8/12/2019 Untitled 137

1/39

The U.S.s economic strength is a natural outcome of our freedom. The job crisis wehave in this country today is a direct result of our lack of economic freedom. From ouroverburdensome tax code, to our fast rising debt, to our growing entitlement problem,and to our regulatory burden that is growing at unprecedented levels out of reach of theAmerican people, virtually every aspect of our economy is tightly controlled andmanipulated. It is a recipe for disaster that we are seeing come to fruition right now.We can no longer afford to lay by quietly as politicians in Washington wheel and dealour prosperity away to the highest bidder. Corporate welfare is at an all time high.Political class warfare continues to divide and conquer on behalf of big donors andlobbyists. The deck is stacked against the middle class more today than ever.

Thats why Im running. Because I believe we must change this course NOW, and Ibelieve there is still time to save the promise of our country for future generations.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

2/39

There are a few things we need to reestablish in order to get there.1. A clear limited role of government2. A reliance on markets, and the resolve to keep those markets free of overreaching

government regulation.3. Strong incentives for individuals to work and produce for themselves and their

families by allowing people to decide how best to use the fruits of their labor.

4. An adherence to the rule of law5. And a predictable policy framework

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

3/39

Today I will speak primarily to the policy framework, as that really encompasses all ofthe other points as well.

Working to improve the economy by pushing for economic freedom means weautomatically improve the other things that people care about.Four of the top issues that the public overwhelmingly says it cares most about are

EconomyJobsthe budget deficitSocial SecurityMedicare

Ill address all of these and what we can do to push for reforms in each, but itsimportant to know that each of these are widely affected by improvement in theeconomy.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

4/39

First we have to understand where we are. We have to be willing to assess the reality ofthe situation to understand why we need now, once and for all, to kill the menace ofdiscretionary government before it kills our country.

While the economy had growth rate in the fourth quarter in 2013 of 2.4%, The overall2013 growth rate was still an anemic 1.9%.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

5/39

For our economy to make a real comeback that figure should be a sustained 3.5%. Thatrequires an expanding workforce, which we are not seeing largely due to governmentregulation and a heavy tax burden.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

6/39

The average recovery from all recessions since the post-World War 2 era began is anaverage of over 4%. So you can see we have a long way to go before we can call this atrue recovery.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

7/39

Compared to past recoveries from recessions we are behind by $1.3 trillion.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

8/39

Employment is estimated to be 6 million jobs short of a normal recovery. This is largelydue to a heavy government hand.

Defenders of big government stimulus excuse the soft growth in 2013 saying it was aresult of the sequestration and 6 months of reduced government spending. But, thetruth is it was the governments reduced spending over the last 6 months of 2013 that

facilitated the small pickup in growth that occurred. The money the government did notspend is money it did not take out of the private sector through taxes or throughborrowing. That allowed the private sector to spend those resources and boost theeconomy.So, imagine what would happen then if we reduced spending AND promoted policies ofeconomic freedom at the same time. You would see a true recovery begin andAmericans getting back to work.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

9/39

While I am absolutely for strong spending cuts, it is important to note that our recoverydepends on an all of the above strategy that also simultaneously promotes economicfreedom and economic growth which produces jobs. As we rein in the government, wemust also enable the private sector to grow. This improves our governments fiscalimbalance and reduces the deficit in a faster more orderly and sustainable way.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

10/39

As is the case with any math we can check our work and determine whether we arecorrect. If it is correct that reduction in government spending plus economic freedomequals production and job growth, then we can say the opposite is also true, that is thatgrowth in government spending minus economic freedom through heavy regulationequals less production and little to no job growth.

You need only look to Mississippi to see that is absolutely true. Mississippi ranked 5th in

total federal government spending to the states as a percentage of state GDP in 2010.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

11/39

3 years later, our state, along with the others on the top of the list for receiving federalfunds, were on the bottom of those producing full time jobs. Incidentally this is not theonly list Mississippi is at the bottom of. Its time we begin to reject business as usual andbegin taking seriously the lessons of history if we ever hope to pull our state off thebottom.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

12/39

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

13/39

The first consequence is through Less Economic Growth. The CBO finds that the debtburden will "reduce national saving and income" and that the increase in governmentborrowing in order to keep up its spending regime will crowd out private investment.The shrinking of the private economy caused by America's debt burden will also lead toreduced wages and fewer jobs in the long term.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

14/39

2. Tax hikes and spending cuts

Because the CBO doesn't believe that our long-term debt projection is sustainable, theyforecast that tax increases and spending cuts are in our future in order to bring thefederal ledger back into balance. Tax hikes tend to shrink the economy, obviously, andsharp spending cuts can be a negative economic shock as well.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

15/39

3. Inability to deal with unforeseen challenges

There's always the chance of another economic crisis. And our standing in the world isseverely compromised by the poor fiscal condition of our country. Take for exampleRussias invasion of Ukraine. Our options become limited as a result of our economy.Also of concern is the number of other foreign currencies that use ours as a standard.The flexibility provided by numerous options and to respond appropriately are

strengthened when we have a strong economy.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

16/39

4. Increased Chance of Crisis

A large and continually growing federal debt would have another significant negativeconsequence: It would increase the probability of a fiscal crisis for the United States. Insuch a crisis, investors become unwilling to finance all of a governments borrowing

needs unless they are compensated with very high interest rates; as a result, theinterest rates on government debt rise suddenly and sharply relative to rates of returnon other assets. That increase in interest rates reduces the market value of outstandinggovernment bonds, causing losses for investors who hold them. Such a decline canprecipitate a broader financial crisis by creating losses for mutual funds, pension funds,insurance companies, banks, and other holders of government debtlosses that maybe large enough to cause some financial institutions to fail.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

17/39

Estimates across advanced economies show that debt drag reaches large andstatistically significant levels as debt grows, with the worst effects occurring after debtreaches 90 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). With U.S. federal, state, and localgovernment debt at 84 percent of GDP and rising, we have to do something now.

Federal debt alone is now about 73 percent of the economys annual output, or grossdomestic product (GDP). That percentage is higher than at any point in U.S. historyexcept a brief period around World War II, and it is twice the percentage at the end of2007.

Under the Congressional Budget Offices most recent extended baseline projections,budget deficits would rise steadily and, by 2038, would push federal debt held by thepublic close to the percentage of GDP seen just after World War IIeven withoutfactoring in the harm that growing debt would cause to the economy. That is significantbecause as debt drag worsens, so too will the harm it has on the economy and jobs,which in turn will further reduce overall GDP and increase the federal debt percentage

of GDP.

At some point the vicious cycle will spin our economy out of control. Without a drasticchange of policy, that WILL happen in our lifetime. In fact, I believe that without drasticpolicy changes dangers the projections indicate exponential loss accompanying out ofcontrol spending means it could happen in the next decade. The scary part is that eventhe best projections cant account for the effects of deficit spending that is this large apercentage of GDP.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

18/39

Unfortunately the Presidents most recent budget proposal does nothing to rein in thisproblem. Under the Obama budget proposal for FY 2015:

-- By 2024, the total national debt would rise from $17.4 trillion to nearly $25 trillion.

-- By 2017, those interest payments would be bigger than the budget for Medicaid.

-- By 2020, U.S. taxpayers would be paying more in interest on the debt than they wouldon the entire Defense budget.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

19/39

The Presidents proposal also increases spending by $791 billion over 10 years.Spending would rise $114 billion in 2015, $56 billion above the bipartisan budgetagreement that the president signed into law on Dec. 26.

Overall, spending would increase 63 percent over the next 10 years, and the proposal

would hike taxes by $1.8 trillion.

-- By 2017, those interest payments would be bigger than the budget for Medicaid.

-- By 2020, U.S. taxpayers would be paying more in interest on the debt than they wouldon the entire Defense budget.

This type of careless approach is not only irresponsible spending, it is dangerous andreduces the security of our country.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

20/39

Meanwhile, we approach and surpass the debt limit now with such regularity thatCongress barely questions it.

Its important to understand something about the past 3 debt ceiling votes. Congress

didnt really vote to raise the debt limit. They actually vote to suspend it, each timegiving the treasury and the bureaucrats at the fed a blank check to spend as much asthey wish.

As our economy spirals out of control, the men and women elected to represent theAmerican taxpayer are voting to hand that constitutional authority over to a group ofunelected bureaucrats, in essence giving them a blank check to spend money againstthe future of our children and grandchildren.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

21/39

But, this is only part of the story of our debt. Congress authorizes only about one-third offederal spending in any given year. That is the portion of the budget that is discretionary.But, two-thirds of federal spending is mandatory and goes to finance long-standingentitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in addition tointerest on the debt. The spending for these programs was authorized manyCongresses ago. They are on autopilot, and they are the key drivers of expanding

federal spending and debt.

So, stopping the debt ceiling increases is only part of the problem that needs attention.There needs to be reform of entitlement spending, as well.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

22/39

Federal transfer payments for welfare and food stamps, when added to disability andunemployment benefits exceeds an additional $1 trillion annually.

In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays onall means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $750 billion, according to ananalysis by the Congressional Research Service.

But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies:unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, soare not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year.Adding state spending, the Senate Budget Committee found another $257 billion spenteach year. The welfare state is now larger than the GDP of 175 of the 190 wealthiestcountries.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

23/39

Adding state spending, the Senate Budget Committee found another $260 billion spenteach year. The welfare state is now larger than the GDP of 175 of the 190 wealthiestcountries.

Astoundingly, if all this spending were simply sent in the form of a check to everyhousehold in America living below the poverty level, we could raise each of thesefamily's incomes not just above the poverty line, but double that level. Every poor family

of four could have a cash income of $44,000 a year.

What does that mean? It means were spending a lot of money for governmentbureaucracy and inefficiency that is leading to waste, fraud and abuse.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

24/39

The most recent complete data from 2012 shows that the highest error federalgovernment programs cost the taxpayers $100 billion in that year alone.

Medicare Fee-for-Service had an improper payment rate of 8.5% or $29.6 billion.

Federal expenditures of Medicaid showed improper payments made of 7.1% ofMedicaid expenditures or $19.6 billion. Medicare Advantage, the Earned Income TaxCredit, and Unemployment Insurance round out the top five, all of which made improperpayments over 10%.

How many private sector businesses would survive with this level of fraud and abuse?So the question becomes, what can we do about all this to slow down the spending thatwill ultimately result in a catastrophic loss of jobs and the very real possibility of thecratering of the the economy?

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

25/39

What is needed is a series of reforms in entitlement spending, tax policy, and regulatorypolicy that pulls us back from this cliff. There are many potential reform proposals outthere. While I support a return to a small federal government that allows states thepower granted them in the Constitution, it is important that we all realize we cant get outof this overnight. It will take a steady and responsible plan. But, it will have to be

implemented by those who are willing to stand up and say that this is but a step towardsthe ultimate goal of returning to a balanced federal/state approach to governance.

It isnt politically feasible to expect this will happen all at once. Thats the reality of ourpolitics and the seriousness of our situation. It will take a continued effort to putprincipled fiscal conservatives in office. But, at the very least we must send people toWashington that recognize the problem and will stand in the way and say enough isenough.

Even if we were able to do this overnight, at this level of spending, where markets andpeople have come to rely to a great extent on government overreach, it would likely

create chaos. As much as conservatives have been blamed for being irresponsible, it isimportant to point out that we are not. We simply want to see a plan to move us backtowards fiscal sanity.

Heres how we begin to do that.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

26/39

The tax codes havent been cleaned up since 1986.

Since then, year after year, the tax code is filled with more special interest loopholes,credits, and carve-outs. Not only is this unfair to those without lobbyists, it makes the tax

code too complex for the average American to understand.

Worse yet, back in the 1980s, the U.S. had among the lowest income tax rates onbusinesses in the world. Today, our small and large businesses pay among the highestrates.

In the 1980s after two rounds of Reagan tax rate reductions, income tax receiptsdoubled, and the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent, 5 percent, and 10 percentrose as the economy expanded.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

27/39

There are two big hurdles that must be overcome to achieve tax reform.

The first obstacle is that the class-warfare crowd wants the tax code to penalizesuccess with high tax rates. But, the resulting protections created by lobbyists meanupper-income taxpayers are far more likely to benefit from all the deductions, credits,exemptions, preferences, and other loopholes in the tax code, which is the reason forsecond obstacle.

On one hand, the tax code allows for liberals to punish the wealthy, but on the other thetax loopholes allow for politicians to reward campaign donors. This is a very rewardingsystem for lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats, but not so much for the averageAmerican.

A flat tax or a consumption tax like the Fair Tax would take this power away and give itback where it belongs, to the people.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

28/39

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

29/39

Ultimately, Id like to see a pure flat tax with one tax rate, and a postcard-sized return, ora consumption tax that would completely do away with the IRS.

This is a very real possibility. The IRS is the enforcement arm for the majority of our

governments overreach.

Were we to move towards a tax code that would abolish the IRS and move collectionsto the Treasury Dept. we could remove this government threat, remove the ability ofpoliticians to reward their friends with tax exemptions that picks winners and losers, andforce an even playing field among everyone.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

30/39

We must stop the dangerous federal spending. Its that simple. No more debt ceilingincreases, no more handing over the Congressional spending authority to bureaucratsat the Treasury Dept. by suspending the debt ceiling.

We must demand reforms now in the areas where waste is running rampant such as inthe high-error programs of Medicare Fee-For-Service, Medicaid and UnemploymentInsurance. One way to do that is through reducing the numerous discretionary rules we

allow agencies to promulgate without Congressional authority, and by Congress relyingon the Inspector General system, and demanding that these IGs be allowed to do their

job free of meddling. Our Congress must once again begin the hard work of fullydeveloping the rules for the laws they pass and providing real oversight.

We must also end corporate welfare.

Many Republicans have demanded an end to Federal Reserve funding of theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as wasteful. But you will never hearabout the Feds direct subsidy to private banks that costs over three times as much asthe total CFPB budget.

The subsidy comes in the form of a 6 percent dividend, paid on stock that over 2,900banks purchase to participate in the Federal Reserve system. Very few places whereordinary Americans park their money offer such a risk-free benefit. In 2012 (the last yearwith available data), the Fed gave away $1.637 billion in dividends to banks, tax-free inthe majority of cases. And the Fed has been doing this for the last 100 years. Its one ofthe many unknown ways the Fed extends special benefits to Wall Street. This shouldend!

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

31/39

Then there is the Wind Production Tax Credit that gives wind companies $23 in asubsidy for each megawatt-hour of electricity they produce. This money adds up quicklyand it costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

Rarely does an industry enjoy such disproportionate favoritism. Even though the windindustry produces only 3.5% of the country's electricity, it receives 42% of the federalgovernment's electrical financial support.

Combined with other targeted incentives, the federal government gives wind producers$56.29 per megawatt-hour, according to the Energy Information Administration. Naturalgas, oil and coal power, by comparison, only get 64 cents, while nuclear power receives$3.14.

Another example is the Export-Import Bank. The Ex-Im Bank provides taxpayer-subsidized loans to U.S. exporters. The banks charter will expire at the end of May.

President Obama supports a four-year extension and, further, wants to increase thebanks $100 billion loan limit by an additional $40 billion.

The Ex-Im Bank provides government-subsidized loans and low-interest payments toforeign corporations that receive exports from American companies.

Expanding the banks loan limit is asking for a repeat of Fannie and Freddie. Even at itsbest, the bank just picks winners of a few exporters and hopes there are no losers.

More than 90 percent of the benefits are going to just a few companies in the UnitedStates. That is the very definition of corporate welfare and cronyism.

These are but three examples that you may not have even been aware existed. As yournext US Senator I will work to let the American people know about these huge wastefulprograms and do everything I can to end them.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

32/39

Entitlements

We must reform entitlement spending, the largest and most out-of-hand expenditure ifwe hope to have a chance at reducing the deficit and allowing private enterprise to onceagain prosper at levels that creates jobs and opportunity.

Social Security

Social Security is by far the largest federal expenditure, which is projected to cost $848billion in 2014 and at least $11 trillion over the next 10 years. It is clear that we willnever control spending and bend the trajectory of our fiscal insolvency without offeringcomprehensive and effective reforms to Social Security.

However, the budgetary cost of this program is by no means the only pernicious aspectof our burgeoning entitlement state. Under the current system, the federal governmenthas complete control over our personal retirement. Their monopoly on 12.4% of ourearnings (on the first $113,700 of income) undermines savings, investments, andpersonal ownership some of the most cherished values of a free and prosperous

society.

Other nations have figured out the right approach. Australia began to implementpersonal accounts back in the mid-1980s, and the results have been remarkable. TheAustralian governments finances are stronger, and national saving has increased. Butmost important, people now can look forward to a safer and more secure retirement.Another great example is Chile, which set up personal accounts in the early 1980s.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/chiles-private-social-security-system-a-big-success/http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/chiles-private-social-security-system-a-big-success/

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

33/39

About 30 nations around the world have set up some form of personal retirementaccounts. EvenSweden has partially privatized its Social Security system.Personal accounts would also be good for growth and competitiveness. Reforming atax-and-transfer entitlement scheme into a system of private savings will boost jobs by

lowering the marginal tax rate on work. Personal accounts also will boost privatesavings. And Social Security reform will reduce the long-run burden of governmentspending, something that is desperately needed if we want to avoid a fiscal crisis andgrow the economy and create jobs.

It is important to understand that personal retirement accounts are not free. SocialSecurity is a pay-as-you-go system, so if we let younger workers shift their payroll taxesto individual accounts, that means the money wont be there to pay benefits to currentretirees. Fulfilling the governments promise to those retirees, as well as to olderworkers who wouldnt have time to benefit from the new system, will require a lot ofmoney over the next couple of decades, probably more than $5 trillion.

Thats a shocking number, but its important to remember that it would be even moreexpensive to bail out the current system. Were in a deep hole, but it will be easier toclimb out if we implement real reform and accept the reality of the Social SecuritySystem.

To add insult to injury, the federal government taxes the Social Security benefits ofseniors, even though the money had already been taxed. Moreover, the more a seniorearns in private income, dividends or interest while receiving Social Security, the morethey are taxed.

My generation understands that paying for the Social Security of the retirees older thanus is a sacrifice we will have to make due to irresponsible government. Its a sad fact.We should at least encourage the young to also invest a portion of their income to offsetwhat we know will not be available to us.

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of theSocial Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with moreincome than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenarioa low-wage worker who invested entirely in bondsthe benefits from private investmentwould equal those from traditional Social Security.

The argument that private investment is too risky compared with Social Security doesnot hold up. With Social Security already running a cash flow deficit todayand facing a$21 trillion shortfall in the future that will make it impossible to pay promised benefitsprivate investment and personal accounts should be part of any discussion aboutreforming the troubled system.

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/why-does-obama-want-to-make-america-more-like-sweden-when-swedish-politicians-are-trying-to-move-in-the-opposite-direction/http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/why-does-obama-want-to-make-america-more-like-sweden-when-swedish-politicians-are-trying-to-move-in-the-opposite-direction/

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

34/39

Medicare Reform

While Medicare is currently not as costly as Social Security, it is growing at a faster rateand will surpass Social Security spending in 15 years. On its current trajectory,Medicare will surpass all other non-interest spending by 2050 and will be the equivalent

of nearly 10% of GDP. Reform of the program is an absolute necessity.

Moving traditional Medicare from a third party fee-for-service to a premium support plancould be a step in the right direction. It would switch from paying doctors, hospitals, andother medical professionals to paying health plans directly on behalf of Medicarebeneficiaries. The payments, in the form of fixed amounts, would be made to competingplans offering traditional Medicare benefits, as they do today in Medicare Advantageand Medicare Part D. This payment would be made, based on the beneficiarys choice,to either a private plan or Medicare.

Projections show that moving to a premium support system by 2016 would result in an

initial 10-year savings of $702 billion. Overall, the changes to Medicare would securetotal Medicare savings of $9.4 trillion by 2035.

But, this would only be a step. The best reform would be to move towards a system thatgave control of healthcare spending to individuals, and required an eventual move bydoctors and hospitals to provide actual prices of services and procedures.

The potential for a voucher proposal is a step in that direction.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

35/39

Its important to understand that healthcare problems we find ourselves in the midst ofare a result of costs. 90 percent of every health care dollar in America is paid for bysomeone other than the consumer.

This inefficient system causes spiraling costs and bureaucratic inefficiency because iterodes any incentive to be a smart shopper when buying health care services (much asits difficult to maintain a good diet by pre-paying for a year of dining at all-you-can-eatrestaurants). In other words, government intervention has largely eroded market forcesin health care. And this was true even before ObamaCare was enacted.

Medicare reform, by itself, wont solve the third-party payer problem, but it could be partof the solution especially if seniors used their vouchers to purchase real insurance(i.e., for large, unexpected expenses) rather than the inefficient pre-paid health plansthat are so prevalent today.

Of course any changes to Medicare would have to be premised on the repeal ofObamaCare as ObamaCare relies on major changes to Medicare. ObamaCare ifallowed to stand will be the main driver of skyrocketing healthcare costs in the future.Unfortunately, we dont have time to go into the full details of Healthcare reform heretoday. If you are able to be in Jackson on the evening of April 10, Ill have a town hallthen to address healthcare. And, of course, I will be back to the coast to discuss theseother policies in the future.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

36/39

Medicaid

Speaking of ObamaCare we should also mention Medicaid reform. Medicaid should beturned into a true block grant program to the states. Medicaid block grants wouldreplicate the success of welfare reform. Getting rid of the federal welfare entitlement inthe 1990s and shifting the program to the states was a very successful policy, savingbillions of dollars for taxpayers and significantly reducing poverty. There is every reason

to think ending the Medicaid entitlement will have similar positive results.

The third-party payment system is a major source of fraud and abuse. HandingMedicaid over to the states makes sense, because it would be those individual statesresponsible for cracking down on the fraud, and innovating their policies to taylorspecific solutions to specific problems.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

37/39

We have to get serious about these three basics of recovery if we hope to have aserious rebound in our economy and to pull back from the tipping point we now find ourcountry.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

38/39

Economic Freedom is the key.

It requires a seriousness about freedom, and an understanding that freedom is what weowe our prosperity to, and it is what we must return to if we hope to regain it.

8/12/2019 Untitled 137

39/39