Yesterday, President Obama spoke in Fair Hills, PA to discuss his newly revealed “Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future.” While the President is likely to mention his blueprint's support for developing Pennsylvania’s emerging natural gas reserves, he probably won’t mention his administration’s support for ever encroaching federal regulation of natural gas development.
The President’s Blueprint seems innocuous enough – calling for the federal government to engage in research, “bar setting,” and offering technical assistance in relation to natural gas. In reality though, these suggestions are double speak for weakening the authority of local experts and regulators who have overseen domestic natural gas development for decades. More control would go to the EPA and the political whims of Congress. These redundant bureaucratic demands from Washington threaten to delay the economic benefits and affordability that natural gas development produces. The President's Blueprint only stands to get in the way.
The Blueprint's careful choice of language exists for a reason -- voters realize Federal oversight and intrusion into yet another area of our economy will kill jobs, stifle innovation and hurt the economy in general. Americans are tired of hearing the repetitive news about our struggling economy, while Washington continues to make decisions that threaten economic recovery and burden our small businesses.
The EPA’s attempt to regulate our economy on an unprecedented scale through regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is one of the biggest threats to America's economic recovery and future. One in five business owners explain that red tape is their single biggest concern – even over taxes, inflation, and the cost of labor, according to the National Federation of Independent Business. EPA stands to make this worse with their latest power grab over CO2 emissions impacting everything from schools to cows. Americans are concerned about keeping our environment clean and healthy; however, the EPA's current proposal goes too far.
While the President may think no one will notice his doublespeak on energy issues, it turns out some in Washington are taking heed, voting this afternoon to call his bluff through small business legislation to stop or delay the EPA's destructive regulations. The President and Congress must work together to reign in the EPA and intrusive government regulation. Unfortunately, it seems the energy outline President Obama has presented is simply a Blueprint for more government and less energy. This is not a plan for economic -- or energy -- security.
Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO
Showing posts with label Insourcing and Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Insourcing and Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
The President's Budget: No Spending Restraint, Higher Taxes
A dramatic shift in rhetoric emanating from the Obama White House occurred after the November elections. Before November 2010, anti-business talk and policies reigned. Since the elections, President Barack Obama has worked to shift the administration's tone towards business.
Unfortunately, as evident by the President's budget proposal, political talk turns out, once again, to be quite cheap in our nation's capital.
The 2012 budget plan does nothing substantive to reduce the size of government after unprecedented growth, and actually includes assorted tax increases that will hurt business and the economy.
On the spending side, after a historic increase in outlays of 40 percent over four years, the budget would provide a small one-year reduction (-2.4%) in spending during 2012, But then federal spending would quickly resume its growth.
As a share of the economy, spending would remain at unprecedented levels over an extended period of time - after hitting 25% of GDP in 2009 and 23.8% in 2010, federal outlays would equal 25.3% of GDP this year (the highest level since World War II), 23.6% in 2012, 22.5% in 2013, 22.4% in 2014, 22.3% in 2015, and then back up to 22.6% in 2016. This long, unprecedented period of high spending promises to loom as a big negative over the economy. By the way, during the late Clinton and early Bush years, outlays ranged between 18.2% and 19.7% of GDP.
Perhaps even more surprising than the budget's call for big spending are the tax increases. The following could be called "Obama's Dirty Dozen Tax Increases." However, keep in mind, that this is far from an exhaustive list in terms of measures that would increase tax bills and costs under the Obama budget...
Unfortunately, as evident by the President's budget proposal, political talk turns out, once again, to be quite cheap in our nation's capital.
The 2012 budget plan does nothing substantive to reduce the size of government after unprecedented growth, and actually includes assorted tax increases that will hurt business and the economy.
On the spending side, after a historic increase in outlays of 40 percent over four years, the budget would provide a small one-year reduction (-2.4%) in spending during 2012, But then federal spending would quickly resume its growth.
As a share of the economy, spending would remain at unprecedented levels over an extended period of time - after hitting 25% of GDP in 2009 and 23.8% in 2010, federal outlays would equal 25.3% of GDP this year (the highest level since World War II), 23.6% in 2012, 22.5% in 2013, 22.4% in 2014, 22.3% in 2015, and then back up to 22.6% in 2016. This long, unprecedented period of high spending promises to loom as a big negative over the economy. By the way, during the late Clinton and early Bush years, outlays ranged between 18.2% and 19.7% of GDP.
Perhaps even more surprising than the budget's call for big spending are the tax increases. The following could be called "Obama's Dirty Dozen Tax Increases." However, keep in mind, that this is far from an exhaustive list in terms of measures that would increase tax bills and costs under the Obama budget...
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
SBE Council Joins 36 Organizations in Letter to President Obama Urging Halt to “Insourcing”
SBE Council joined a broad-based coalition of 36 national and regional business, taxpayer and free market organizations that sent President Obama a letter urging an immediate moratorium on insourcing - the conversion of work currently performed by private sector contractor firms to performance by Federal government employees.
The coalition's action comes on the heels of comments from two key policy makers. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We weren't seeing the savings we had hoped from insourcing." When asked in June about the effect insourcing had on small and minority owned business, Senator Robert Menéndez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said insourcing was "counter-intuitive to the President's goal of creating opportunities in the federal contracting system for diversity. We already have a much more limited universe than we should, and if [insourcing] is being pursued, then it is only going to erode what exists, so it doesn't make a lot of sense."
The letter noted that insourcing is occurring without public-private comparisons or cost analysis, and that a clear and objective metric for justifying and determining cost-effectiveness of government performance of commercial activities should be developed to protect the interest of taxpayers.
The coalition suggested that the Obama Administration use the moratorium period to develop a policy, similar to that which in effect beginning in 1955, that recognized that real economic growth and job creation is in the private sector, and emphasized that government should rely on the private sector to the maximum extent possible and not compete with its citizens.
Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO
The coalition's action comes on the heels of comments from two key policy makers. Last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, "We weren't seeing the savings we had hoped from insourcing." When asked in June about the effect insourcing had on small and minority owned business, Senator Robert Menéndez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said insourcing was "counter-intuitive to the President's goal of creating opportunities in the federal contracting system for diversity. We already have a much more limited universe than we should, and if [insourcing] is being pursued, then it is only going to erode what exists, so it doesn't make a lot of sense."
The letter noted that insourcing is occurring without public-private comparisons or cost analysis, and that a clear and objective metric for justifying and determining cost-effectiveness of government performance of commercial activities should be developed to protect the interest of taxpayers.
The coalition suggested that the Obama Administration use the moratorium period to develop a policy, similar to that which in effect beginning in 1955, that recognized that real economic growth and job creation is in the private sector, and emphasized that government should rely on the private sector to the maximum extent possible and not compete with its citizens.
Karen Kerrigan, President & CEO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)