Op-Ed: What the president won’t say tonight

By Ron Johnson

Throughout its history, the federal government has properly used debt to help overcome threats to the nation and to build necessary and longstanding infrastructure. Much of the American Revolution was financed with borrowed money, as were World War II and the Cold War against the now defunct Soviet Union.

The interstate highway system, coastal ports, and the locks and dams that make our inland waterways navigable are examples of valuable debt financed infrastructure. Failure to incur debt to finance these worthy, constitutionally allowed activities would have made the establishment of our prosperous nation more difficult, or maybe even brought our history to a premature end.

But for the past two generations, and particularly during the last 12 years, Washington has begun to pile up a massive and unsustainable level of debt. For the most part, that red ink spending wasn’t used to avert national crisis or to rebuild an aging infrastructure. The deficit spending that built that debt was used primarily to pay for current operations of ever-expanding government in Washington and to fund ongoing government programs.

Washington’s permanent establishment has sold a toxic bill of goods to the American people, who haven’t read the fine print on the back of the contract.

One major consequence of this huge accumulation of debt in Washington has been the harm it is causing to the American economy right now. Out-of-control deficit spending and debt are undermining the private sector, business expansion, and the creation of new jobs.

Another ominous consequence of Washington’s political greed and fiscal insanity is the future direct cost of borrowing all that money. The current debt stands at $16.4 trillion dollars, and Washington has plans to add another $10 trillion to that amount over the next 10 years.

But before Washington can pay a soldier to protect this nation; before Washington can send out a Social Security check or pay a Medicare bill; before Washington can spend a dollar to build an inch of federal highway, or inspect our beef, or fund basic R&D to help discover a new life-saving drug – it must first make certain it can pay the interest on its debt to the people, entities and nations that have lent us money. That’s just a fact.

This year, the American taxpayer will pony up $224 billion just to pay that interest on our growing debt. What does that mean to you? That’s over $1,850 per American household – this year alone.

And here is where it starts to get increasingly scary. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that between 2014 to 2018, Americans will pay $1.77 trillion of their hard earned money, just to pay the interest. The Congressional Budget Office then estimated that the interest we all will pay in the five years after 2018 is $3.64 trillion – about the size of our entire federal budget in 2012 and an estimated cost of $30,000 per current household over that five-year period.

Just to remind you again, that money can’t be used for government programs or defense of the nation. It doesn’t even pay off or reduce Washington’s debt. It merely pays interest to our money lenders.

This is not a partisan issue. Both major parties have helped create that debt. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat or independent, the debt impacts you. Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal, we are all in the same economic boat and we will sink or float together.

Washington has been unwise, irresponsible and greedy. That much is not even debatable. The real questions are: Do the American people have the wisdom Washington lacks? Will the American people demand that the professional political class in Washington kick its addiction to spending money it does not have and stop endangering the economic security of the very people they purport to represent?

On Tuesday night, President Obama will address many issues in his State of the Union address. I can promise you he will try to sell Americans on increasing taxes again. He will talk about “investing in America,”, which is Washington political window dressing for increased Washington spending and future debt.

President Obama will outline more things Washington can do for you. In fact, he’ll declare that these are things Washington should do for you.

What he won’t address – at least honestly address – is the fine print of his contract. He won’t address the massive suffering that will result if this nation does not get its financial house in order. He won’t say that his plans do not include reduced spending and smaller government in Washington. He won’t lay out the problem of debt or how Washington can begin mitigating and then reducing the true cost of that debt and put this nation back on a path of enduring prosperity.

Read more on The Tribune-Review.

USA Today Op-Ed: Secretary Hillary Clinton, you failed

By Senator Ron Johnson

During her Senate testimony, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that approximately 25 Americans who were on the ground or who witnessed the terrorist attack in Benghazi were immediately evacuated. Secretary Clinton also revealed that neither she, nor her senior people, debriefed or spoke with those people immediately after the attack, or for months afterward, to understand what happened. She stated that she didn’t want to be later accused of playing politics.

When I questioned her about the misinformation disseminated for days by the administration, most notably by Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday news programs five days after the attack, she asked, “What difference does it make?”

If you don’t expeditiously debrief the people who witnessed the attack, how can you understand who initiated it, what weapons they used and who may have been involved? How do you initiate a proper response if you don’t know what transpired? How do you move properly to protect other American assets and people in the region? How do you know what failures occurred, so that you can immediately correct them, if you have not debriefed the very victims of those failures? And lastly, how do you tell the truth to the American people if you don’t know the facts?

Our diplomatic forces in Benghazi were denied the security they repeatedly requested for many months before Sept. 11, 2012. Secretary Clinton stated that she was not told of those desperate requests in the most dangerous region in the world. As a result, our people in Benghazi were ill-prepared to repel or avoid that attack, and four Americans were murdered. For many days after the event, the American people were also misinformed as to the nature and perpetrators of that attack.

In truth, Benghazi is a failure of leadership — before, during and after the terrorist attack.

To answer Secretary Clinton, it does make a difference. It matters enormously for the American public to know whether or not their president and members of his administration are on top of a crisis and telling them the truth.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

Published in USA Today.

The Washington Post: Interview with Sen. Ron Johnson

Posted by Jennifer Rubin on January 10, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is blunt when it comes to President Obama’s recent Cabinet nominees. “It is just in your face. He is going to dig his heels in even further. It is not a good sign,” he told me in telephone interview this morning. On Chuck Hagel he says, “I think it will be a tough confirmation fight.” He contends that Hagel, Jack Lew and other nominees demonstrate that “the president is selecting people he ideologically identifies with and not designed to work cooperatively with Congress.”

To give him his due, Johnson figured that out long before Obama’s second term. “I’ve never felt President Obama negotiated in good faith. He got his health-care law he wanted. He is going to dig his heels and protect his gains.” When it comes to entitlement reform and fiscal restraint more generally, Johnson says, “He has zero credibility. On the fiscal cliff, he got on the tax side the increases he wanted.” Johnson says that “as soon as he gets it, the next thing he says is we need more taxes,” and, even worse, that he “won’t negotiate about the debt ceiling.” As to the latter he says, “It’s delusional. He has to go to Congress.”

Johnson also says that anti-gun legislation is not going to get jammed through. “People say they want a middle ground. We are at the middle ground. We have plenty of gun laws,” But, he concedes, “at least they are looking at a wider range of causes [for mass killings]. But if they are going to rush something through in 30 days, I don’t see it happening.”

Johnson, not surprisingly, given his business background, has long advocated a unified strategic plan for the GOP to prioritize goals, figure out how to communicate with the public and get what it can with a Democratic president and Democratic majority in the Senate, something Republicans sorely need. He is a staunch fiscal conservative who ran in the heyday and with the support of the tea party movement. But he is also a savvy realist. “First of all, we need to set expectations. President Obama is president. Harry Reid is Senate majority leader.” With Democratic resistance to any meaningful spending restraint, he says, Republicans “can’t lead Americans to believe we can solve this situation. We can make sure they understand President Obama has no intention and no plans to reduce the debt.”

Johnson is right. After hyping big standoffs with the president, Republicans have inevitably retreated, only to annoy their base and embolden the president. Johnson says it is crucial to make clear what the GOP is up against. “We simply do not have a good-faith negotiating partner.”

Part of the problem comes from irregular budget processes and secret negotiations that inevitably fail and make the GOP look bad. “I’ve been on the budget committee for two years,” he says. “Do you know the number of times we have voted on a budget, had mark-ups? Zero.” He looks at the debt ceiling, the sequestration and the end of the continuing resolution in tandem. “I don’t want to play brinksmanship. The House should pass legislation so when we start this time to say we can hold the line, we can hold the line.” He says Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) had the right idea in favoring legislation that would prioritize spending in the event we hit the debt ceiling. He says it should be renamed something like the “We do not default on the debt” act. If a procedure is set up to guarantee that bond holders and Social Security recipients can get paid, Johnson thinks the GOP will have a much better argument on debt reduction. He favors the “Boehner rule,” $1 of cuts for every $1 the debt is increased.

Johnson argues there is no shortage of savings available. He cites a 2011 Congressional Budget Office study updated in 2012 that laid out potential cuts. That report made clear:
Without significant changes in the laws governing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, those factors will boost federal outlays as a percentage of GDP well above the average of the past several decades — a conclusion that applies under any plausible assumptions about future trends in demographics, economic conditions and health-care costs. Unless the laws governing those programs are changed — or the increased spending is accompanied by sufficiently lower spending on other programs, sufficiently higher revenue, or a combination of the two — deficits will be much larger.

Johnson combed the report and found trillions in potential cuts in mandatory and discretionary spending. He wouldn’t support all of them, but the notion that we have cut government in any meaningful way can fairly only be said about the federal government’s first priority, national defense. Johnson is candid about the public’s willingness to embrace spending cuts. “Americans on a macro-level agree with us, but then if you ask what should we cut, the answer is virtually nothing.” He stresses that the keys to any progress are communication with the public and political pressure on lawmakers and the president.

Johnson’s advice should be heeded. Set expectations. Develop a communications plan. Take away the default threat while making clear which spending disciple the GOP favors and what the president favors (virtually nothing on the domestic side). In the end, however, people get the government they deserve. Unfortunately, it is one in which two major actors, the Senate and White House, won’t act responsibly on spending.

Published by The Washington Post.

Op-Ed: Follow Mitt Romney’s plan to restore economic growth

By: Ron Johnson

Jobs. The economy. Growth. These are the issues that should define this election.

For almost four years, President Barack Obama has pursued his plan — the plan he claims he will continue if he is reelected. That plan has focused on expanding government. We’ve seen a roughly $800 billion stimulus. We’ve seen billions invested in “green energy” companies, many of which the president’s campaign donors either ran or invested heavily in. Despite these efforts — or perhaps because of them — unemployment has remained above 8 percent for 43 months, and the growth of our economy has slowed to less than 2 percent. With no relief in sight.

Now the president is calling for more of the same. He wants to pass a jobs plan — a second stimulus paid for by higher deficits or more taxes on small business. It’s curious that he is willing to increase taxes on small businesses when the economy is slowing because in 2010, he said that raising taxes “would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.”

These are bad ideas — not the sort of proposals that anyone hoping to return our nation to prosperity should support.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We have an alternative, a plan based on the things that have made our country prosperous in the past. It’s Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s plan — and it’s one that deserves a chance.

Romney’s plan is based on several pillars: reducing wasteful federal spending, reforming the nation’s Tax Code, developing trading opportunities, restoring the viability of entitlement programs and reining in needless regulation. These reforms are critical if we are to end the spiral of uncertainty and bloated government that has kept our economy from recovering.

His plan begins with stopping the runaway spending and debt that is increasing market uncertainty and mortgaging our future. Romney aims to reduce federal spending as a share of gross domestic product to 20 percent by 2016.

His critics will, no doubt, howl that these are draconian cuts that will lead to a parade of horrible outcomes. But in fact, they are merely reductions in the rate of spending growth, and 20 percent is the 40-year average spending level prior to the Obama administration’s four-year spending spree.

Still, taking this simple step will not only help to lift uncertainty; it will eliminate the need for job-killing tax increases like the one Obama is now pushing.

But it doesn’t end with reducing the rate of spending growth. Our Tax Code has been in need of reform for decades. Romney will finally make that a reality. He plans to reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20 percent. He will keep current low rates on dividends and capital gains. And he will reduce our corporate income tax rate — now the highest in the developed world — to 25 percent. Because he will also broaden the base, this reform will not only simplify the code and reduce the tax burden on average Americans, it will do so in a revenue-neutral way that will not increase the deficit.

One major drag on our economy has been our entitlement programs. Social Security and Medicare are increasing in cost and, without reform, both will go bankrupt. Romney plans on gradually reducing growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for wealthy seniors while giving more choice in Medicare programs and benefits. Saving Social Security and Medicare doesn’t have to mean reduced benefits for middle-class Americans. But it will require leadership.

In addition, we must reduce the weight of government that burdens our job creators. We can do this by eliminating ineffective, harmful and costly regulations. Romney will review the cost of every regulation and get rid of those that cost more than they are worth. He will remove regulatory barriers to energy production and job creation.

Most important, he plans to repeal “Obamacare.” Instead of expanding government, Romney will empower market-oriented, individual-based reform.

There are many differences between Obama and Romney. But perhaps none is starker than their two plans for restoring economic growth. Obama is high on rhetoric but low on specifics and low on new ideas. Romney’s proposals are bold and precisely what this country needs.

We have had enough talk, and we’ve heard enough speeches. It’s time for change. That’s what Obama promised four years ago. He didn’t deliver.

Obama didn’t keep his promises. Romney will. That’s change we can believe in.

Published on Politico.com

Op-Ed: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Biden should be honest about Obama’s record

By: Ron Johnson

This Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden will campaign in Green Bay. His job is not an enviable one. He’s tasked with the role of explainer, of feeling your pain. And unfortunately, in the Obama economy, there’s a lot of explaining to do – a lot of pain to feel.

Vice President Biden is known for being a straight shooter. Earlier this summer, he noted at a campaign event that for many Americans, the economy felt like “a depression.” That is, of course, true. For the 23 million Americans who can’t find work, this does indeed feel like a depression, and the fact that unemployment has hovered above 8% since the beginning of President Barack Obama’s term doesn’t help. Neither do sinking wages or anemic economic growth.

But in making that statement, Biden likely strayed from the Obama campaign talking points. After all, President Obama’s narrative is that it could be worse. That’s what he’s trying to convince voters this election cycle. He doesn’t want to wallow in the tough details of the present. He’d rather move “forward,” which is to say, away from his record.

We will hear a lot from Biden this weekend, but there is one thing we probably won’t hear from him: We won’t hear real plans to revive the middle class in this country, because he and the president have no plan. The Obama administration has exhausted its hand. They’ve done what liberal politicians do. They spent money we don’t have, they grew government (Obamacare), they wasted time and money (the “stimulus”), and inhibited energy independence (rejecting the Keystone pipeline).

It didn’t work, and that has been devastating for people across the country. It’s not just the millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. It is also families who are slipping into poverty, and young people whose lives seem to be stuck in place because they can’t get that first job.

Americans have always been a risk-taking people. We’re willing to bet on tomorrow because we think it’ll be better than today. It’s this kind of faith that makes our country great and our society one of extraordinary opportunities. Students take out loans to go to college and make a better life for themselves. Entrepreneurs invest countless hours in building a new business.

Under Obama, that optimism is receding. New business start-ups have fallen to the lowest level in decades. Students graduate college only to experience crushing student loan debt and fewer jobs. It’s no wonder why. Obama is willing to tell business owners that they didn’t build their businesses, and that same anti-business attitude runs through his policies. That’s not a way to create jobs, and it’s certainly not what people had in mind four years ago when President Obama promised hope and change.

And that’s not something that the vice president should ignore. Voters in Wisconsin deserve solutions to the challenges our country faces. We’re not looking for more excuses or fancy rhetoric.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan offer a different approach. They know that Americans are looking for leadership that will confront our troubles head-on. They have a plan to restore the middle class in this country by creating 12 million jobs. At a time when we need levelheaded problem-solving, that’s precisely what they’ll deliver.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The Daily Beast: What Obama Doesn’t Get About Medicare

Sen. Ron Johnson on how Democrats are destroying the program—and how Republicans are trying to save it.

Since the president unleashed Obamacare on the American people, former senator Tom Daschle has been one of its most ardent defenders. Now, as more and more Americans discover that Obamacare is funded by more than $700 billion taken from Medicare, Senator Daschle is once again rushing to the program’s defense. Unfortunately for him, it’s hard to argue with the facts.

In a piece published in The Daily Beast, Senator Daschle does his best to argue in support of Obamacare and the president’s approach to Medicare. But before we talk about what Senator Daschle gets wrong, let’s point to what he gets right.

Medicare is on an unsustainable path. If we do nothing, it will become insolvent and the nation will no longer be able to fulfill its commitment to the seniors of each generation. Yet, for too long, Democrats have used Medicare as a political football. Even as the march to Medicare bankruptcy has continued, they have refused to address the problem. That Senator Daschle is now willing to admit publicly what we’ve all known for quite a while is at least a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, Senator Daschle then proceeds straight into Obama campaign talking points, attacking proposals that no one is making and making claims about Obamacare that are impossible to support.

Let’s clear the air about the Romney-Ryan plan. For any American over 55, nothing changes. The government made a promise to those seniors, and it’s a promise that Governor Romney and Paul Ryan intend on making sure is kept.

For those who are younger than 55, the Romney-Ryan plan implements reforms that introduce more competition and choice into Medicare to strengthen the program for future generations. Throughout our nation’s history, we’ve seen choice and competition do more to reduce cost and improve quality than any other force. They can do the same for Medicare. Governor Romney will also root out the waste that has plagued Medicare from its inception, and his proposals for replacing Obamacare with genuine health-care reform will bring down costs throughout the system while accelerating the innovation that leads to new cures.

This plan stands in stark contrast to the approach of President Obama, the one endorsed by Senator Daschle. As with most things, it seems, the president sees the solution to Medicare as rooted in bigger government and more bureaucratic control. President Obama has preached—and Senator Daschle seems to believe—that Obamacare, with its maze of new regulations and raft of new taxes, will bring down medical costs. It’s a claim that has been proven false already, and even the Medicare actuary has stated publicly that Obamacare will do little to control rising expenses.

The Daily Beast