Share Joe Pitts
Joe Pitts for Congress Blog
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
April 22, 2010
Campaign Staff
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) received a “Green the Capitol” award. Click below to find out more.
Rep. Joe Pitts (PA-16) received a “Green the Capitol” award from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for adopting sustainable business practices in his Washington and district offices. Rep. Pitts was one of 50 Member offices given the award.
Seventeen Republican offices and 33 Democratic offices were honored for their efforts to reduce electricity usage, reduce waste, and recycle. In just the last few years, the “My Green Office” program that Rep. Pitts participates in has saved 481,650 kilowatts of electricity and 204,020 pounds of landfill waste across Capitol Hill.
Rep. Pitts’ statement follows:
“I’m very proud to have my offices honored with this award. Reducing waste contributes to the health of our environment and helps improve the bottom line of the federal government. We’re still looking to make more improvements in the coming year, and I hope that all of my colleagues can take small steps toward maintaining greener offices.”
-
0
April 21, 2010
Campaign Staff
Republican talking points took center stage Saturday morning at the quarterly Lancaster County ACTION breakfast meeting at Leola Restaurant.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Republican talking points took center stage Saturday morning at the quarterly Lancaster County ACTION breakfast meeting at Leola Restaurant.
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Pitts and Corbett said they are concerned and worried about where the nation is headed, and spoke about too much government spending.
Corbett expressed concern about "the future of our children."
"They are leaving Pennsylvania because there are better opportunities in other states," he said. "I believe in Pennsylvania. We have to change direction."
Corbett said he wants to change the "mentality coming from Harrisburg."
He called for more government transparency and less spending, and he promised to make decisions based on Pennsylvania's best interests. "I won't worry about re-election. I will only worry about our state right now," he said, and added: "We need to assert our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment," he said, referring to challenges to the recently passed health care reform.
The line drew applause.
Also at the meeting were Republican state lieutenant governor candidates Jim Cawley and Chet Beiler and Republican Tom Garman, who is running against state Rep. Mike Sturla in the 96th House district. Cawley is the endorsed candidate, and Beiler, former Lancaster County party chairman, is running without party backing. ACTION President Bob Kettering said Beiler is "ACTION-endorsed."
Primary elections are Tuesday, May 18.
Garman, who is party-endorsed, said that while he is young and "still learning about the political process," he thinks that in the upcoming elections, "with your help, we will be able to take back Lancaster city."
Pitts, who is seeking his eighth term, spoke mostly about government spending.
"Since this administration came to power, the federal government has taken control of 51 percent of our economy," said Pitts, who will face Democratic challenger Lois Herr.
"We're going down a neo-socialism path," he said. "The things we value — freedom, democracy and capitalism — this administration is about to kill it all."
Pitts said we need not just change, but rather a "new normal."
"I also want the new normal to be Nancy Pelosi giving up her gavel, Harry Reid standing in the unemployment line, and Obama being a one-term president."
All speakers encouraged the ACTION members that the future lies in the people and how they will vote in the upcoming elections.
Pitts reminded everyone that change starts locally, and then goes national in November. "As I read the public mood, I think you'll see a turnout like never before," Pitts said.
"This group is about action, and that's what we need. Not just words, but action. This has the potential to be a good year."
ACTION member Robert William closed the ceremony by reminding the group where faith and hope for the country needs to be placed — not in government or man, only in God.
"Second Chronicles 7:14 has to be our cry: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' That is where we must turn," William said. "That has to be our prayer."
Originally Posted Here on April 18, 2010
By Mandy Stoltzfus, Lancaster Online
About 100 members of ACTION, Americans for Christian Traditions in Our Nation, were in attendance to hear keynote speakers U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, who is running for re-election, and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, Republican candidate for governor. Both are endorsed by the party.
Pitts and Corbett said they are concerned and worried about where the nation is headed, and spoke about too much government spending.
Corbett expressed concern about "the future of our children."
"They are leaving Pennsylvania because there are better opportunities in other states," he said. "I believe in Pennsylvania. We have to change direction."
Corbett said he wants to change the "mentality coming from Harrisburg."
He called for more government transparency and less spending, and he promised to make decisions based on Pennsylvania's best interests. "I won't worry about re-election. I will only worry about our state right now," he said, and added: "We need to assert our sovereign rights as a state under the 10th Amendment," he said, referring to challenges to the recently passed health care reform.
The line drew applause.
Also at the meeting were Republican state lieutenant governor candidates Jim Cawley and Chet Beiler and Republican Tom Garman, who is running against state Rep. Mike Sturla in the 96th House district. Cawley is the endorsed candidate, and Beiler, former Lancaster County party chairman, is running without party backing. ACTION President Bob Kettering said Beiler is "ACTION-endorsed."
Primary elections are Tuesday, May 18.
Garman, who is party-endorsed, said that while he is young and "still learning about the political process," he thinks that in the upcoming elections, "with your help, we will be able to take back Lancaster city."
Pitts, who is seeking his eighth term, spoke mostly about government spending.
"Since this administration came to power, the federal government has taken control of 51 percent of our economy," said Pitts, who will face Democratic challenger Lois Herr.
"We're going down a neo-socialism path," he said. "The things we value — freedom, democracy and capitalism — this administration is about to kill it all."
Pitts said we need not just change, but rather a "new normal."
"I also want the new normal to be Nancy Pelosi giving up her gavel, Harry Reid standing in the unemployment line, and Obama being a one-term president."
All speakers encouraged the ACTION members that the future lies in the people and how they will vote in the upcoming elections.
Pitts reminded everyone that change starts locally, and then goes national in November. "As I read the public mood, I think you'll see a turnout like never before," Pitts said.
"This group is about action, and that's what we need. Not just words, but action. This has the potential to be a good year."
ACTION member Robert William closed the ceremony by reminding the group where faith and hope for the country needs to be placed — not in government or man, only in God.
"Second Chronicles 7:14 has to be our cry: 'If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.' That is where we must turn," William said. "That has to be our prayer."
Originally Posted Here on April 18, 2010
By Mandy Stoltzfus, Lancaster Online
-
0
April 19, 2010
Joe Pitts
The Democrats in Washington have made so many mistakes in the last year that 2010 looks to be the best year for the Republicans since 1994 and perhaps even better. As a Republican, I’m glad to see it because it will give me a chance to successfully push for many of the things I believe in. But recent polls that show people distrusting the government are not only an indictment of Democrats. To a large degree they are an indictment of Republicans as well.
The Democrats in Washington have made so many mistakes in the last year that 2010 looks to be the best year for the Republicans since 1994 and perhaps even better. As a Republican, I’m glad to see it because it will give me a chance to successfully push for many of the things I believe in. But recent polls that show people distrusting the government are not only an indictment of Democrats. To a large degree they are an indictment of Republicans as well.
In the last half of the 12-year stretch Republicans had in the Congressional majority, we lost faith with the American people--and that’s why the Democrats are in charge to begin with! Republicans spent too much, for starters. But there were also too many scandals, and too many inexcusable mistakes. I found myself voting against my own party more and more. I voted against No Child Left Behind. I voted against TARP (the Bush bank bailout). I voted against nearly two-thirds of the annual appropriations bills the GOP passed during the Bush Administration.
The Tea Party movement has not resulted just from anger at the Democrats. It resulted from anger at both parties. What does that mean for November? This election needs to be about what’s good for America, not just about what’s good for the Grand Old Party. It can be the start of something great for the GOP as well, but only if Republicans stick to their principles and actually deliver on the things we as a party are supposed to believe in: less government, less spending, family values, law and order, and wise national defense.
The Tea Party movement will probably be good for the GOP this year. But after the election, if Republicans win the majority in Congress, the movement will be there to hold the party accountable. If we don’t live up to our promises to be the party that can actually do budget math, we will have the Tea Party folks to reckon with. This is a very good thing for America. Accountability is always a good thing.
In the last half of the 12-year stretch Republicans had in the Congressional majority, we lost faith with the American people--and that’s why the Democrats are in charge to begin with! Republicans spent too much, for starters. But there were also too many scandals, and too many inexcusable mistakes. I found myself voting against my own party more and more. I voted against No Child Left Behind. I voted against TARP (the Bush bank bailout). I voted against nearly two-thirds of the annual appropriations bills the GOP passed during the Bush Administration.
The Tea Party movement has not resulted just from anger at the Democrats. It resulted from anger at both parties. What does that mean for November? This election needs to be about what’s good for America, not just about what’s good for the Grand Old Party. It can be the start of something great for the GOP as well, but only if Republicans stick to their principles and actually deliver on the things we as a party are supposed to believe in: less government, less spending, family values, law and order, and wise national defense.
The Tea Party movement will probably be good for the GOP this year. But after the election, if Republicans win the majority in Congress, the movement will be there to hold the party accountable. If we don’t live up to our promises to be the party that can actually do budget math, we will have the Tea Party folks to reckon with. This is a very good thing for America. Accountability is always a good thing.
-
0
April 19, 2010
Campaign Staff
Two Democratic pollsters wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that the enactment of Obamacare has been “an incontrovertible disaster” for the Democratic Party. They cite one survey that reports “more Americans say they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States.”
Two Democratic pollsters wrote in Friday’s Washington Post that the enactment of Obamacare has been “an incontrovertible disaster” for the Democratic Party. They cite one survey that reports “more Americans say they agree with the Tea Party movement on major issues than with the president of the United States.”
The op-ed was written by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, who were pollsters to Presidents Carter and Clinton. This is not the first op-ed the two have written together. On March 12, before the bill became law, they warned Democrats to back off. They wrote: “CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. ...We are ... concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.”
The op-ed was written by Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell, who were pollsters to Presidents Carter and Clinton. This is not the first op-ed the two have written together. On March 12, before the bill became law, they warned Democrats to back off. They wrote: “CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. ...We are ... concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.”
-
0
April 15, 2010
Campaign Staff
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Originally Posted at Pottstown Mercury on Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor's confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody's Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes — something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea — a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for "the reduction of the administration of our government."
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don't think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation "unsustainable" and that our problems "cannot be solved with minor tinkering." Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
View Full Story Here
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: "Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor's confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody's Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes — something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea — a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for "the reduction of the administration of our government."
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don't think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation "unsustainable" and that our problems "cannot be solved with minor tinkering." Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts is a Republican who represents Pennsylvania's 16th Congressional District in parts of Berks, Chester and Lancaster counties.
View Full Story Here
-
0
April 13, 2010
Campaign Staff
Credit union representatives from the Lancaster area met with Congressman Joe Pitts (R-16) at Lancaster Red Rose Credit Union. The meeting was held to thank the Congressman for his recent co-sponsorship of H.R. 3380, the Promoting Lending to America’s Small Business Act of 200.
Credit union representatives from the Lancaster area met with Congressman Joe Pitts (R-16) at Lancaster Red Rose Credit Union. The meeting was held to thank the Congressman for his recent co-sponsorship of H.R. 3380, the Promoting Lending to America’s Small Business Act of 2009. This legislation would raise the lending cap from 12.25% to 25% of credit unions’ total assets.
Meeting participants shared stories of what they are doing for their members and small businesses during this tough economic time. Discussions also covered the recently passed health care bill, student lending, and spending.
The Association extends thanks to Governmental Affairs Committee member and Lancaster Red Rose Credit Union CEO Abby Achey, for hosting the event for Lancaster area credit unions.
To keep up the member business lending legislation momentum, the Association asks credit unions to contact their U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator urging their support of H.R. 3380 (for the House) and S. 2919 (for the Senate). Click here for contact and bill information.
Read Full Story Here
Meeting participants shared stories of what they are doing for their members and small businesses during this tough economic time. Discussions also covered the recently passed health care bill, student lending, and spending.
The Association extends thanks to Governmental Affairs Committee member and Lancaster Red Rose Credit Union CEO Abby Achey, for hosting the event for Lancaster area credit unions.
To keep up the member business lending legislation momentum, the Association asks credit unions to contact their U.S. Representative and U.S. Senator urging their support of H.R. 3380 (for the House) and S. 2919 (for the Senate). Click here for contact and bill information.
Read Full Story Here
-
0
April 13, 2010
Campaign Staff
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: “Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”
Originally published on April 9th
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: “Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor’s confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody’s Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes—something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea—a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for “the reduction of the administration of our government.”
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don’t think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation “unsustainable” and that our problems “cannot be solved with minor tinkering.” Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
Congressman Joe Pitts represents the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
Read Full Story Here
Speaking in Dallas this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave a stern warning about the fiscal direction of our government: “Unless we as a nation demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal responsibility, in the longer run we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”
Bernanke further argues that a credible plan to reduce long-term deficits could help boost the economy. Stabilizing the federal budget would enhance investor’s confidence in the United States thereby reducing interest rates we pay on the national debt and attracting business investment.
But how do we achieve fiscal responsibility? Despite some claims by the President and Democratic leadership, the recent healthcare reform was anything but responsible. Instead of securing Medicare and Social Security, the bill created a new entitlement that will expand government spending and deficits.
Because of the relative strength of our economy even during these tough times interest rates on government borrowing have remained low. This situation will not last much longer with Moody’s Investors Service recently warning that the U.S. could be downgraded from our current AAA bond rating. As government borrowing becomes more expensive, debt payments will crowd out other spending priorities including healthcare and national defense.
There is a strong temptation for legislators to increase spending. Deficits have gone up under both Republicans and Democrats. For a long time, I have been concerned that we are spending too much and, during the Bush years, I voted against almost two-thirds of the appropriations bills considered in the House.
Many Americans have long called for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. However, the easiest way to balance budgets is to raise taxes—something that would be bad for families and bad for the economy. I recently joined as a cosponsor of a better idea—a Spending Limit Amendment that would hold federal government spending to one-fifth of the U.S. economy.
Our average government spending since the end of World War II has stayed around 20 percent of gross domestic product. This level of spending allows for consistent economic growth in the private sector, as we have seen for the last six decades.
We are currently on a path for government spending to account for over 40 percent of the total economy. This level of spending would require more than doubling the level of taxation. Clearly, this would hold back our dynamic economy and future job growth.
Amending the Constitution to restrain the size of government is not a new idea. In fact, Thomas Jefferson himself wished that such an amendment could be used for “the reduction of the administration of our government.”
There will certainly be economic and military crises that our country will be forced to confront in the future. The Spending Limit Amendment allows for budget restrictions to be suspended with the agreement of two-thirds of the House and Senate or a declaration of war.
It is not a quick or easy process. As you may remember, amendments to the Constitution require passage by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratification by three quarters of the states. It could be years before such an amendment is in place.
I don’t think we should wait around for passage of an amendment to get our fiscal house back in order. Indeed, the longer we wait to strengthen and secure Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult it will be.
Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, calls our present fiscal situation “unsustainable” and that our problems “cannot be solved with minor tinkering.” Limiting our federal government to sustainable spending will take significant will by the American people and bipartisan cooperation between elected officials.
Further down the road, I believe that establishing a spending limit through Constitutional amendment will force Congress to deal with budget problems before they become budget crises. Even now on the brink of losing our AAA bond rating, Congress is growing the federal government rather than attacking the deficit. A Spending Limit Amendment would ensure that Congress does not look to our children and grandchildren to bailout our present spending spree.
Congressman Joe Pitts represents the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
Read Full Story Here
-
0
April 13, 2010
Campaign Staff
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts held a town hall meeting at the Oxford Area High School on March 31 to let area residents hear his stand on economic and healthcare issues.
Pitts, a Republican, represents the 16th Congressional district, which covers Lancaster and portions of Berks Counties as well as Chester County. While the meeting topic was advertised as jobs and the economy, the majority of his presentation focused on the recently passed healthcare bill.
Pitts, a Republican, represents the 16th Congressional district, which covers Lancaster and portions of Berks Counties as well as Chester County. While the meeting topic was advertised as jobs and the economy, the majority of his presentation focused on the recently passed healthcare bill.
Originally Published April 08, 2010
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts held a town hall meeting at the Oxford Area High School on March 31 to let area residents hear his stand on economic and healthcare issues.
Pitts, a Republican, represents the 16th Congressional district, which covers Lancaster and portions of Berks Counties as well as Chester County. While the meeting topic was advertised as jobs and the economy, the majority of his presentation focused on the recently passed healthcare bill.
Pitts said he is opposed the healthcare bill, but still sees facets of it that he believes are positive changes. He particularly noted the provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions. Pitts would liked to have had the bill to include medical malpractice tort reform and open up the sale of insurance across state lines to increase competition and improve pricing.
On the other hand his two biggest objections to the bill are that it does not address the "looming insolvency of Medicare," and that this bill may be the first step to a broader agenda supporting "single-payer government monopoly socialist governments have established in many European countries."
The apparently-well-informed audience questioned Pitts on the politics of the last minute vote change by Congressman Stupack, with whom Pitts had sponsored an amendment prohibiting federal funding for elective abortions.
Pitts stood by his conviction that abortion should not be included in a federally funded program. He suggested that Stupack switched his vote to get an executive order eliminating the abortion funding only after it was clear to him that the bill had enough votes to pass.
"We tried to tell him they're spinning you -- they don't have the votes -- but he decided to go with the executive order," Pitts said in response to an audience question. "He didn't really get much. I don't think he got anything."
While Pitts does not think the healthcare bill could be easily repealed, he does believe that it can be modified. Healthcare reforms that he supports include risk pooling, association health plans that can cross state lines, litigation reform, portability, health savings accounts and measures to encourage innovation in the medical industry.
On the economy, Pitts expressed concerns about the amount of money the government is spending and the ever-increasing deficit. "We need to get our fiscal appetites and our spending under control," he said.
Pitts believes change could come next year when the new taxes associated with the health care bill begin to kick in and people feel the impact. "I tend to think after this starts to happen, people will start to change their minds," Pitts said.
The most vocal members of the audience were already looking for change in government, some asking what point there is in opposing a bill when Washington does not seem to listen to them. "Unless you remember and stay engaged, there will not be change," Pitts said.
While there were audience members on both sides of the healthcare issue, and some tensions between them, the well-filled auditorium was generally attentive if opinionated. A substantial portion of those in attendance was students, getting a firsthand taste of government.
There were several school board members in attendance as well including board president Kurt Haegele, who encouraged students to read the Constitution and become involved in the governmental process. Pitts as well focused on the students when he spoke of the economy, and how today‚ spending will impact their future.
View Full Article Here
U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts held a town hall meeting at the Oxford Area High School on March 31 to let area residents hear his stand on economic and healthcare issues.
Pitts, a Republican, represents the 16th Congressional district, which covers Lancaster and portions of Berks Counties as well as Chester County. While the meeting topic was advertised as jobs and the economy, the majority of his presentation focused on the recently passed healthcare bill.
Pitts said he is opposed the healthcare bill, but still sees facets of it that he believes are positive changes. He particularly noted the provisions that prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children with pre-existing medical conditions. Pitts would liked to have had the bill to include medical malpractice tort reform and open up the sale of insurance across state lines to increase competition and improve pricing.
On the other hand his two biggest objections to the bill are that it does not address the "looming insolvency of Medicare," and that this bill may be the first step to a broader agenda supporting "single-payer government monopoly socialist governments have established in many European countries."
The apparently-well-informed audience questioned Pitts on the politics of the last minute vote change by Congressman Stupack, with whom Pitts had sponsored an amendment prohibiting federal funding for elective abortions.
Pitts stood by his conviction that abortion should not be included in a federally funded program. He suggested that Stupack switched his vote to get an executive order eliminating the abortion funding only after it was clear to him that the bill had enough votes to pass.
"We tried to tell him they're spinning you -- they don't have the votes -- but he decided to go with the executive order," Pitts said in response to an audience question. "He didn't really get much. I don't think he got anything."
While Pitts does not think the healthcare bill could be easily repealed, he does believe that it can be modified. Healthcare reforms that he supports include risk pooling, association health plans that can cross state lines, litigation reform, portability, health savings accounts and measures to encourage innovation in the medical industry.
On the economy, Pitts expressed concerns about the amount of money the government is spending and the ever-increasing deficit. "We need to get our fiscal appetites and our spending under control," he said.
Pitts believes change could come next year when the new taxes associated with the health care bill begin to kick in and people feel the impact. "I tend to think after this starts to happen, people will start to change their minds," Pitts said.
The most vocal members of the audience were already looking for change in government, some asking what point there is in opposing a bill when Washington does not seem to listen to them. "Unless you remember and stay engaged, there will not be change," Pitts said.
While there were audience members on both sides of the healthcare issue, and some tensions between them, the well-filled auditorium was generally attentive if opinionated. A substantial portion of those in attendance was students, getting a firsthand taste of government.
There were several school board members in attendance as well including board president Kurt Haegele, who encouraged students to read the Constitution and become involved in the governmental process. Pitts as well focused on the students when he spoke of the economy, and how today‚ spending will impact their future.
View Full Article Here
-
0
April 09, 2010
Campaign Staff
A new poll shows that Americans now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of health care, and the margin is huge: 16 percent. After passage of Obamacare, 53 percent of voters trust Republicans on the issue and only 37 percent trust Democrats. Given the fact that most Americans want the Obamacare law repealed, this isn’t surprising. In a historic context, though, it is extremely significant.
A new poll shows that Americans now trust Republicans more than Democrats on the issue of health care, and the margin is huge: 16 percent. After passage of Obamacare, 53 percent of voters trust Republicans on the issue and only 37 percent trust Democrats. Given the fact that most Americans want the Obamacare law repealed, this isn’t surprising. In a historic context, though, it is extremely significant.
For decades, Democrats have significantly outpolled Republicans on health and other “compassion” issues, largely because of prevailing stereotypes about the two parties. Just five months ago, a poll showed that Democrats were more trusted on health care reform than Republicans by a margin of 50 percent to 37 percent.
Republicans care about the needs of people just as much as Democrats do. We’re just more realistic about what can actually be done with limited resources without seriously harming the country. Now that Americans are aware that we have $107 trillion in entitlement promises we have no plan to pay for, it seems that people are demanding a government that can actually do math.
For decades, Democrats have significantly outpolled Republicans on health and other “compassion” issues, largely because of prevailing stereotypes about the two parties. Just five months ago, a poll showed that Democrats were more trusted on health care reform than Republicans by a margin of 50 percent to 37 percent.
Republicans care about the needs of people just as much as Democrats do. We’re just more realistic about what can actually be done with limited resources without seriously harming the country. Now that Americans are aware that we have $107 trillion in entitlement promises we have no plan to pay for, it seems that people are demanding a government that can actually do math.
-
0
April 06, 2010
Campaign Staff
By Rep. Joe Pitts
Apple has started selling their new iPad, a small tablet computer that connects to the Internet. Some Apple fans have lined up three days before it goes on sale, camping out for the privilege of being one of the first to try the new technology. This is yet another device that seeks to replace printed books, magazines, and newspapers. We’re increasingly living in an electronic world, a world that will require increasing amounts of electricity to power it.
Apple has started selling their new iPad, a small tablet computer that connects to the Internet. Some Apple fans have lined up three days before it goes on sale, camping out for the privilege of being one of the first to try the new technology. This is yet another device that seeks to replace printed books, magazines, and newspapers. We’re increasingly living in an electronic world, a world that will require increasing amounts of electricity to power it.
Apple has started selling their new iPad, a small tablet computer that connects to the Internet. Some Apple fans have lined up three days before it goes on sale, camping out for the privilege of being one of the first to try the new technology. This is yet another device that seeks to replace printed books, magazines, and newspapers. We’re increasingly living in an electronic world, a world that will require increasing amounts of electricity to power it.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. power consumption will grow by 1 percent annually through at least 2035. Even with more energy efficient devices and advanced batteries, the sheer proliferation of devices requiring electricity means there will be increased demands for power.
I believe that we must meet this demand with an energy policy that carefully balances environmental and national security concerns with the need for cost efficient power. I think this means looking to a variety of renewable sources, while recognizing our need for traditional, fossil fuel-based sources.
There’s been a lot of movement in our community to develop clean, renewable energy sources. This week, Epcot Crenshaw Corp. announced that they will work with West Lampeter Township to build a new manure-to-energy facility. Some 30 farms could participate in the program, donating manure and receiving electricity and odorless fertilizer in return. A great advantage of this facility is that it keeps manure from draining into our streams and rivers, cleaning the Chesapeake Bay so that future generations can enjoy its natural resources.
Additionally, new solar facilities are being built in Chester County and Southern Lancaster County and Turkey Hill is building a new wind facility to power their dairy. However, I do not believe we can only rely on renewables, many of which do not supply consistent power.
One form of reliable generation I support is nuclear power. Countries such as France and Japan get a considerable percentage of their power from nuclear generation and they reprocess fuel to cut down on waste. I’m encouraged to see the President lend support to building new nuclear facilities in Georgia. The Secretary of Energy is also supporting the development of smaller nuclear reactors that could be manufactured at a central facility and shipped to an installation site.
Personally, I’ve introduced the SAFE Nuclear Act to streamline the permitting process for nuclear power generation. I believe that we can cut down on the time required to approve new facilities without bypassing any important safety requirements.
However, even increased nuclear power will not be enough to handle all of our future electricity needs. Fossil fuels will continue to play an important role for decades and we need to consider how to increase domestic production.
I believe that Pennsylvania will play an important role in meeting demand by developing gas in the Marcellus shale. Just a decade ago, the gas trapped in the shale was not considered much of a resource. Rapid and largely unforeseen advances in technology mean that we can unlock the shale and generate decades of clean natural gas.
We also need to look to our coastal regions for new oil and gas supplies. This week, President Obama announced that he would move to open certain areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaskan coastline to exploration. I’m concerned about many of the remaining restrictions and roadblocks the Administration leaves in place, but I think it’s a small step in the right direction.
Our future energy demands are great and we need bipartisan support to move our country forward. Like many of our nation’s problems, the move toward clean domestically produced energy needs cooperation across party lines. I’m proud to have Rep. Jason Altmire’s (D-PA) support for the SAFE Nuclear Act, and when the President moves in the right direction I will be there to applaud and encourage him.
We don’t know what incredible new device people will line up to buy two decades from now. But if it uses electricity, the best way to power it will be a sensible mix of alternative and traditional power that balances affordability and environmental protection.
To read the original article, click here.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. power consumption will grow by 1 percent annually through at least 2035. Even with more energy efficient devices and advanced batteries, the sheer proliferation of devices requiring electricity means there will be increased demands for power.
I believe that we must meet this demand with an energy policy that carefully balances environmental and national security concerns with the need for cost efficient power. I think this means looking to a variety of renewable sources, while recognizing our need for traditional, fossil fuel-based sources.
There’s been a lot of movement in our community to develop clean, renewable energy sources. This week, Epcot Crenshaw Corp. announced that they will work with West Lampeter Township to build a new manure-to-energy facility. Some 30 farms could participate in the program, donating manure and receiving electricity and odorless fertilizer in return. A great advantage of this facility is that it keeps manure from draining into our streams and rivers, cleaning the Chesapeake Bay so that future generations can enjoy its natural resources.
Additionally, new solar facilities are being built in Chester County and Southern Lancaster County and Turkey Hill is building a new wind facility to power their dairy. However, I do not believe we can only rely on renewables, many of which do not supply consistent power.
One form of reliable generation I support is nuclear power. Countries such as France and Japan get a considerable percentage of their power from nuclear generation and they reprocess fuel to cut down on waste. I’m encouraged to see the President lend support to building new nuclear facilities in Georgia. The Secretary of Energy is also supporting the development of smaller nuclear reactors that could be manufactured at a central facility and shipped to an installation site.
Personally, I’ve introduced the SAFE Nuclear Act to streamline the permitting process for nuclear power generation. I believe that we can cut down on the time required to approve new facilities without bypassing any important safety requirements.
However, even increased nuclear power will not be enough to handle all of our future electricity needs. Fossil fuels will continue to play an important role for decades and we need to consider how to increase domestic production.
I believe that Pennsylvania will play an important role in meeting demand by developing gas in the Marcellus shale. Just a decade ago, the gas trapped in the shale was not considered much of a resource. Rapid and largely unforeseen advances in technology mean that we can unlock the shale and generate decades of clean natural gas.
We also need to look to our coastal regions for new oil and gas supplies. This week, President Obama announced that he would move to open certain areas of the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Alaskan coastline to exploration. I’m concerned about many of the remaining restrictions and roadblocks the Administration leaves in place, but I think it’s a small step in the right direction.
Our future energy demands are great and we need bipartisan support to move our country forward. Like many of our nation’s problems, the move toward clean domestically produced energy needs cooperation across party lines. I’m proud to have Rep. Jason Altmire’s (D-PA) support for the SAFE Nuclear Act, and when the President moves in the right direction I will be there to applaud and encourage him.
We don’t know what incredible new device people will line up to buy two decades from now. But if it uses electricity, the best way to power it will be a sensible mix of alternative and traditional power that balances affordability and environmental protection.
To read the original article, click here.
-
0
