medicare. None included a plan to get this nation to a balanced budget.
Instead, the Obama administration is content to prevail over historic levels of spending, deficits and debt. The president’s most recent budget was so unserious, it was defeated in the Senate, 99-0, after being rejected in the House, 414-0. This isn’t leadership; it’s a complete abdication of responsibility.
Compare the president’s performance with the governor’s. Both benefited from voters who were deeply frustrated and disappointed with their predecessors and badly wanted a change in direction. Both were elected along with partisan majorities in control of both houses in their capitals — Walker in Madison and Obama in Washington.
But as both prepare to face the voters again, Walker has assumed responsibility for what happened on his watch, while Obama is doing everything he can to avoid responsibility.
Walker campaigned on a promise to control spending and encourage private-sector job creation. He’s governed as he campaigned — delivering the reforms he said Wisconsin needed.
Contrast that with the president, who campaigned against an individual health insurance mandate, for net spending reductions, for cutting the deficit in half and for bringing the American people together. Instead of taking credit for promises kept, he’s now focused on shifting blame — to Republicans in Congress, to natural disasters, to the Arab Spring.
Is that what the American people expect in a leader?
What are the implications of Tuesday’s election in Wisconsin? It will tell us whether moderate and independents are willing to stick with an elected official who governed as he promised — even when it meant making tough calls on spending.
It will tell us whether voters in a middle-of-the-road state such as Wisconsin recognize the importance of a little belt-tightening now, instead of much greater shocks down the road.
Elected officials in Washington and elsewhere will be paying close attention to what the voters of Wisconsin have to say.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a businessman from Oshkosh, is a freshman who serves on the Appropriations, Budget, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committees and on the Special Committee on Aging.
Originally printed on CNN.com, April 30, 2012
Editor's note: U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is a member of the Senate Budget Committee.
The U.S. government is the largest financial entity in the world. Nothing else comes close.
On Sunday, April 29, it will be exactly three years since the U.S. Senate passed a budget.
If you own or work for a small business that has a loan from a bank, I'm quite sure your business has a budget -- and a rather detailed budget at that. Every year around tax time, many American families sit down to fill out tax forms, estimate their income, and set spending priorities for the upcoming year. It's the responsible thing to do.
And yet, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appears to believe it is not necessary for the Senate to fulfill its legal responsibility by debating and passing a budget to account for $3.8 trillion in federal spending next fiscal year, $15.6 trillion of debt and, according to figures produced by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, more than $65 trillion in additional unfunded liabilities.
To provide some perspective to these incomprehensible numbers, the total net private asset base -- that is, the net value of all household assets, small business assets, and large business assets -- of the United States is $82 trillion, according to figures from the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Account from March 8, 2012.
Even worse, President Barack Obama and his administration seem to view budgeting as just one more political maneuver. His efforts have been so completely unserious that the President's 2012 budget was rejected by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate. And three weeks ago, when Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-South Carolina, sponsored a budget proposal based on Obama's 2013 budget plan, it lost in the House by a vote of 414-0.
That's right, not a single member of Congress cast a vote in favor of Obama's last two budgets. That is a stunning repudiation of his leadership. What it really represents is a total abdication of leadership.
Democrats in the Senate have all the votes they need to pass a real budget and show the American people their plan for today and the future. But they refuse, because they don't want to be held accountable. They would rather cut backroom deals that hide the details of their plans, and then take political pot shots at Republicans who have had the courage to produce and vote for a serious budget.
Democrats claim that last year's Budget Control Act is an adequate substitute for a real budget because it "deems" spending caps. Obviously, it is not. It is only half the equation. It includes no plan for saving Social Security or Medicare, for reforming taxes, or for ever living within our means. But it does prove that Washington is certainly good at making sure spending continues.
Business owners and consumers all over America are watching Washington, shaking their heads in disgust, and holding on to their wallets. These are the people we need to get our economy moving again, but these are the very people that are under assault by Obama and his policies.
The Obama administration's agencies are regulating business to death, limiting the use of America's domestic energy resources, threatening to punish success by increasing tax burdens, and providing no credible plan for reining in our debt and deficit. As self-defeating as all of these policies have been, not having a credible long-term budget plan might prove to be the most harmful.
For the 30 years from 1970 through 1999, the average borrowing cost of the U.S. government was 5.3%, according to an analysis made by my staff of figures from the Office of Management and Budget. During that period, the ratio of our debt to our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) averaged 47% and never exceeded 67%. We were a far more creditworthy nation back then than we are today.
Now our debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 100%, and over the last three years, America's borrowing cost has been kept at an artificially low rate of 1.5%. How long can that last? Nobody knows.
What we do know is that if our borrowing costs were to revert to the 1970-through-1999 average of 5.3%, America's annual interest expense would increase by $600 billion -- an amount that equals 50% of discretionary spending.
Out of our $3.8 trillion annual budget, only $1.3 trillion is discretionary spending subject to appropriation and some level of control. Everything else, roughly $2.5 trillion, is mandatory and entitlement spending that is on automatic pilot -- with no requirement to ensure financial solvency of these programs.
This is unsustainable. Increased interest expense resulting from higher rates, the true cost of Obamacare, and reduced revenues from slower economic growth caused by uncertainty and lack of confidence, all significantly raise the risk of dramatically higher debt and deficits. Employer surveys by McKinsey, as well as analysis by former Congressional Budget Office Director Holtz-Eakin, show that far more Americans will lose employer-provided care than CBO estimates. Additionally, Congress is unlikely to implement the hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts that are called for in the president's health care law
It is past time for Obama, and his allies in Congress, to show the American people a credible plan to address our looming financial crisis. It is time for Senate Democrats to pass a budget.
Mar 26 2012
Getting Cybersecurity Right
Originally published in The Hill, March 26, 2012
Our nation’s computer systems are vulnerable to online attack. This is a growing threat to our economy and our national security. American businesses understand this threat — this is why last year they invested more than $80 billion in the security of their computer networks.
I came to Washington as the CEO of a manufacturing company. I know firsthand that the private sector is choking on a torrent of federal regulations. Job creators face a $1.75 trillion — and growing — regulatory burden. In his first three years, President Obama issued 106 regulations that each had more than a $100 million impact on the private sector, and hundreds more that imposed smaller but still heavy burdens.
These days, businesses are more likely to hire a lawyer than a new employee.
Yet proposals in Congress, advocated by the White House, would give the federal government, namely the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), power to dictate cyber-
regulations to the private sector. Such regulations would create a maze of assessments, audits and standards that must be obeyed by companies deemed by DHS to be “covered critical infrastructure.”
I do not believe this is the right strategy because I have little faith in the ability of the federal government to be the leader on cybersecurity.
First, the federal government’s “cyberhouse” is not in order. According to the Office of Management and Budget, there were 41,776 reported cyberattacks against federal networks in 2010 — a 39 percent increase from 2009. Over the same time frame, the number of incidents on private networks decreased by 1 percent. Even DHS has been the victim of high-profile hackings. Yet businesses are now supposed to trust government regulators to tell them how to do their security better?
These proposals raise some basic questions: What businesses will have to comply with new rules? What will be the total cost of these new regulations? When asked, many companies are uncertain whether DHS will deem them as “covered critical infrastructure” and subject them to regulation. This is exactly the kind of uncertainty that stifles investment and job creation, and prevents our economy from achieving robust growth.
At a recent hearing, I questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on whether DHS had analyzed the cost of the proposed regulations. She wasn’t even willing to admit they were creating new regulations, much less analyze the costs. To date, DHS has been unable to identify the cost of cyber-regulations advocated by the White House. This isn’t a new trend. Only 0.5 percent of rules have received a cost-benefit analysis under Obama. Nobody really knows the true cost of Obama regulations, cyber or otherwise.
The very idea of placing DHS at the helm on cybersecurity should concern every American. DHS has been cited numerous times for inefficiency and waste. It has proven inept at managing regulatory programs, such as its scandal-plagued chemical security program, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. It also lacks the experience and expertise already contained in other federal agencies. Why reinvent the wheel? Giving DHS more regulatory authority would only add another layer of bureaucracy and increase the cost of compliance.
The federal bureaucracy simply cannot keep pace with technology. Cyberexperts have said it could take eight to 10 years for DHS to develop cyber-regulations. Ten years is a millennium in technological terms; 10 years ago, there was no iPad, no Wii, and most Americans had never heard of “the cloud.”
New cyber-regulations could even make us less secure. Forcing industry to focus on checklists and audits rather than creating innovative solutions to threats might only provide a false sense of security. The correct strategy will recognize that industry is already the leader on cybersecurity. It is in business’ best interest to keep their networks secure.
For these reasons, I am co-sponsoring the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology (SECURE IT) Act. The bill was initiated by senators who agree that increasing the size and scope government is the wrong approach to cybersecurity.
SECURE IT removes legal roadblocks that prevent the private sector and government from sharing cyberthreat information. The bill facilitates cooperative sharing by protecting industry from frivolous lawsuits, and maintaining civil liberties. It also improves the security of government networks by giving prosecutors better tools to stop cybercriminals, and without expanding the nation’s out-of-control debt.
These are commonsense measures that will keep our nation more secure from cyberthreats, without the heavy hand of regulation. Choosing the right approach on cybersecurity is vital. Dramatically increasing Washington’s role in the complex and rapidly changing issue of cybersecurity would be a step in the wrong direction.
Johnson is a member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.
Mar 21 2012
ObamaCare's Costs Are Soaring
We already know the rosy budget estimates used to sell the law were wrong.
Originally printed in the Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2012
One year after the passage of ObamaCare, this paper published an op-ed I wrote ("ObamaCare and Carey's Heart") about how America's health-care system saved my daughter's life, and describing how implementing this law will limit innovation, lead to rationing, and lower the quality of care. Now, two years out, I would like to focus on the budgetary disaster.
As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly claimed that his health-care plan would lower annual family health-insurance premiums by $2,500 before the end of his first term as president. But the Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported that the average family premium has increased $2,200 since the start of this administration.
Then there is the higher cost to taxpayers. The CBO's initial estimate in March 2010 of ObamaCare's budget impact showed it saving money, reducing the federal deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years. But that positive estimate was largely the product of gimmicks inserted into the bill by Democratic leaders to hide the law's true cost.
Sure enough, the administration last October announced it would not implement one of those gimmicks, a long-term care program called the Class Act, because it was financially unworkable. The loss of the premiums that would be collected to finance the Class Act wiped out $70 billion of the supposed deficit reduction projected by CBO. And last month the administration's proposed fiscal 2013 budget included $111 billion in additional spending for the premium subsidies in the health law's insurance exchanges—further eroding any confidence in the original ObamaCare projections.
This would not be the first time a government program exceeded its projected cost. When Medicare was passed in 1965, for example, the federal government estimated it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Medicare actually cost $110 billion in 1990.
In the case of ObamaCare, one of the principal sources of the lowball estimate used to justify the law is related to the insurance exchanges. The CBO originally estimated that one million Americans would lose their employer-sponsored care and be forced into the exchanges.
But a McKinsey & Co. study in June 2011 showed that 30%-50% of employers plan to stop offering health insurance to their employees once the health law is implemented in 2014. Last week the CBO breezily dismissed this and other studies on the ground that "it is doubtful that any survey conducted today could provide very accurate predictions of employers' future decisions."
As someone who purchased group health insurance for over 31 years, I fully understand why the McKinsey study is more credible than the CBO.
Why? Because the decision employers face under ObamaCare is straightforward: Do they pay $20,000 per year for family coverage, or do they pay the $2,000 penalty to the government?
It is not as if dropping health coverage will expose their employees to financial risk. They will thereby make employees eligible for huge subsidies in the health-care exchanges—$10,000 if their household income is $64,000 per year. In a competitive environment, ObamaCare provides the incentive for employers to drop coverage.
According to the CBO, 154 million Americans are covered under employer-sponsored plans. What would be the cost to taxpayers if 50% of those individuals lost their coverage and became eligible for subsidies? The answer is difficult to calculate, but CBO's answer is basically: Don't worry, revenues will increase automatically to cover those costs (for example, employees' taxable incomes will increase when they lose employer-provided coverage).
In reality, as government assumes a greater share of health-care costs, pressure to cut payments to providers will be enormous. Reduced government reimbursements to providers will cause massive cost-shifting to those remaining in the private health-insurance market. More employees will lose coverage. Before long, we will have what the left has long sought—a single payer health-care system modeled after Medicaid.
In recent testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told me that America's health insurance system is in a "death spiral." She failed to acknowledge that implementation of ObamaCare will be the cause of that death spiral, and American taxpayers will be left to pick up the tab.
In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Mr. Obama promised: "If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what." I'm not sure what you would call that statement, but whatever you call it, it was a doozy.
Mr. Johnson, a Republican, is a senator from Wisconsin.
Mar 16 2012
Time for a cut, cap & balance budget
By: Sen. Jim DeMint and Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Mike Lee and Sen. Ron Johnson and Sen. Marco Rubio
Originally printed in Politico, March 16, 2012
The most important policy imperative in the world today is for the United States to balance its budget. Though the reasons we must do so are economic, the reasons we should are fundamentally moral.
Everything our republic means to our citizens, and everything America means to the world – friend and foe alike – depends on our ability to pay our bills and honor our debts.
The full faith and credit of the United States — on which depends our reputation and, ultimately, our security, prosperity and freedom — is at risk today as never before. In recent years, under presidents and Congresses of both parties, we have racked up yawning deficits and mushrooming debt that now pose a danger to America as we know it.
Without immediate action to control federal spending, deficits will continue to grow as a proportion of gross domestic product, and our accumulated national debt will soon reach world-destabilizing levels.
Washington can no longer afford to delude itself or the American people about the threat of the looming debt crisis. Our choice is no longer between a (seemingly) painless status quo and painful budget cuts. The status quo is crumbling.
Major credit agencies have already downgraded our once-untouchable credit rating. Europe, just a few years ahead of us on the path toward big government utopianism, is a fiscal basket case. Yet, even as our unreformed entitlement programs threaten our economic future, the Obama administration steams full speed ahead to implement another trillion-dollar entitlement we will never be able to afford: “Obamacare.”
Our course is unsustainable. The Congressional Budget Office has stated it can no longer make long-term budget estimates because our projected level of debt causes the computer models to break down somewhere in the 2040s. These trends aren’t those of a super power in decline, but a banana republic in the making – and a global economic anchor.
That’s why last year we co-sponsored a balanced budget amendment that would have, for the first time, not only forced Congress to get control of spending, but bound future Congresses to do the same.
We called on Congress to cut unnecessary, and unconstitutional, spending immediately, cap future spending in line with average historical revenues and send a balanced budget constitutional amendment to the states for ratification.
As Congress begins a new budget season, we stand by that call.
When confronting a fiscal crisis that could bring down our economy — and the world’s! — balancing the budget within 10 years seems a minimal threshold of fiscal seriousness. Eight-thousand new baby boomers turn 65 and qualify for Social Security and Medicare every day. Annual debt interest payments alone will soon be larger than the entire Greek economy — which by itself is bringing Europe to its knees.
We no longer have 30 or 40 years to solve this problem.
President Barack Obama disagrees. He thinks a 10-year balanced budget is unnecessary, impossible and extreme. As the author of the greatest spending binge in human history, he understandably prefers to change the subject to tax increases and income inequality.
But raising taxes on high earners has only accelerated and exacerbated fiscal problems everywhere from Sacramento to Athens. And everyone outside Washington knows that the true inequality crisis in America today is not between rich and poor, but between government and everyone else.
A balanced budget will encourage Congress to reorganize the federal government around principles of wealth creation rather than wealth redistribution, and force long-overdue reforms to long-outmoded policies.
We have known for decades which systems need reform — the tax code, our entitlement programs, corporate welfare, education, energy and the budget process itself. One generation of political leaders has already failed the meet this challenge – we literally cannot afford another.
The facts bearing down on the federal budget are economic — but our choice is moral. The federal government has already spent $15 trillion more than we gave it. What we have to show for it is a broken economy, manipulated by cronyism and oppressed by incompetent regulation. The middle class hanging by a thread.
Families and businesses that work hard, play by the rules and live within their means deserve better than to be forced by their own government to bail out the people who don’t.
They deserve a new approach that cuts, caps and balances the federal budget, to rescue our economy, restore our prosperity and preserve our freedom.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is on the Joint Economic Committee. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is on the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) serves on the Joint Economic Committee. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) serves on the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committees. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Jan 25 2012
New Stillwater bridge a bipartisan success story
Originally printed in the Chippewa Herald, January 25, 2012.
If you pay attention to the news from Washington, D.C., you might believe that Republicans and Democrats can’t agree on anything. But I went to Washington willing to work with anyone who will acknowledge a problem and help develop real solutions. A case in point is the bipartisan agreement that has now been reached on replacing the Stillwater Lift Bridge.
Traveling around western Wisconsin, the need for a new bridge crossing over the St. Croix River is obvious. The current bridge has been a problem for decades. It is 80 years old, and was rated ‘structurally deficient’ in 2008. The Interstate 35W bridge, which collapsed in Minnesota in 2007, received a considerably higher rating than the Stillwater Lift Bridge.
The lift bridge was never intended to carry the level of traffic that it currently does. The Twin Cities have seen enormous growth since 1930 — as has the entire region. A bridge that was sufficient 80 years ago is simply inadequate now. All too often, drivers are caught in backups that stretch for miles. This has created serious safety concerns, as motorists cut corners and look for ways to cross the river more quickly.
The outdated bridge poses more than just a safety concern. This inadequate infrastructure imposes limits on economic growth in the region. When workers and commerce can’t move quickly and efficiently, jobs, investment, and growth go elsewhere. This has become a serious problem for people on both sides of the St. Croix River.
My experience in manufacturing and business has also taught me how economic development can positively affect an area when a major project is initiated. The economic impact of a new bridge on the local communities — both during construction and after — will be decidedly positive.
According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, more than 6,000 full-time workers will be required during peak construction. In addition, this upgrade of an important element of regional infrastructure will help facilitate economic development for decades.
It has been 30 years since the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota began working with the Department of Transportation to determine a way to replace the bridge. It has been nearly 10 years since a group of 27 stakeholders started meeting to try to develop a concrete plan.
And it’s been sixyears since those stakeholders came together in near unanimity on a way forward: the existing bridge would be retained for pedestrian and bicycle crossings, while a new one was built for vehicles. That bridge would be built with a combination of state and federal money — funds that have already been provided. With clear direction and buy-in from those most affected, it seemed only a matter of time before the project was under way.
Since then, the biggest obstacle has been federal regulations that prevented a new bridge from being built. The well-intentioned Wild and Scenic Rivers Act effectively blocked any action. Instead of seeking a balance between economic development and environmental protection, some interest groups have resolutely stood in the way of a compromise.
Despite this opposition, Wisconsin and Minnesota members of Congress from both parties worked together to break the logjam. In November, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act. Both Congressional delegations then met with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to express support for the legislation. The bill grants an exemption that allows the crossing to be built with safeguards to ensure it has a minimal impact on the environment. The bill was approved by the Senate Monday.
Passage of this legislation is an important bipartisan achievement of the Congressional delegations of Wisconsin and Minnesota. It would not have been possible without the hard work of bill sponsor Sen. Amy Klobuchar — who has been a real leader on this issue — as well as myself, Sen. Franken and Sen. Kohl.
Hopefully the House — with the strong leadership of Reps. Bachmann, Cravaack, Duffy and Kind — will soon pass the bill and deliver a common-sense win for the entire region.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2010.