Author Archive

The Indebted States of America

By Steven Malanga
CityJournal

Maria Pappas, the treasurer of Cook County, Illinois, got tired of being asked why local taxes kept rising. Betting that the answer involved the debt that state and local governments were accumulating, she began a quest to figure out how much county residents owed. It wasn’t easy. In some jurisdictions, officials said that they didn’t know; in others, they stonewalled. Pappas’s first report, issued in 2010, estimated the total state and local debt at $56 billion for the county’s 5.6 million residents. Two years later, after further investigation, the figure had risen to a frightening $140 billion, shocking residents and officials alike. “Nobody knew the numbers because local governments don’t like to show how badly they are doing,” Pappas observed.

Since Pappas began her project to tally Cook County’s hidden debt, she has found lots of company. Across America, elected officials, taxpayer groups, and other researchers have launched a forensic accounting of state and municipal debt, and their fact-finding mission is rewriting the country’s balance sheet. Just a few years ago, most experts estimated that state and local governments owed about $2.5 trillion, mostly in the form of municipal bonds and other debt securities. But late last year, the States Project, a joint venture of Harvard’s Institute of Politics and the University of Pennsylvania’s Fels Institute of Government, projected that if you also count promises made to retired government workers and money borrowed without taxpayer approval, the figure might be higher than $7 trillion.

Most states have restrictions on debt and prohibitions against running deficits. But these rules have been no match for state and local governments, which have exploited loopholes and employed deceptive accounting standards in order to keep running up debt. The jaw-dropping costs of these evasions have already started to weigh on budgets; as the burden grows heavier, taxpayers may decide that it’s time for a new fiscal revolt.

Most state constitutions and many local-government charters regulate public debt precisely because of past abuses. In the early nineteenth century, after New York built the Erie Canal with borrowed funds, other states rushed to make similar debt-financed investments in toll roads, bridges, and canals—projects designed to take advantage of an expanding economy. But when the nation’s economy fell into a deep recession in 1837, many of the projects failed, and tax revenues cratered as well, prompting eight states and territories to default on their debt. Stung by losses, European markets stopped lending even to solvent American states. The debacle inspired a sharp reevaluation of the role of state governments, with voters looking “more skeptically” on legislative borrowing, wrote political scientist Alasdair Roberts in 2010 in the academic journal Intereconomics. A member of New York’s 1846 constitutional convention even warned that “unless some check was placed upon this dangerous power to contract debt, representative government could not long endure.” Over a 15-year period, 19 states wrote debt limitations into their constitutions.

Since then, the history of state and local debt has been a tug-of-war between those struggling to keep governments from overextending themselves and elected officials seeking legal loopholes for further debt spending. In the second half of the nineteenth century, for instance, some states, now restricted from doing it themselves, used local governments to float debt, producing tens of millions of dollars in new obligations—and calls for limits on local borrowing. The go-go 1920s, a period of unprecedented construction and transformation throughout America, saw states and localities once again borrowing massively, this time to build roads and electrical infrastructure. State and local debt had hit $15 billion ($260 billion in today’s dollars) by the Great Depression’s onset. Arkansas was one of the heaviest borrowers, with obligations reaching $160 million ($2.8 billion today). It defaulted in 1933—one of more than 4,700 Depression-era defaults by state and local government entities, including nearly 900 by school districts.

The wave of bad borrowing led some states to tighten restrictions even more. Even as reformers made progress, however, courts began to sign off on government evasions of debt limits. As a consequence, such limits “have had only a modest effect on aggregate state and local debt,” writes Columbia Law School’s Richard Briffault. Judges, he notes, “appear to share with state governors and legislators a belief in the legitimacy of the modern activist state.” In the words of the New York State Court of Appeals, judges have often proved open to any “modern ingenuity, even gimmickry” that legislators can cook up to get around debt restrictions.

Today, states and localities engineer most of their borrowing through what Briffault calls “non-debt debt,” a term for bonds designed to avoid legal restrictions on borrowing. For example, courts in some states have decided that when a state’s independent authorities issue bonds, that borrowing isn’t restricted by constitutional debt limits—even if taxpayers are ultimately on the hook for it. If a legislature takes on debt itself, that also doesn’t count against constitutional restrictions on borrowing, according to the judiciaries in some states. Briffault estimates that such evasions are responsible for three-quarters of state debt and two-thirds of municipal obligations incurred through bond offerings. The growth of this kind of borrowing helps explain why state and local debt outstanding from municipal securities has blasted from $2 trillion (in today’s dollars) in 2000 to nearly $3 trillion today—real growth of 50 percent in little over a decade.

New York State has turned to court-sanctioned gimmickry again and again. Though New York’s constitution requires that voters approve any new government debt, only 5 percent of the state’s $63 billion in outstanding borrowing has received voter authorization, down from 10 percent a decade ago. Meantime, the cost of servicing that debt has risen by an average of 9.4 percent annually. Partly because of such unsanctioned borrowing, New Yorkers bear the nation’s second-highest per-capita load of state debt, says New York’s comptroller. The state is still paying off what it owes from the infamous 1991 Attica prison deal, in which New York, trying to close a budget deficit, “sold” the facility to one of its independent authorities, which borrowed the money to pay for it. New York also still counts on its books debt from the 1970s bailout of New York City, which, thanks to refinancing, it won’t pay off until 2033.

Other New York deals engineered without voter say-so include a $2.7 billion bond offering in 2003, backed by 25 years’ worth of revenues from the state’s gigantic settlement with tobacco companies. To circumvent borrowing limits, the state created an independent corporation to issue the bonds and then used the money from the bond sale to close a budget deficit—instantly consuming most of the tobacco settlement, which now had to be used to pay off the debt. Legislators engineer such borrowing because they aren’t confident that voters would agree to new debt: of the seven bond offerings that Empire State voters have considered over the past 25 years, four went down to defeat.

Thanks to its low state debt, Texas enjoys a reputation for budgetary restraint. Yet as Texas comptroller Susan Combs found to her dismay, the state’s towns, cities, counties, and school districts have racked up the second-highest per-capita local debt in the nation, behind only New York’s spendthrift municipalities. The total, nearly $8,000 per resident, is more than seven times higher than Texas’s per-capita state debt. Over the last decade, local debt in the Lone Star State has more than doubled, growing at twice the rate of inflation plus population growth. At the moment, Texas localities owe $63 billion for education funding—155 percent more than they did a decade ago, though student enrollment and inflation during that period grew less than one-third as quickly. The borrowing has also paid for a host of expensive new athletic facilities, such as a $60 million high school football stadium, complete with video scoreboard, in the Dallas suburb of Allen.

As in Cook County, so many different levels of government in Texas can issue debt that taxpayers, bewildered by the complexity of it all, let overlapping districts keep on borrowing. As an example, Combs describes how the residents of a single Houston block must repay debt incurred by the county, the city, the city’s school district, and Houston Community College, among other entities. “I went to dozens of town hall meetings around the state, and when I asked, not a single member of the public knew just how much people in their towns were on the hook for,” she says.

Texas, like New York, amassed all this debt by pushing the limits of the law. Though taxpayers must approve most government borrowing, Texas provides an exception for localities that need to issue debt quickly: a “certificate of obligation,” borrowing that doesn’t require approval unless 5 percent or more of local voters petition to have a say on it (a rare occurrence, since most don’t even know that they have that power). Since 2005, Texas localities have issued nearly $13 billion worth of these certificates, often for dubious ends. In 2010, for instance, Fort Worth borrowed nearly $35 million through certificates of obligation to build a facility for horse shows.

Texas school districts have made use of another controversial financing technique: capital appreciation bonds. Used to finance construction, these bonds defer interest payments, often for decades. The extension saves the borrower from spending on repayment right now, but it burdens a future generation with significantly higher costs. Some capital appreciation bonds wind up costing a municipality ten times what it originally borrowed. From 2007 through 2011 alone, research by the Texas legislature shows, the state’s municipalities and school districts issued 700 of these bonds, raising $2.3 billion—but with a price tag of $23 billion in future interest payments. To build new schools, one fast-growing school district, Leander, has accumulated $773 million in outstanding debt through capital appreciation bonds.

Capital appreciation bonds have also ignited controversy in California, where school districts facing stagnant tax revenues and higher costs have used them to borrow money without any immediate budget impact. One school district in San Diego County, Poway Unified, won voter approval to borrow $100 million by promising that the move wouldn’t raise local taxes. To live up to that promise, Poway used bonds that postponed interest payments for 20 years. But future Poway residents will be paying off the debt—nearly $1 billion, all told—until 2051. After revelations that a handful of other districts were also using capital appreciation bonds, the California legislature outlawed them earlier this year. Other states, including Texas, are considering similar bans.

Judges have proved especially eager to approve evasions of debt limits when they’re the ones demanding that states or localities spend money. Back in 2001, New Jersey’s activist supreme court mandated that the legislature embark on a project of building and refurbishing schools (see “The Court That Broke Jersey,” Winter 2012). To comply, Trenton lawmakers announced a plan to borrow $8.6 billion through a bond offering—a shockingly high sum. Taxpayer groups reacted with such outrage that officials knew that voters would never endorse the move. So the legislature decided to channel the borrowing through an independent authority. The taxpayer groups sued, but the state supreme court brushed their objections aside, arguing that a clear precedent existed for such borrowing. The state quickly burned through half of the borrowed money on patronage and inefficient construction practices, so it borrowed another $3.9 billion, again through the authority. Taxpayers, needless to say, will foot the bill.

Read the entire article here.

25 Conservative Leaders Support Getting IRS Out of Obamacare

Cross-posted from Americans for Tax Reform.

25 free market organizations sent an open letter to the House of Representatives urging support for efforts to get the IRS out of Obamacare.

22 leaders of free market groups sent the following open letter (full PDF) to the House of Representatives today:

Dear Congressmen:

We, the undersigned organizations and free market leaders write in united support of House efforts this week to get the IRS out of Obamacare.

The House will consider a measure on Friday sponsored by Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga.) to remove the IRS from any role in the implementation of the Obamacare law.

It’s a basic belief of most Americans that patients, families, and doctors—not IRS bureaucrats-should be making health care decisions. While this has always been the case, its importance has been heightened in recent months by the uncovered political targeting by the IRS of Tea Party and other free market groups. The IRS should not be anywhere near people’s medical decisions until this black cloud of political scandal has been lifted.

Unfortunately, the GAO reports that the IRS has no fewer than 47 powers to implement Obamacare. That’s 47 too many. Allowing the IRS to enforce Obamacare is opening up the door to more abuse, more targeting, and more harassment of American citizens. The myriad of new taxes the IRS will impose under the guise of health care reform will destroy jobs, stifle economic growth, and impede medical innovation in this country.

With Obamacare coming fully online in 2014, now is the time to stop the IRS from becoming a full partner in our families’ healthcare decisions. House efforts to prevent this from happening are welcome and all Members of Congress should support these efforts.

Sincerely,

Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Dean Clancy, Freedom Works
Al Cardenas, American Conservative Union
Amy Kremer, Tea Party Express
Jenny Beth Martin, Tea Party Patriots
Heather Higgins, Independent Womens’ Voice
Steven J. Duffield, Crossroads GPS
Brandon Arnold, National Taxpayers Union
Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring
Jim Martin, 60 Plus Association
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
Penny Nance, Concerned Women for America
Sally Pipes, Pacific Research Institute
Ken Hoagland, Restore America’s Voice
John Tate, Campaign for Liberty
Peter Ferrara, National Center for Policy Analysis
Ari Winkour, Harbour League
Gregory T. Angelo, Log Cabin Republicans
Mark Schiller, MD, Doctor-Patient Medical Association
Betsy McCaughey, Ph.D, author of Beating Obamacare
David Williams, Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Brian Baker, Ending Spending
David Wallace, Restore America’s Mission
Kathryn Serkes, Take Back Washington

(Signatures are for information purposes only).

Morning Examiner: Conservatives unite to fight Obamacare funding

Over 50 conservative leaders signed a letter Monday, urging House Republicans to include language “fully defunding Obamacare” when they consider upcoming legislation to fund the government for Fiscal Year 2014.

Power of the purse
“The ultimate ‘power of the purse’ still resides in the House,” the letter, organized by Heritage Action CEO Mike Needham, reads, “and the House will soon act to fund the government. In doing so, the House should include language ensuring that no more taxpayer dollars can be used to implement Obamacare.”

The letter’s signatories reads like a who’s who of the conservative movement including, American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, Family Research Council Senior Vice President Tom McClusky, Redstate.com Editor-in-Chief Erick Erickson, Tea Pary Patriots Co-Founder Jenny Beth Martin, Independent Women’s Forum President Heather, and FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe Higgins.

Read more here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/morning-examiner-conservatives-unite-to-fight-obamacare-funding/article/2533636

Addiction to Spending is a Bipartisan Issue

Over at NRO this week, Cato scholar Michael Tanner takes issue with Republicans who, when it comes to spending, seem to be willing to talk, but not walk.

Citing NRCC Chair Greg Walden’s reaction to President Obama’s budget a few weeks ago, in which he lambasted the President over cuts to Social Security instead of the budget’s trillions in new spending, debt, and taxes, Tanner wonders if Republicans are actually serious about this spending thing.

Tanner goes on to list many more examples of Republican meekness involving defense, farm subsidies, NASA funding, and more, coming to the same conclusion that we painfully reach seemingly each and every time:

Members, regardless of party, consistently abandon principle when their own interests are challenged.

If you’ll remember, Ending Spending confronted a huge part of this problem in 2011 by successfully lobbying for an earmark moratorium by House Republicans. It is, to this date, one of our proudest achievements.

Lest we run a victory lap, Tanner’s post reminds us that the work is far from over, even among those who are seemingly friendliest to our cause of solving our nation’s spending crisis.

http://nationalreview.com/article/347041/how-serious-are-republicans/page/0/1

Top Ten Tax Hikes in the Obama Budget

Crossed posted from American for Tax Reform: bit.ly/16N7LvF

WASHINGTON, D.C. — There are literally dozens of new tax increases in the FY 2014 Obama budget. In total, they increase taxes by nearly $1 trillion over the next decade. They would permanently bring the federal tax burden to 20 percent of economic output, a level only reached in one year since World War II (FY 2000, when the economy was roaring and tax revenues were pouring into Washington as a result).

Below are the top ten tax increases in President Obama’s budget (all numbers are over a decade):

1. Chained CPI. The budget would change the definition of inflation for all federal budget purposes, including federal tax provisions. Because tax brackets and other tax items are indexed to inflation, slowing down their growth is an income tax increase. This is a tax increase for all Americans who pay income tax, including middle class Americans. In the past, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that enacted “chained CPI” would be a $100 billion tax increase.

2. Itemized deduction cap. The Obama budget limits the maximum value of itemized deductions, like those for charitable donations and mortgage interest. This is an income tax increase. No matter what tax bracket you are in, under this Obama provision you can’t benefit any more than if you were in the 28 percent bracket. There are three tax brackets higher than this: 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. These families will not be able to fully deduct things like mortgage interest, charitable deductions, and state taxes paid. Note that this is on top of the phaseout of itemized deductions (“Pease”) that President Obama forced on taxpayers in the fiscal cliff. Tax increase: $529 billion

3. Death tax hike. The Obama budget would raise the death tax rate from 40 percent today to 45 percent. It would also reduce the inflation-indexed death tax “standard deduction” from $10.3 million today for married couples (half that for singles) to $3.5 million with no inflation adjustment. There are also other death tax increases of a more technical nature. Tax increase: $79 billion

4. “Buffett rule.” The President’s budget would impose a new “Buffett rule” on taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million. These taxpayers would have to face an average tax rate (that is, their tax bill divided by their income less charitable contributions) of 30 percent. Tax increase: $53 billion

5. Tobacco tax hike. The President’s budget nearly doubles the tobacco tax, from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack, and then indexes it to inflation from there. This is a clear tax hike on middle class Americans. According to independent estimates, the average smoker in America makes about . Additionally, tobacco taxes are a declining tax revenue base, and as a result it’s inappropriate to fund new government programs using it. This isn’t the first time President Obama has raised federal tobacco taxes. In 2009, on his sixteenth day in office, he signed into law a 156 percent increase in the tobacco tax. Such tax increases are a violation of Obama’s central campaign promise not to sign “any form of tax increase” on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. Tax increase: $78 billion

6. IRA and 401(k) plan restrictions. There are two new tax increases on IRA and 401(k) savers in the President’s budget. The first restricts the total account balance in ALL tax preferred IRAs and 401(k)s to a combined $3 million. The second would require that non-spouse beneficiaries of IRAs and 401(k)s distribute all money within five years, rather than over their lifetime. Additionally, the budget forces all employers with 10 or more employees to open payroll-deduction IRAs at work. Tax increase: $14 billion

7. “Carried interest” capital gains tax hike. Under current law, capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income to reflect the double taxation of investment capital, risk, and other factors. The current top capital gains tax rate is about 24 percent. Some capital gains are received by managing partners of investment partnerships. These capital gains are known as “carried interest.” Despite the fact that these capital gains are no different than capital gains anywhere else (and are the same source of capital gains that the limited partners in such arrangements receive), the President’s budget taxes these capital gains at ordinary income tax rates, which are nearly 45 percent on an all-in basis. Tax increase: $16 billion

8. Energy tax hikes. There are energy tax hikes littered throughout the budget. Taken together, these tax increases will have one effect and one effect only: higher prices for consumers at the gas pump and in their utility bills. Tax increase: $94 billion

9. Tax increases on international income. The U.S. is one of the only developed nations that taxes the income of U.S. companies and individuals which are earned overseas (so-called “worldwide taxation”). In so doing, we potentially expose this money to taxation in two different countries on the same earnings. The Obama budget increases the likelihood that this double taxation will occur by removing protections against it. Ideally, the U.S. would only seek to tax income earned within the United States, a system known as “territoriality.” Tax increase: $158 billion

10. Financial system tax increases. These, too, are littered throughout the budget. They would impose taxes on banks, brokerage firms, life insurance companies, and virtually every other way that the middle class saves and invests. These costs will be passed along in the form of higher fees, bigger commissions, and lower returns to shareholders. Tax increase: $94 billion

A Banner Week for Government Spending

Unquestionably, this week was a banner week for the discussion of government spending. Between the funding of duck genitalia studies, millions in excessive catfish inspections, and an Obama budget which adds a trillion in new taxes with pennies on the dollar in spending cuts, it’s also been a provocative one. To wit:

- CNSNews.com this week launched Waste Watch, a section of the popular news site dedicated to newly reported instances of ridiculous spending by the federal government, including at launch $400,000 to study duck genitalia, $700,000 for gardening at the U.S. NATO Ambassador’s residence in Belgium, and $2.1 million last year to literally study what animals are thinking. Given our heritage in the earmark battle, we welcome this new window for the public into the ridiculous things we spend our money on.

- President Obama revealed his long-awaited budget on Wednesday, proposing the addition of $8.2 trillion in new debt, $1.1 trillion in new taxes, and only $119 billion in “deficit reduction,” according to the House Budget Committee. With these jokes for numbers, we are clearly not fans.

-And, finally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office released its duplication report on tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money that could be potentially saved through the elimination of duplicate programs. This comes after the efforts of taxpayer heroes like Senator Tom Coburn who has been leading the charge against government waste for his entire career.

This budget battle will not be short and we’ll be providing updates and commentary along the way. In the interim, feel secure in the knowledge that our government is spending your hard earned cash on figuring out what’s on your Golden Retriever’s mind.

Broad Coalition Urges Congress to Create Committee to Reduce Government Waste

This week, Ending Spending was proud to join with Americans for Tax Reform and forty-one other taxpayer-friendly organizations in urging Congress to create a Committee to Reduce Government Waste.

In a Congress whose committees generally focus on growing government, it just seems natural that one should focus on shrinking it. A body authorized only to cut spending, such a committee would mimic the mid-20th century effort that was successful in rolling back many parts of the New Deal. Just as the continuation of New Deal programs threatened to overwhelm our economy back then with unsustainable debt, our current climate of out-of-control spending and government expansion demands a similar solution.

You can read the full letter sent to the House and Senate Republicans leading the charge on this effort by visiting this link.

The Ins and Outs of The Federal Budget

The Wall Street Journal this week posted a great visualization of the makeup of the federal budget since 1965. Its conclusions are no surprise, but it’s important to be reminded from time to time of the seismic shifts that are defining the spending battle in the years to come:

- Since 1965, so-called “mandatory spending” ** (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) has risen from 6.14% of GDP to just under 20% in 2013, becoming along the way the single largest component of federal outlays.

- “Discretionary spending” has changed, too — while defense spending has traditionally dominated the category, domestic spending like cost related to implementing Obamacare has recently taken over.

You can see the Journal’s charts by visiting this link.

* Here at Ending Spending, we don’t like the terms “mandatory spending” and “discretionary spending”. No spending is truly mandatory - just another choice made along the way by our government.

Millennials fight for future with own war on debt

Under President Obama, the national debt has increased by $6 trillion. By the time young people - known in many discussions as “millennials” - reach retirement are, the debt will be nearly 250% of our country’s GDP.

In a special opinion piece in Politico, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Adam Kinzinger, and Aaron Schock share their thoughts on why the path we’re on is “unacceptable and unsustainable”.

Millennials Fight For Future With Own War on Debt
By Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, and Rep. Aaron Schock
Politico

Last week, in one of the liveliest and most thought-provoking conversations we’ve had in this Capitol, we sat around the table with a group of young people who care deeply about solving our nation’s debt crisis. These “millennials” — representing myriad socioeconomic backgrounds, ethnicities, college campuses and political persuasions — all want the same things: a solution to our national debt. A reduction in the out-of-control spending they’ll be forced to pay back one day. And an acknowledgment that if Congress keeps kicking the can down the road, then they will kick right back.

And that is exactly what they have done. They came to Capitol Hill with suggestions, solutions and an eagerness to get involved in an issue that disproportionately affects their generation. Representing several organizations — The Can Kicks Back/Fix the Debt, National Campus Leadership Council, Common Sense Action, Concerned Youth of America, and Public Notice/Bankrupting America — they addressed the impact of the national debt on their generation and how Washington’s spending problem today will hurt America’s youth tomorrow.

We heard from one woman who recently graduated from college — eager and excited about the opportunities before her — only to be told that she should expect no less than five years of unemployment. A young man with a 2-year-old daughter told us that he is already afraid he won’t be able to put her through college. And a University of Maryland sophomore said she can’t afford to go to graduate school for fear of being saddled with even more debt than she is right now.

Unfortunately, their challenges are not unique and their experiences are not uncommon. These young people are the next generation of American leaders — they’re college students, campus leaders, budding entrepreneurs, future economists, innovators, scientists, nurses, business leaders and doctors. But a major obstacle stands in their way: the national debt. It’s more than just a $16 trillion price tag. It’s more than just a number that continues to rise under President Barack Obama. It’s a threat to the future of our children and grandchildren. In fact, when asked recently to identify the greatest threat to our national security, Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited our national debt.

Read the entire article here.

Ending Spending Urges House Leadership to Maintain Level of Automatic Spending Cuts


03.06.13 UPDATE: House Passes Bill To Fund Government
For Six Months, Maintains Automatic Spending Cuts



March 5, 2013



Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor:

On behalf of Ending Spending, I write to you in support of H.R. 933, the Continuing Resolution for the remainder of FY 2013. Of great importance in the fight against out-of-control deficit spending, H.R. 933 locks in place the automatic spending cuts implemented through President Obama’s sequester.

As you know, our organization has strongly supported your efforts to defend the level of sequester cuts. As voters and the media have watched the Obama administration’s sequester rhetoric go from alarmist to patently false, it has become clear to the American people that cutting $85 billion out of a $3.6 trillion budget is not going to be the catastrophe that the administration claimed. Indeed, the sequester equates to a real reduction of only $44 billion in actual spending outlays this year, mere pennies on every dollar spent.

We believe that elected officials have a moral responsibility not to saddle future generations with a massive debt burden. The spending reductions achieved through sequester, and further implemented through the proposed FY 2013 CR, are a necessary first step towards controlling the deficits that threaten our economic future. Moreover, as Chairman Rogers has stated, the proposed CR “funds essential federal programs and services, helps maintain our national security, and takes a potential shutdown off the table.” For those reasons, we urge that the House pass H.R. 933.

We look forward to continuing to support your efforts as you work to advance fiscally responsible polices in Washington.

Sincerely yours,
Brian C. Baker
President

cc: Members of the U.S. House Republican Conference

Taxpayers Connected:

Our national debt is  
$ 00 00 , 000 000 , 000 000 , 000 000 , 000 000
and each American Taxpayer owes $119,236 of it.