The Daily Caller: Sen. Johnson: it’s a ‘national scandal’ that Democrats won’t pass a budget

By Alexis Levinson

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Wednesday that President Obama has no opinion on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s assessment that not having a budget creates uncertainty and could damage the economy.

That should be a “national scandal,” according to Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, who lambasted Senate Democrats and Obama for not attempting to pass a budget.

Johnson asked Bernanke at a Tuesday hearing if not passing a federal budget was a problem, even though there were spending caps in place from the Budget Control Act.

“Is uncertainty about the future of the tax code, government programs and so on a negative for growth?” said Bernanke at the Senate Budget Committee hearing. “I think it is, because firms like to have certainty, like to be able to plan.”

Carney was asked by Jake Tapper of ABC News about that comment, and whether the president agrees with Bernanke, or with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has said it is not necessary to pass a budget this year.

“I have no opinion, the White House has no opinion on Chairman Bernanke’s assessment of how the Senate ought to do it’s business,” said Carney. “What the president believes is important is that the Budget Control Act that was signed into law last year provides the top line spending caps for the coming budget and he will obviously meet those in the budget proposal he puts forward.”

Johnson didn’t appreciate Carney’s remark.

“It should be a national scandal to think that the largest national entity in the world doesn’t even have a national budget,” said Johnson, “and one American party is afraid to show the American public what their plan to solve the debt and deficit issue is. It’s really jaw dropping.”

If it were a Republican-controlled Senate, Johnson opined, all the news outlets would be furiously covering the story.

“The comparison I would make is during the Iran Hostage Crisis, every national news outlet had a counter of the number of days that Americans were being held hostage in Iran. If we were a Republican senate, that’d be about the same thing –you’d see that 1,015 days behind newscasters,” Johnson said. “But nobody’s making a big deal because it’s a Senate controlled by Democrats.”

“The president, you can say, sure, he put a budget on the table, but it lost zero to 97 in the Senate last year, so the Senate Democrats haven’t had to put their fingers on any kind of financial plan at all when we’re sitting here running 1.4, 1.3, 1.3 trillion dollar deficits every year,” Johnson went on. “I think it’s outrageous. And I’m certainly trying to do everything I possibly can to draw the American public’s attention to that fact.”

“The president talks about being for the grand bargain,” added Johnson. “I’ve never seen it. And of course nobody has seen it because it doesn’t exist. It only exists in people’s imagination.”

A Republican aide had a similar take on the issue.

“When the Chairman of the Federal Reserve is telling us the lack of a budget — a long-term fiscal plan to get off our current path to a debt crisis — is harming the economy right now, one would think that would cause the White House concern. But apparently it doesn’t have an opinion,” said the aide.

This article was published on The Daily Caller.

calendar

The Hill: Johnson threatens Senate filibuster over lack of budget

Posted January 27, 2012 in , , ,

By Josiah Ryan

Freshman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) threatened once again this week to bring the Senate to a grinding halt if Democrats fails to produce a budget that can clear the upper chamber by April 15.

“If we haven’t passed a budget by April 15th this year, you can rest assured that on April 16th… I’ll start withholding my consent to draw attention to the issue that we have not passed a budget, that we are not seriously addressing the financial situation of this country,” said Johnson speaking at the Capitol. “It’s the minimum that the American people can expect or should expect.

“This is a national scandal,” continued Johnson. “[I]t is imperative that we get our federal budget under control. And the first step, the minimum thing that Congress should do, is follow the law that it passed to put discipline on itself and pass a budget.”

Johnson was referring to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which requires the House and Senate to each pass budget resolutions with spending limits and revenue targets by April 15 for the next fiscal year.

Republicans in both chambers on Tuesday noted in advance of President Obama’s State of the Union address that it was by coincidence the 1,000-day anniversary of the last time Congress passed a budget by regular order.

Ranking member of the Senate Committee on the Budget Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) suggested his Democratic counterpart Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) did not want to produce a concrete budget because it would reveal plans for out-of-control spending.

Conrad, however, hit back from the Senate floor arguing that the summer’s Budget Control Act included a budget for the next two years and in was in some respects more meaningful than a budget since it carries the force of law.

Johnson, however, dismissed that argument, claiming the Congressional Budget Act still needed to be satisfied with a real budget, passed by regular Senate order.

“It is a ridiculous notion to say that a hurried backroom deal replaces the budgeting process and committee markup in the Senate,” Johnson said. “Budgets aren’t just a single maximum number, but begin the process for Congress to identify the nation’s priorities and what resources will be spent to address them.”

Johnson has leveled several filibuster threats since entering the Senate last January, making good on at least one in June when he also objected to what he characterized as Democrats’ negligence on budgetary matters.

This article was published on The Hill.

calendar

The Hill: GOP lawmakers mark 1,000 days since last Senate budget

By Bernie Becker and Erik Wasson – 01/24/12 12:33 PM ET

Senate Republicans slammed their Democratic colleagues on Tuesday for not passing a budget in exactly 1,000 days, accusing Democrats of shirking their duty in a period of soaring deficits.

Four senators at a Tuesday news conference said President Obama should be more of a leader on reining in deficits. GOP lawmakers have for months pointed out the time elapsed since the Senate last passed a budget.

“It is imperative that we get our federal budget under control and the first step – the minimum thing that Congress should do – is follow the law that it passed to put discipline on itself,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who also called the lack of a Senate budget “a national scandal.”

Johnson also said that he would procedurally tie up the Senate if the chamber hasn’t passed a budget by April 15, a move he also made last June to protest the budget situation.

“The other side really does need to put their plan, their budget, on a piece of paper,” Johnson added. “Not just say that they’re for a grand bargain, not just say they’re for fiscal control.”

Republicans’ latest push on the issue comes the same day that the president is scheduled to head to the Capitol to deliver his State of the Union address.

GOP aides said that it was a coincidence that the president was invited to speak to Congress on the 1,000-day anniversary of the last Senate budget. Obama also delivered his 2011 State of the Union address on the fourth Tuesday in January.

For their part, Senate Democrats on Tuesday pushed back on the GOP claims that the Senate had not cleared a budget plan.

The Senate Budget Committee, chaired by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), released an analysis asserting that the deal reached in August to raise the debt ceiling was, for all intents and purposes, a budget.

The Budget Control Act (BCA) included caps on discretionary spending and examined entitlement programs and revenue, the analysis said. “Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget,” the fact sheet added.

“Either they don’t know what they did or they are misrepresenting what we all did,” Conrad said on the floor.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that Democrats should be embarassed to claim the budget act as their blueprint because it “fell far, far short of solving this country’s fiscal problems.”

“If the BCA is their answer to fiscal sanity and preventing a debt crisis, then heaven help us,” Ryan said.

The office of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) pointed out that Senate Democrats did write a budget resolution but refused to mark it up in committee last year.

Sessions said that the U.S. still faced a dire debt situation, even with the caps included in the debt ceiling deal and the automatic cuts scheduled to go into effect due to the failure of the deficit-reduction supercommittee.

“The limits that we have are not sufficient,” Sessions said. “They were the best that could be accomplished under the circumstances, with the threat of a government shutdown.”

In all, the debt-ceiling deal will lead to north of $2 trillion in spending cuts, while bipartisan commissions have said that the U.S. needs more like $4 trillion in fiscal restraint over a decade.

“Is it not the responsibility of the president, the chief executive office, to tell the American people that the $2 trillion is not enough?” Sessions said, hours before Obama’s State of the Union address.

target=”_blank”>This article was published on TheHill.com.

calendar

Federal Workforce Savings Made Easy

Posted October 27, 2011 in ,

BY QUIN HILLYER , Center for Individual Freedom
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27 2011

No good reason exists, none whatsoever, for Congress’ budgetary “supercommittee” to fail to identify at least $1.2 trillion in ten-year cuts without raising taxes. Wisconsin’s freshman Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson alone has recommended ways to save $1.4 trillion over ten years just by more sensible management of the federal workforce. Almost all of Sen. Johnson’s recommendations are eminently reasonable.

Johnson’s plan contains 58 separate proposals for savings. Let’s just take the 12 easiest to understand. For instance:

Cut the federal workforce by 15 percent through 2015 and freeze pay for federal civilian employees through 2015. Since Barack Obama took office, the feds have added 192,000 jobs. About 400,000 federal civilian employees are now eligible for retirement. If just over half of them retire without replacement, the workforce reduction will be achieved. Meanwhile, total compensation for government workers is more than 30 percent higher than compensation for comparable private-sector jobs. A three-year pay freeze (not including raises for promotions) is surely reasonable. Savings: $248 billion.

Reduce the government’s “match” for the Federal Employee Retirement System’s defined benefit plan. This will blow your mind: Right now the government provides about $14 in “matching funds” for every dollar contributed by the employee. In the private sector, and even in Social Security and the federal thrift savings investment plan, the usual match is 1-to-1. FERS also should reduce its match to 1-to-1.Savings: $133.27 billion.

Phase out the FERS Basic Benefit Plan. The basic plan, says Johnson, “is no longer comparable to private sector retirement plans that afford greater flexibility and cost savings through 401(k) and stock option plans.” Anybody already in the system can remain, but Johnson would close it as an option for new federal employees. Savings: $75 billion.

Change the calculation of the baseline for FERS basic benefits. The retirement benefit formula now is based on the three highest-salaried years of an employee’s tenure. Most state governments and private plans base their benefits on the average of the five highest years instead, which tends to be lower. The feds should do the same. Savings: $5 billion.

Freeze bonus pay for the Senior Executive Service for three years. These professionals already rank high on the federal pay scale, and the perks are excellent. In a time of busted budgets, it makes sense to eliminate bonuses, just as happens in the private sector during bad times. Johnson claims savings of $50 billion; perhaps it might make sense to allow small bonuses to encourage excellent work, so let’s cut this estimate by just a tad. Savings: $40 billion.

Cut the federal civilian travel budget by 75 percent. Ever heard of teleconferencing, or Skype? Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, has detailed the reasons this is a reasonable reform in his publication “Back in Black.” Savings: $43.3 billion.

Change the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) for the Civil Service Retirement System. This change, often suggested for programs throughout government, would adjust payments based on price inflation rather than wage inflation. The Congressional Budget Office endorses it. Savings: $24 billion.

End duplication at the Department of Homeland Security. When DHS was created by combining 22 agencies, there was no reason for each agency to keep separate, full public affairs offices, procurement offices, civil liberties offices and numerous other separate sinecures for functions that, under one department, can now be consolidated. Savings: $10 billion.

Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. Okay, this one will be tough to accomplish against determined union opposition, but it really makes sense. Davis-Bacon requires that government construction workers be paid at the locally “prevailing wage.” In practice, this means such workers get paid as much as 62% more per hour than they otherwise would. Savings: $6 billion.

Reduce the federal vehicle fleet by 20 percent. Governors and state legislators nationwide have found that most governments own far too many cars for government employee use, so reduction of vehicle fleets has become a favorite savings measure. The federal government hasn’t made such reductions, even with cars sitting on lots, unused. It should. Savings: $5.6 billion.

Reduce government printing. Again, technology should ride to the rescue. There’s often no need for automatic printing of paper documents now that so much can be done online. Savings: $4.9 billion.

Re-allow privatized airport security. Federal law allows airports to contract out screening services to private companies, and a number of airports did so without danger to the public. The Department of Homeland Security, however, halted the program by administrative fiat. Travelers reported confidence in the private screeners, plus better, friendlier customer service. Savings: $2 billion.

Cut the number of limousines owned by the government. Gotta love this one. Self-explanatory. Savings: $115.5 million.

Total ten-year savings, even after modifying one item downward: $597.1855 billion. Johnson has 46 other suggestions – concentrating on merely one small segment of the federal behemoth. The question shouldn’t be whether the supercommittee can find $1.4 trillion in savings; the question should be why it can’t find at least twice as much.

calendar

The Hill: Johnson promotes federal hiring freeze

Posted August 26, 2011

By Josiah Ryan

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) on Thursday promoted his plan to shrink the federal government by putting a hold on new hiring.

“I think we need to do a federal hiring freeze, through attrition,” Johnson told Channel 12 News, an ABC affiliate station.”You don’t have to fire anybody, just don’t hire as people retire.”

“The way to limit the growth of government is don’t add new employees,” added Johnson who said he plans to actively pursue the idea when returns to Washington after the August recess.

Johnson, who is among the most conservative members of the Senate, also defended his decision to vote against the debt-ceiling deal earlier this month on grounds that it did not slash enough in spending.

“What I object to about this debt-ceiling agreement, it gave Americans a false sense that Washington was actually fixing the problem,” Johnson said. “They’re not.”

calendar

Johnson: Economy, less government solution to deficit

Posted August 19, 2011

By: Shelley Nelson

Superior Telegram

Washington D.C. doesn’t have an ideology problem; it has a math problem.

That’s according to Sen. Ron Johnson, the Oshkosh Republican who defeated former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold in November.

Johnson stopped at the Superior Telegram a week ago to discuss the state of the economy, his a proposal he put forth a moratorium on new regulations until jobs are created and unemployment drops, and what it’s going to take to balance the federal budget.

“I’ve always thought this was going to be a two step process,” Johnson said of balancing the budget. “I don’t think you’re going to find the political will to actually do the spending controls — prioritize spending, reform the entitlement programs — first of all, until we have a statutory requirement to do so, and in the end, I think you need a constitutional amendment.”

While the house and senate were debating how to come to an agreement that would allow both legislative bodies to come to an agreement on spending limits to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, Johnson made a plea to fellow senators to consider adopting Cut, Cap and Balance — a legislative proposal that went nowhere in the debate.

“Until you cut spending — actually cut, like real cuts from the previous year, like $100 billion, I think that’s the only way you cut close to $1 trillion over 10 years, because you can actually lower the baseline,” Johnson said. “Then you’ve locked in structural spending reductions.”

Johnson said the recent debate in Washington D.C. wasn’t about cutting federal spending; it was about reducing the rate of growth. The only actual cuts that were made were to discretionary accounts, about $10 billion in total over the next two years, he said.

“Our total budget is not declining,” Johnson said. “It’s continuing to grow … we’re not actually talking about cutting. I think that’s an important distinction … we’re trying to limit its growth.”

Johnson said bona fide cuts are just the first step. A cap on federal spending would have limited growth based on the nation’s gross domestic product. And finally, he said, the goal was for the House of Representatives and Senate to raise the debt ceiling only after passing a constitutional amendment and send it out to the states to consider, but no one was willing to risk default he said. “We weren’t going to let that happen,” Johnson said.

“The fact is most states operate with a balance budget amendment; certainly Wisconsin does,” Johnson said. He said while the deficit was difficult to fix in Wisconsin, he said the federal deficit is ten times worse to deal with and there are no spending controls in place.

Regulation control

The root cause of out-of-control government spending is it has gotten so large, Johnson said. He said over the last 50 years federal expenditures have averaged a little more than 20 percent of the gross domestic product. In 2009, that spiked up to 25 percent; it’s a little below that now, but the cost of federal government is on a path up to 40 percent of the GDP.

Because of that, Johnson introduced the Regulation Moratorium and Job Preservation Act. The act is designed to put the brakes on regulations that drive up costs for employers.

“President Obama had the SBA (Small Business Administration) commission a study that looked at what it cost for businesses to comply with regulations,” Johnson said. “The study came back saying it cost $1.75 trillion a year just to comply with all the federal rules and regulations and tax code. That’s about 12.5 percent of our total economy. That’s above and beyond what taxes we pay.”

As a manufacturer, a partner in PACUR LLC in Oshkosh, which manufactures custom plastic sheets through extrusion, Johnson said he knows what it takes to comply with regulations.

“As opposed to creating products, creating jobs, they’re creating paperwork,” Johnson said. “They’re complying with regulations. That has an economic cost. It costs jobs. It costs sales. It costs economic activity.”

Johnson said he hears from Wisconsin business owners regularly who come in to discuss new regulations that keep coming into play.

The senator said while the nation does need regulation, the problem is those regulations keep growing more stringent with little benefit.

“I just think it’s prudent right now — when we have unemployment at 9.1 percent — to say stop the madness,” Johnson said. “Stop issuing new regulations; give employers a chance to breathe so we can actually start creating jobs … Hopefully, at that point in time, people will realize this is working. Maybe we should start taking a look at our regulatory environment … they can’t be so onerous and so large and having such a large cost on our economy.”

And it’s an issue the city of Superior is facing right now. Three years after the city introduced a storm water utility to address infrastructure needs to manage storm water, the council is faced again with a decision to raise wastewater fees to meet more stringent environmental regulations. The increases are likely to add more than 50 percent over the next few years to the current cost to treat wastewater.

When the issue was debated last year, Mayor Dave Ross said the returns on the investment were diminishing; the costly projects driving the rates rapidly upward were targeting just a small amount of pollution.

And the city has little choice but to meet the regulations or risk another moratorium that would limit construction and economic growth — an issue the city faced in the early 1990s.

Johnson called it the law of diminishing returns.

“If we don’t do it now, when our debt is the equal size to our economy, when our unemployment rate is 9.1 percent and it’s just stuck, we have to do this now,” Johnson said of getting the regulatory environment under control. “We have to start dialing it back. The problem is our federal bureaucracy has just metastasized.”

Johnson said the regulatory environment is out of control.

“The problem is they regulate one thing, they go ‘OK, I’m done with that; now what else can I regulate?’” Johnson said. Ozone, for example, was dropped to 75 parts per million in 2008, and now regulators want to drop it to 60 ppm, he said, adding that manufacturers estimate the cost for that to be about $1 trillion.

“It’s just out of control,” Johnson said. And it is having an impact on economic decisions made by manufacturers who must compete in a global economy.

“We need to dramatically reverse course … the first step in reversing course is let’s stop the growth,” Johnson said.

Growing the economy

According to Johnson, the best way to improve the government’s balance sheets is to improve the economy and reduce government spending and growth.

After all, while the nation spends about 20.4 percent of the gross domestic product annually, that’s more than the 18 percent the federal government takes in — a consistent figure irrespective of the tax rate, Johnson said.

And the corporate tax rate — among the highest in the world — inhibits economic growth when global companies not committed to the success of the United States decide to site their manufacturing facilities in other countries.

Johnson said he wouldn’t dream of moving his company because 80 percent of his customers are in the U.S. and he’s committed to excellent customer service. However, he said, there are some companies willing to make that choice to be accountable to their shareholders who expect a return on their investment.

Anytime someone talks about a balanced approach and increasing taxes, the American people should ask how many jobs that will produce, Johnson said.

“How much will that tax increase grow our economy?” Johnson asked. “I know it will grow government but how does that grow our economy. The private sector is the only thing that produces long-term sustaining jobs. It pays for government. We’ve got to grow the economy … We need a healthy, strong economy.”

calendar