Miller Newsletter

Statement

For a fleeting moment, it seemed that President Obama was ready to turn the page and finally join the effort to address jobs and our economy. I even commend the President for mentioning the especially troubling problem of veteran unemployment. However, as the speech went on, it became very clear that this was yet another campaign stump speech.

During his speech, the President gave us a sneak preview of his plan but with a take it or leave it attitude, repeating seventeen times that Congress should "pass this bill." Every time the President delivered this line, almost all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle jumped to their feet in support of a bill they had not even had a chance to read.

The administration has finally delivered the text of the President's "American Jobs Act" to Congress. The President blames politics for stopping his jobs agenda. Before the American people had even seen the text of his bill, the President was ready to find a scapegoat. Then, the President demanded that Congress pay for his $447 billion stimulus plan by raising taxes and slashing deductions for things like mortgage interest payments and charitable donations.

Let me be clear, there are some elements of the President's plan that could and should pass Congress and help make it easier for America's job creators to put people back to work. However, with the President's take it or leave it approach and his steadfast insistence that we raise taxes, ordinary Americans will bear the burden of funding another massive stimulus plan.

Giving tax credits for hiring unemployed workers should be considered on the House floor. I was glad to see that the President's bill includes a section to provide businesses that hire veterans with a service-connected disability a tax credit of up to $9,600. These tax credits would help incentivize businesses to hire veterans; however, I believe that we can go further to fulfill our responsibility to support the heroic men and women who put on the uniform in defense of our freedom. In July, I introduced the Tax Credit to Hire Veterans Act of 2011. This bill would provide small businesses with a $25,000 credit for hiring any unemployed veteran, regardless of the amount of time they have been unemployed. Additionally, my bill includes provisions that ensure that businesses cannot simply hire a veteran, receive a tax credit and then fire the veteran. This substantial tax credit would allow businesses to use more of their capital to hire unemployed veterans.

Unfortunately, there are provisions of the President's bill that actually make it more difficult to put Americans back to work. One of these provisions would effectively require contractors receiving government funds to pay union-scale wages. Forcing contractors to pay artificially inflated union wages raises the cost of construction projects and forces contractors to hire fewer employees than they otherwise would. In fact, a study on labor demand by an Economist at the University of Texas, Daniel Hamermesh, found that a 1 percent decrease in wages leads to 1 percent more hiring. Allowing the free market to dictate the fair market price for labor would help put more Americans back to work.

The President's bill also would establish an "infrastructure bank" known as the American Infrastructure Financing Authority (AIFA). Like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the AIFA would be a wholly owned government run corporation. The AIFA's Board of Directors would be appointed by the President. I do not believe it is wise to increase our debt by creating a government owned corporation that is run by Washington bureaucrats who decide where tax payer dollars should be used to provide loans for infrastructure projects that they determine are "both economically viable and of regional or national significance." Furthermore, the AIFA would have the authority to lend $10 billion in its first year, $20 billion from the second through the ninth years and $50 billion a year for succeeding years. This broad expansion of government seems to be little more than a slush fund for the Administration to use to grant loans for pet projects that they deem to be significant.

And of course, we have yet another extension of unemployment insurance included in the President's bill. Extending unemployment insurance fails to tackle any of the root causes of unemployment and does not decrease the unemployment rate. Jonathan Gruber, an Economist at MIT, found in a study that each dollar spent on unemployment insurance only increased household spending by $0.55. He also found that each dollar of unemployment benefits received reduced their spouse's earnings by between 36 and 73 percent. Extending unemployment benefits for another year will simply increase the debt without decreasing unemployment.

The President asserts that his plan would save or create 60,000 jobs in Florida. But these assertions have not been analyzed by any state or independent agencies. The President also claimed that his first stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and yet two years later unemployment is still over 9 percent. If his first major stimulus plan failed, then why should we believe that a second just two years later will work any better?

We can work together to create an environment where businesses small and large are free to expand, create jobs, and drive our economy. But we cannot shackle our job creators with burdensome overregulation. We can provide stability through low taxes and targeted tax incentives that give American businesses the assurance that government will allow them to flourish. But we cannot promote job creation by giving businesses temporary, one-year, tax relief that is simultaneously coupled with permanent tax increases. We can create jobs by signing free trade agreements that allow American companies to hire new workers and export their American made goods to the rest of the world. But we cannot do this until the President sends these free trade agreements to Congress. We can do our part to help get our economy back on track, but only if the President views this debate as a fight for American jobs, not just a fight for his job. 　

Source