Dear Mr. Zagala:

I want you to know that I understand why the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR 1) concern you, and I hope I can offer some reassurance.

The idea of borrowing more money, when our national debt has double in recent years, is counterintuitive at the least, but it’s a necessary move in our present situation. The best way to get our country out the red is to get Americans out of the red. That means putting Americans back to work, not just trimming wasteful government spending. The private sector is too frightened to hire people or begin projects, so cutting corporate taxes will just put millions into big companies that aren’t willing to spend it. By cutting individual taxes, from income tax to sales tax, for 95% of workers, we are giving the American people the money to buy necessities and creating consumer demand to spur private company spending. By providing contracts for construction companies, we not only get new roads and an updated electric grid, but we create business for those companies, all of their suppliers, and all of their workers, who can then go out and buy from other private companies, so the cycle builds on itself.

There have been plenty of rumors about wasteful projects supposedly hidden in HR 1, from the misleading claims about a $30 million dollar program for a mouse to baseless talk of honeybee insurance, but the bill is actually pretty well targeted and transparent. Much of the spending will go to the states, through established formulae, to keep teachers teaching and firemen on the job. The big projects will be under constant review – not only from Congress and government, but from you on the website www.Recovery.gov – and could lose their money if it isn’t spent within 90-days or if they’re wasteful.Putting money in the hands of Americans, through unemployment benefits or social security bonuses, will help mitigate the suffering of people innocent of causing this crisis. By getting our economy going again, we’ll be able to protect our citizens and pay down our debt in time. With HR 1, we have put a down-payment on our future. That’s a mortgage I’m ok with.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Gonzalez

Member of Congress

Possibly Related Posts:

• Letter to Charles Gonzales, 20th Congressional District, TX
• Prevent Fraud When Writing
• Honorable Charles Gonzalez, 20th Congressional District
• Addressing Members of Congress and Finding Their Addresses
• Letter to Obama by Ms Kathleen Lyday, a 4th grade teacher

The following is a response from Mr Gonzalez to a letter I sent to voicing my concerns about the extremely large debt the United States is amassing due to the current laws being enacted by the Congress. I received the following letter from the Honorable Charles Gonzalez, of the 20th district, San Antonio TX. Following that is my response.

Dear Mr. Zagala:

I want you to know that I understand why the provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR 1) concern you, and I hope I can offer some reassurance.

The idea of borrowing more money, when our national debt has double in recent years, is counterintuitive at the least, but it’s a necessary move in our present situation. The best way to get our country out the red is to get Americans out of the red. That means putting Americans back to work, not just trimming wasteful government spending. The private sector is too frightened to hire people or begin projects, so cutting corporate taxes will just put millions into big companies that aren’t willing to spend it. By cutting individual taxes, from income tax to sales tax, for 95% of workers, we are giving the American people the money to buy necessities and creating consumer demand to spur private company spending. By providing contracts for construction companies, we not only get new roads and an updated electric grid, but we create business for those companies, all of their suppliers, and all of their workers, who can then go out and buy from other private companies, so the cycle builds on itself.

There have been plenty of rumors about wasteful projects supposedly hidden in HR 1, from the misleading claims about a $30 million dollar program for a mouse to baseless talk of honeybee insurance, but the bill is actually pretty well targeted and transparent. Much of the spending will go to the states, through established formulae, to keep teachers teaching and firemen on the job. The big projects will be under constant review – not only from Congress and government, but from you on the website www.Recovery.gov – and could lose their money if it isn’t spent within 90-days or if they’re wasteful.Putting money in the hands of Americans, through unemployment benefits or social security bonuses, will help mitigate the suffering of people innocent of causing this crisis. By getting our economy going again, we’ll be able to protect our citizens and pay down our debt in time. With HR 1, we have put a down-payment on our future. That’s a mortgage I’m ok with.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Gonzalez

Member of Congress

It is my opinion that the Honorable Mr. Gonzalez is well intentioned but none the less, the policies implemented by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR 1) will at best create temporary jobs and only forward an agenda of government programs long sought by many of our representatives.

Some of the funding requirements in HR 1 should have been ongoing over the years because of programs put into law in past years, the Super Fund and funding for the Base Realignment and Closure Act or only two examples.

Most of the funding in HR 1 does cover infrastructure construction that is truly needed but again, creates only temporary jobs. I am sure that the folks who benefit by these jobs will be thankful and I hope it will lessen the unemployment until the economy recovers.

The Honorable Mr. Gonzalez clearly believes that Americans need to get back to work and that the government must create and fund opportunities for them. He believes The private sector is too frightened to hire people or begin projects. He clearly believes that cutting taxes will only make these corporations richer and they will not be willing to spend it on new hiring, but he is clearly not opposed to awarding contracts to them using taxpayer money to perform the tasks in the bill.

The Honorable Mr. Gonzalez seems to overlook the fact that many businesses are afraid to hire or expand because of the uncertainty created by Congress and the administration concerning the legislation currently moving forward. They cannot plan effectively when they do not know the impact of this legislation on their bottom line. The Honorable Mr. Gonzalez further states that just trimming wasteful government spending is not the answer, I wonder if any of us have seen any trimming of government spending recently. I wonder why President Clinton had a balanced budget and a surplus. My guess is he reduced spending in combination with raising the income tax a bit. Of course I also believe that not raising the income tax would have generated a larger surplus and any surplus is a sure sign that we are being over taxed.

I strongly disagree with The Honorable Mr. Gonzalez’s implied characterization that the corporations of this country are evil and greedy. They do exist for one purpose and that is to make money. They also employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for all of us. I would ask Mr. Gonzalez if he ever heard of anyone getting a job from a poor person. I would also ask him what about our small business community who are said to create 80% of all the jobs, is he including them in his characterization?

I find the reference to the 95% of workers tax break a little disingenuous considering the amount of the reduction was extremely small and will be overcome when the current tax reductions expire at the end of 2010. Do you really believe that an average of $13 a month net per person  will stimulate the economy? What is the reference to sales tax reduction? I wasn’t aware the Federal Government had a sales tax.

Mr Gonzalez statement, “by providing contracts for construction companies, we not only get new roads and an updated electric grid, but we create business for those companies, all of their suppliers, and all of their workers, who can then go out and buy from other private companies, so the cycle builds on itself.” is true in theory I suppose, but at what cost to we the people?

I read the bill and I can clearly see the growth of government via the establishment of boards, councils and staffing to support the oversight and administration of all these new programs. There are a lot of things in this bill that have nothing to do with infrastructure or construction and will not generate any jobs for the average American citizen. They will however create more Federal jobs and more regulations.

This bill has implemented changes to medicare, medicaid, provides funding to purchase land for flood control, provides funding for implementation of IT programs for healthcare, NASA funding for climate studies, low income energy assistance, child care assistance, head start funding, expansion of head start, provides money to the compassionate capital fund and faith based community organizations and WIC benefits increase and a 150 million dollar funding line for WIC administration costs? I question what are the job gains from this funding

Mr. Gonzalez provides two examples of misleading claims and rumors in HR 1. I never referenced these claims in my letter to him but I do have more than a few things in the bill I find questionable.  $50,000,000 to the National Endowment to the Arts is an example of an actual questionable expenditure of money in a bill entitled  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  I also question why many of the studies fund 1.5 million dollars for a report about the cost of the program.

Finally I would ask Mr. Gonzalez why are we providing home ownership opportunities for low income citizens? You may not know but Mr. Gonzalez co-authored Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act  in 1997. The funding for this in the recovery bill is 1.5 billion dollars. I wonder if this 1997 bill contributed in anyway to the housing problem and many folks not being able to afford the home loans they purchased.

Mr. Gonzalez suggested I go to the website www.Recovery.gov to see how well the money is being spent. I have been there several times both before and after I received his reply. I suggest you look at it yourself. I was not impressed.

Finally Mr. Gonzalez, I strongly disagree with your last statement to me. “With HR 1, we have put a down-payment on our future. That’s a mortgage I’m ok with.”

Mr Gonzalez, maybe your ok with the size of that mortgage but I am not.” It seems to me that Mr Gonzalez just fine spending money that doesn’t belong to him.

Mr. Gonzalez is elected in a district where his continued job is very secure, in fact the opposing party will never challenge him because of the demographics of his district. He is not threatened with losing an election and will probably have his position for as long as he wants it. As a result Mr. Gonzalez will continue to vote the Democratic party line. Is this right or wrong? No, but it is what it is, a waste of taxpayer money without any thought of the consequences.

Mr. Gonzalez do you really think we can borrow our way out of debt? Would your treat your personal budget in the same way? I am very sure you would not borrow against one credit care to pay off another in you personal budget, why are you so intent on having the American people do this with the Federal budget?

I know this bill is law and we must live with the consequences of it but I implore you to stop amassing anymore debt before it becomes to large to ever pay back.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Nuke power?
• Glen Beck Shows Schedule
• Unbiased News?
• Pick Your Reason For Why You Vote Democrat
• Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Crazy Times