Dr. Boozman's Check-up

We have all encountered the aggressive salesperson at some point in our lives.  At car dealerships, service companies and shopping malls across the country, these forceful salespeople implore high-pressure tactics to close the deal with you.  They distort the truth, promise the world to you and generally tell you whatever to takes to make the sale.  This technique is known as the “hard sell.”

Successful salespeople will tell you to avoid this approach.  It turns the customer off, loses their attention and leads to a general distrust of the person making the pitch.  Once a salesperson crosses that line, it is nearly impossible to get the customer back.  President Obama, desperate to sell his plan to raise taxes, may have crossed that line with his latest sales pitch.

The non-partisan FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, found that President Obama’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher making $50,000 a year isn’t true.

At a recent town hall meeting sponsored by the social media firm Linkedin, President Obama said, “Somebody who’s making $50,000 a year as a teacher shouldn’t be paying a higher effective tax rate than somebody like myself or Jeff [Weiner, CEO of Linkdin], who’ve been incredibly blessed.”

Along with the disingenuous wealth redistribution argument of this claim, there is also a major factual error with this statement.  As FactCheck.org points out, a single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9 percent in federal income taxes for 2010.  The Obamas paid more than twice that rate—25.3 percent (and higher rates than that in 2009 and 2008).  If the $50,000-a-year teacher in the President’s illustration shared the same tax situation as the Obama’s—supporting a spouse and two children—he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.

When FactCheck.org asked the White House about this, an Administration spokesperson told them: “The President was not offering a literal comparison of his personal tax rate.”

Comparing the amount of taxes you pay versus the amount of taxes someone else pays, is a textbook example of a literal comparison.  It is apples to apples.  And it exposes the underlying flaw in the President’s approach to our economic crisis.  Instead of convincing the American people of the merits of his policies, the President has resorted to emotional appeals to stoke the public’s frustration and pit sides against each other.  It isn’t important if these appeals are true or not, it seems, as long as those lines generate applause. 

So with 14 million unemployed Americans, the President’s only answer is to double-down on government spending.  He knows he cannot convince us to spend more while we are $14 trillion in debt, but this time he can claim it is “paid-for” as long as he can get his tax hikes through Congress.  However, the American people lack faith in his recycled stimulus plan, given that it failed to the first time, and are not supportive of a tax hike to fund another “Big Government” plan that is not likely to succeed.

This leaves the President with few options other than to give the American people the “hard sell” or abandon his approach.  Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen the former over the latter.

The internet has changed the way we live. This growing technology sector has changed the way we do business and we need to promote and encourage this continued growth that is responsible for millions of jobs. 

Unfortunately, the internet is under attack by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which recently decided to move forward with its ill-advised open internet order to “fix” problems that they admit don’t even exist.  

Earlier this week, the Obama administration gave approval for rules commonly referred to as ‘net neutrality’ but I have serious concerns. This article published by Forbes describes some of the negative impacts that will result from these rules. 

Fortunately, there will be much standing in their way of implementation from legal action to congressional regulation. 

Internet providers such as Verizon and MetroCPS have already filed legal challenges on this issue even before the rules were published but they were dismissed by the court for being premature.  Now that the rules have been published, they’re fair game.  

The House passed a Resolution of Disapproval earlier this year nullifying the rules. Since they have been published, the Senate will have 60 (now 56) days to pass a similar resolution. As a Member of the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over the FCC, I cosponsored a joint resolution of disapproval and will vote against this unfair practice.

According to a recent poll conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Education Trust, the average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073.  This is a dramatic turn, as President Obama pledged that the new law would reduce premiums on average by $2,500 for American families. 

The group’s findings, based on data collected through May, also showed that health insurance is consuming a bigger share of employer costs, preempting pay raises and making companies pass on more medical costs to their workers, benefit consultants said. President Obama promised that if you like your plan, you can keep it. Yet, the survey found that only 56 percent of workers are still in plans of their choice that pre-date the new health law’s enactment last year. 

The partisan health law pushed through by President Obama in 2010 has contributed to a dramatic increase in health costs, forcing employers to significantly cut back medical coverage and limit pay increases for workers.  This $2.6 trillion law threatens the economy and job creation. I have voted to repeal this law and will continue to fight for a full repeal and support efforts that create a business friendly environment that empowers private sector job growth.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has formally requested the Security Council to grant them full United Nations (UN) statehood, a cynical move that is detrimental to the peace process and the historic sea change that the Middle East has seen in recent months.

The United States has maintained the consistent position that the PA and Israel need to pursue peace through direct negotiation.  The goal should be working toward a two-state solution, but it has to be agreed upon by the two parties directly involved.  It will not be a successful solution if the borders of the two-states are forced upon the parties by the UN. 

By requesting recognition as a state by the UN, the PA is not acting as a good faith partner in forging a peace agreement.  With this effort, the PA is hampering the peace process.  They are clearly more eager to use the auspices of the UN, including the International Court of Justice, to harass the Israelis than to resolve their issues with them.

President Obama has made it clear that he will use his veto authority and I applaud him for standing strong with our only democratic ally in the region.  But the U.S. needs to be more engaged in the peace process and get the two sides talking again. 

In June, the Senate passed S. Res. 185, a resolution that I cosponsored, which reaffirms the commitment of the United States to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.  The resolution also states that Palestinian efforts to gain recognition as a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates an absence of a good faith in the commitment to peace negotiations.

S.Res.185 also reiterates that actions that run counter to the Senate’s conditions will have implications for continued United States aid.  Should it persist, the PA’s ongoing campaign to receive statehood from the UN clearly falls in that category and warrants a reevaluation our financial contributions to them.  Currently, we are the largest donor nation to the PA, providing $500 million in aid this year.  In the light of these circumstances, reduction or elimination of that aid should be placed under consideration of Congress.

This conflict is not beyond a diplomatic resolution, but it requires US commitment, not disengagement.  Time is of the essence.  The State Department needs to redouble US efforts to bringing the parties back the table and talking again, instead of driving them to unilateral actions.  No one wins if the current course of action is allowed to continue.

Roby Brock and Michael Tilley at Talk Business published a very informative story earlier this week that examines the decline in manufacturing jobs, both in Arkansas and at a national level. 

They note at the onset of the story that the number of manufacturing jobs in Arkansas is at its lowest level since 1968.  Despite this alarming news, a study released earlier in the year by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and linked in the Talk Business story, points out that the US is still the world’s largest manufacturing economy, producing 21% of global manufactured products.  If taken alone, U.S. manufacturing would be the 9th largest economy in the world.

So, if our manufacturing sector is still the strongest in the world, why are we losing manufacturing jobs in the Natural State and across the country?

Well, as the NAM report points out, other countries—especially in Europe and Asia—promote tax, regulatory and trade policy that spurs innovation and investment in the manufacturing sector.

Our current tax, regulatory and trade policy run counter to this international trend.

We can jumpstart the manufacturing sector if we get the federal government out of their way.

  • Simplify the tax code and reduce the corporate tax rate to levels that are comparable with our trading partners;
  • Along those same lines, promote tax policy that encourages innovation;
  • Stop the heavy-handed regulations and give our manufacturers a sense of certainty in terms of the rules under which they have to operate; and, perhaps most importantly,
  • Open more markets for our exporters by passing pending trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Columbia.

By taking these steps, we will create more manufacturing jobs and give a permanent shot in the arm to our entire economy. 

In case you missed it, Senator Boozman joined KASU bright and early Monday morning to talk with Mark Smith about the latest developments and issues being debated by Congress.

Boozman discussed the President’s job proposal and talked about what the federal government can do to help create an environment that promotes private sector job growth.

To listen to the interview click here.

Following his interview in Jonesboro, Boozman was on the air with Saxon Coates on KBJT in Fordyce to talk about the upcoming agenda of Congress and the need for the federal government to get rid of burdensome regulations that hinder job creation.

To hear the interview click the file below.

Our state's unemployment rate rose one-tenth of a percentage point in August to 8.3 percent.

While not unexpected given that August reports typically rise or stay flat due to seasonal employment coming to an end, it is troubling because it marks the fourth straight month of higher unemployment rates in Arkansas.

The President outlined his plan in a speech before Congress last week and has been traveling the country to sell it to the American people.  But many Americans have their doubts that this plan will work. I am among them

Clearly the President's first "Stimulus" did not work and, as we learn more about this plan, it seems to be an attempt to double-down on this approach.

Long-term job creation comes from the private sector, not by increasing government spending.  We cannot, tax, spend and borrow our way to prosperity.

To encourage investment in small business, the heart of our nation’s economy, we need to provide business owners and investors with the predictability they need to make sound investment decisions.  In order to accomplish this we need to rein in federal spending, reform our tax code, reduce regulatory burdens imposed by government agencies, increase exports by passing pending free trade agreements and create a new energy policy that allows us to use American resources and make us less dependent on foreign oil.

Let's put Americans back to work by taking this commonsense approach to job creation.

I wanted to highlight the aptly named Regulatory Time-Out Act, which is the subject of this story in this morning’s edition of The Hill newspaper.  I am a cosponsor of this bill, which establishes a one-year moratorium on any significant federal regulation, essentially any rule costing more than $100 million per year.

Why is this important?

Regulations imposed by the Obama administration are hurting our economy, hampering job growth and forcing businesses to comply with burdensome rules that bypass Congressional approval.  When you don’t know the rules of the game, you can’t win it.  This is just as true in the business world.  If business owners don’t know what their tax rates and energy, healthcare and compliance costs are going to be, then the last thing they are going to do is rush out and hire a bunch of people.

Last year, the Obama Administration finalized 3,573 new rules.  And it is only getting worse in 2011.

In two months during the summer of 2011, the Obama Administration proposed 1225 regulations at a cost of $17.7 billion.  The Obama Administration regulatory agenda for 2011 contains 219 proposed rules that that have an economic cost of over $1 billion each.

The regulatory uncertainty needs to end before a real economic recovery can start.  At the very least, we need a “time-out” from the red tape.

I’m pleased to hear that creating an environment that will enable our job creators to hire hardworking Americans is President Obama’s top priority. In his address to Congress last night, the President agreed that there are rules and regulations in place that are over burdensome to our businesses and said he “ordered a review of all government regulations.” 

Harsh and heavy-handed EPA regulations should be stopped. The Administration often blames others and says the EPA is required by law and the courts to issue burdensome, job-killing regulations. If they really believe that, they should ask their allies in Congress to help amend the law. A good example is the EPA’s efforts to regulate boilers. The Administration has issued very expensive and strict regulations to cover industrial and commercial boilers. The American and Forest Paper Association released a study this week shows the Boiler MACT rules could cost 20,500 jobs or 18 percent of the industry’s workforce. These regulations will destroy blue collar jobs and drive up the cost of business throughout our country.  

I have cosponsored S. 1392, the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, that would require EPA to take a more reasonable and careful approach that would protect air quality without destroying jobs and I am hopeful that eliminating harmful and unnecessary regulations will help create jobs. 

For the first time since 1945, the Labor Department’s job report was released with a total of zero net jobs gained for an entire month.  It was the weakest job report since September 2010, a month where the Labor Department reported a net loss of 29,000 jobs. 

When the economy needs to add roughly 250,000 jobs a month to lower our nation's unemployment rate, a choice between zero and a negative number is not progress. 

Our economy is not sluggish, it is motionless.  And everything the President is doing to address the situation is preventing a recovery from beginning.  In a climate of overregulation and potential tax increases, the private sector is apprehensive to make any moves for fear of what tomorrow will bring from Washington.  When business owners don’t know what their tax rates and energy, healthcare and compliance costs are going to be, then the last thing they are going to do is rush out and hire a bunch of people.  It is common-sense that seems clear to everyone except the President and those who share his view in Congress.

To encourage investment in small business, the heart of our nation’s economy, we need to provide business owners and investors with the predictability they need to make sound investment decisions.  In order to accomplish this we need to rein in federal spending, reform our tax code, reduce regulatory burdens imposed by government agencies, increase exports by passing pending free trade agreements and create a new energy policy that allows us to use American resources and make us less dependent on foreign oil.

But I am not holding out hope that the President will take this approach in his speech before Congress next week.  I’m guessing what we will hear is more of the same in terms of his push for another “Stimulus” bill. 

We tried that Mr. President and it clearly didn’t work.  It is time to admit that and work with us on our commonsense approach to getting our economy back on track.