Message-ID: <23133442.1075862090308.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 08:10:50 -0800 (PST) From: lsutaylor@hotmail.com To: e.taylor@enron.com Subject: Fwd: Call Your Senators: Pass The President's Growth Plan Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: mike taylor X-To: Taylor, Michael E X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \MTAYLOR5 (Non-Privileged)\Taylor, Michael E\Deleted Items X-Origin: Taylor-M X-FileName: MTAYLOR5 (Non-Privileged).pst >From: "Jack Oliver, Deputy Chairman, RNC" >To: "mtaylo9@lsu.edu" >Subject: Call Your Senators: Pass The President's Growth Plan >Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 04:36:17 -0500 > > > >"Congress and the President must act again to help our economy and to >prevent the situation from worsening. We must get our workers back to work >and strengthen our businesses so that they can continue to be productive >and hire more employees." House Speaker Dennis Hastert to Congressional >Republicans, November 19 > >In the aftermath of September 11, our economy needs a boost. President >Bush and Members of Congress agree on the necessity of an economic stimulus >package, yet there has been no package passed by the Senate. > >President Bush has proposed an economic stimulus package that provides >needed assistance NOW without significant increases in unemployment, state >mandates and business taxes. The President wants the Senate to pass a bill >that focuses on job creation instead of creating new taxes on employers or >new costs on states. > >CALL YOUR SENATOR(S) TODAY, and tell them to support the President?s >economic growth plan. > >Senator John Breaux (D-LA) Phone (202) 224-4623 > >Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Phone (202) 224-5824 > >Please also take the time to FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to everyone you know who >will help the President get the economy moving again. > >To contact your Senators, go here >http://www.gopteamleader.com/findsenators.asp > >The debate over economic stimulus packages is plainly explained in a >November 16th op-ed appearing in the Washington Post: "The President wants >to create more jobs, while the Senate democrats propose entitlements. If >you were unemployed, which would you prefer?" ("Tax Cuts Are the Best >Stimulus" by R. Glenn Hubbard). The full article appears below and is >reprinted at >http://www.gopteamleader.com/hubbard.asp > >Tell your Senators TODAY that you'd prefer job creation. > >Sincerely, > >Jack Oliver >Deputy Chairman, Republican National Committee > > >************************************************ > >Tax Cuts Are the Best Stimulus > > >By R. Glenn Hubbard > >Washington Post >Friday, November 16, 2001; Page A47 > > >With most indicators of economic production, such as employment and >purchasing, showing further decline in October, some have argued that >President Bush's growth plan would have little stimulative effect. They >prefer the Senate Democrats' plan, on the grounds that spending is a better >way to revive the economy. > >Permit me to differ. The president's plan, included in the stimulus plan >passed by the House, addresses the nation's underlying economic problems. >If enacted, the tax cuts will quickly deliver a boost to move the economy >back toward its long-run growth path. The plan, it is estimated, would >result in 300,000 more jobs and add half a percentage point to the 2002 >growth rate. > >Here's how tax cuts help stimulate the economy. Tax cuts for individuals >give them more money to spend and invest. Tax cuts for business for three >years -- long enough to have a serious effect -- would make investment less >expensive, so businesses would be encouraged to buy equipment, increase >production and expand employment. > >It is a major fallacy to praise new spending plans as "stimulus." This >ignores the fact that a dollar spent by the government is one fewer that >can be spent by private businesses. Furthermore, new spending programs >almost never go away, and they lead to more inflexible regulation of the >economy. New spending programs are not only unlikely to make the economy >grow, they also are an undesirable response to terrorism risks. > >Instead, it is important to take advantage of the flexibility and >innovation of the private sector. This will reduce the negative effects on >job growth as part of our necessary response to terrorism. > >The real underlying economic problem is that the terrorist attacks took a >direct toll on the economy and, more important, on the confidence of >American households and firms. The combined effect tipped a fragile rate of >economic growth into negative territory. But the attacks did not undermine >long-term productivity growth, so economic fundamentals remain strong. > >The challenge is simply to restore the health of the economy quickly. And >Congress needs to do so in the way that will be most beneficial. Assistance >for dislocated workers is important, and the president has already proposed >an aggressive package to provide it. But spending should not be confused >with economic stimulus. > >The basic source of uncertainty and loss of consumer confidence is fear >over job loss, and the fact is that additional spending, even on >unemployment insurance won't give people jobs. Indeed, the excessive >expansion of unemployment insurance proposed by the Senate would actually >increase unemployment, because it would discourage job applicants from >accepting new positions. Moreover, the Senate bill would err by raising >taxes on employers -- exactly the wrong thing to do at this moment. > >Until one addresses the underlying source of the uncertainty, there will be >no guarantee that hemorrhaging federal dollars will do any good. Lower tax >rates are the best way to create jobs and make large and small businesses >grow. Acceleration of future tax cuts, which Congress has already chosen, >will help the economy. > >Despite the repeated claim that only poor households will spend additional >income, evidence indicates almost all households spend about the same >percentage of their tax cuts. Business tax relief is essential because it >encourages firms to expand investment and employment. With tax cuts, firms >would be able to replace existing machines with more productive ones, >precisely the kind of change that frees up funds to hire more workers. > >The economy needs help now. The president wants to create more jobs, while >the Senate proposes new entitlements. If you were unemployed, which would >you prefer? > >The writer is chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers. > >(Reprinted by permission of the author) > >************************************************ > >Paid for by the Republican National Committee. > >If you wish to unsubscribe from this newsletter, simply click here: >http://mail.echampions2000.com/GoNow/a14064a31344a56465125a0 > >To subscribe to this newsletter, please click here: >http://www.gopteamleader.com/signup.asp > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp