[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17389-17391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              OBAMANOMICS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the richest man 
in the world, the new king of the hill. No, you won't find this 
financial titan in Forbes magazine's list of the world's billionaires. 
He hasn't started a mega-computer software company like Bill Gates. Nor 
has he made shrewd investments like Warren Buffet or even inherited 
this money like the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame.
  No, the billions amassed over the years by those business magnates 
are chump change compared to that collected by the current champ, who 
has ascended to the title of the world's wealthiest man by collecting 
trillions of dollars in a mere 155 days.
  He now owns two auto-manufacturing companies, oil sands and offshore 
drilling leases, interest in several hundred banks, and enough real 
estate holdings to make Donald Trump envious. In fact, managing this 
vast portfolio has become too time-consuming and too much for him to 
handle. He recently said, ``I don't want to run auto companies. I don't 
want to run banks. I've got two wars I've got to run already. I've got 
more than enough to do. So the sooner we can get out of that business, 
the better off we're going to be.''
  I doubt even John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew 
Carnegie or William Randolph Hearst could ever have dreamed about 
having that amount of control. But despite his professed eagerness to 
divest himself of his newfound, unprecedented wealth, the reigning 
world's richest man, President Obama, seems reluctant to relinquish his 
vast holdings.
  Indeed, I am beginning to think he actually enjoys this--well, what I 
call ``Obamanopoly.'' Soon, he will own all the railroads, all the 
utilities, Park Place and Boardwalk. And when taxpayers pick up the 
yellow or orange cards from the stacks, they will have to dig deeper in 
their wallet to fund this high-stakes Obamanopoly.
  OK, I realize that our President does not really personally own all 
this wealth. But while I am speaking tongue in cheek, my remarks do 
point to the very real serious consequences of an ever-expanding U.S. 
Government. I care a great deal for the President, and I don't want to 
personally offend him. But I think the point is made.
  We are moving toward what I have referred to as the ``Europeanization 
of America.'' On the spectrum between anarchy and a centralized 
government invested with complete power and control, our current 
government is so far

[[Page 17390]]

removed from the limited government that our Founding Fathers intended 
that they must be rolling over in their graves.
  There is method to this unprecedented meddling in the private sector. 
As the government acquires more auto manufacturers, banks, insurance 
companies and other private-sector businesses, we become more dependent 
on the government. The Obama administration's answer to everything is 
to take control of companies, increase regulation and spend, spend, 
spend. They are now talking about taxing and taxing more.
  Not only does the government have more control over the economy, but 
it has a freer rein to regulate and restrict free speech. Modern 
political thought is, in many respects, based on a distinction between 
the public and private spheres. Liberal democracies--using the word 
``liberal'' in the classical sense--have historically been based on the 
notion that there are realms that are ripe for government involvement--
the public sphere--and others that should remain unaffected by 
government--the private sphere.
  This was one of the central ideas behind the drafting of our 
Constitution and the founding of our Nation. Indeed, the Founding 
Fathers were all too aware of the problems that could arise under a 
government that is too expansive and too powerful. As James Madison, 
one of the main architects of the Constitution argued, ``All men having 
power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree.''
  Because of this inherent distrust of those holding power, our 
Nation's Founders devised a government that was allowed to exercise its 
enumerated powers. As Alexander Hamilton stated, when it comes to 
framing a desirable government, ``[Y]ou must first enable the 
government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to 
control itself.'' He also said, ``Indeed, the genius of our 
Constitution is that it provides an effective government that is 
subject to strict limitations.''
  But it isn't only in the Constitution that we can observe the 
relevance of this public-private distinction during the Founding 
Fathers' generation. The beliefs, practices, and culture of that era 
further demonstrate just how separate and distinct our nation has 
traditionally viewed the public and private spheres. French political 
philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville, in observing the uniqueness of 
American government and culture, described how private citizens in 
America addressed needs in their communities. He stated:

       When a private individual mediates an undertaking, however 
     directly connected it may be with the welfare of society, he 
     never thinks of soliciting the cooperation of the Government, 
     but he publishes his plan, offers to execute it himself, 
     courts the assistance of other individuals, and struggles 
     manfully against all obstacles. Undoubtedly he is often less 
     successful than the State might have been in his position; 
     but in the end the sum of these private undertakings far 
     exceeds all that the Government could have done.

  I believe this spirit of private determination still exists in our 
country today. I have argued many times that the American people are 
the most inventive and innovative people in the world. However, in an 
era when the President can impact huge portions of the American 
economy, that spirit is given little opportunity to work its magic in 
the private sector. Indeed, James Madison argued that ``there are more 
instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and 
silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden 
usurpations.'' I wonder how Madison would have viewed some of our 
current President's recent decisions.
  Ours is a government that from the very beginning has been limited in 
what it can do and how far in may encroach into the private sphere. 
Those limits are not defined by the Nation's economic circumstances or 
political winds. There is not an exception in the Constitution that 
allows popular Presidents to exercise more power than unpopular ones. 
Ours is the oldest functioning constitutional republic on the planet, 
not because of change, hope, or adaptation, but because of consistency 
and respect for the limitations imposed upon our institutions. I 
believe many of the times we have struggled have been those in which we 
have strayed from the principal obligation that our Constitution 
imposes on the Federal Government--the obligation to control itself.
  One such example--one often cited by the administration and my 
Democratic colleagues to justify the steps the President has taken--is 
the Great Depression. Some may say the Great Depression was the last 
time we saw such an expansion of government power. It came in the form 
of FDR's New Deal, which is now the model for how the majority and this 
President intend to remake the Federal Government and our economy. They 
credit the New Deal with ending the depression and claim that this new 
expansion will cure our current economic ills.
  I hope, for our country's sake, that they are wrong.
  What New New Deal proponents don't mention when making their case, is 
that even with Roosevelt's policies in place, the depression lasted for 
over a decade and, in fact, deepened in the late 1930s. 
Coincidentally--and I use that word sarcastically--the New Deal's 
supposed effect wasn't fully realized until the United States entered 
World War II.
  Now, I don't mean to argue that our current situation is directly 
comparable to the Great Depression. I would say it is far from it. But 
I do hope that the Democrats' long-term plan isn't to keep expanding 
the Federal Government for several years, wait for an unforeseen 
outside calamity to take place and rescue the economy, and then take 
credit for the recovery.
  To be sure, Roosevelt's New Deal was not without some success. But it 
largely failed to restore prosperity to the American economy because 
instead of implementing policies aimed at fostering economic growth and 
expansion, it was designed as a top-down restructuring of the economy--
making the government the major decisionmaker in economic matters. The 
results were labor policies designed to preset wages at levels 
preferred by unions, regardless of market conditions; trade and 
manufacturing polices designed to set production at levels other than 
those set by supply and demand; and taxes on businesses that stifled 
growth and prevented them from hiring new employees.
  Sadly, the President and the majority leadership in Congress have 
apparently decided that despite these shortcomings, the New Deal should 
be repeated. We have seen it in the President's efforts to seize 
control of auto companies, only to hand it over to his labor union 
supporters. We see it in proposals here in Congress to use the 
bankruptcy code to basically preset interest rates for lenders--and at 
a time when credit is already getting harder to come by. And we are 
seeing it in their proposals to raise taxes on small businesses despite 
harsh economic times and rising unemployment.
  President Obama may be the richest man in America these days, but he 
is doing so on the back of the American taxpayers. If history is any 
indication, his efforts will not leave anyone else in America any 
richer or better off.
  It is not hard to find examples of the government growing at an 
exceptionally fast pace. Just by looking at the number of government 
employees as a percentage of America's population, one can easily see 
how we have increased the size of the government. In 1815, the U.S. 
numbered 8.3 million people, 4,837 of which were government employees. 
In other words, only about one-twentieth of 1 percent of Americans 
worked for the government. In 2007, our Nation numbered 281 million 
Americans, 2.7 million of them government workers. That is nearly 1 
percent of the population, or about 20 times the number of government 
employees in 1815. That percentage will certainly increase, given this 
President's budget, which contains 121 new government programs.
  Another indication of the growth of government power can be 
illustrated through the amount of government spending. Organization of 
Economic Cooperation and Development figures show that government 
spending in the

[[Page 17391]]

U.S. is on the rise, comparable with that of many European countries. 
In fact, government spending has decreased in most European nations, 
while it has increased in the United States.
  In France, for example, government spending is close to 50 percent of 
GDP, while England's government spending is roughly 44 percent of GDP, 
and Germany's is 45 percent of GDP. In the United States, Federal 
Government spending has been around 20 percent. However, to accurately 
compare the U.S. to European nations, it is necessary to include State 
and local spending.
  Once that is factored in, U.S. Government spending exceeds 37 percent 
of GDP, and that is before President Obama's stimulus package and 
budget for this year are taken into account. Thus, it is almost a 
forgone conclusion that by the end of this year, total government 
spending in the United States will approach that of many European 
governments. We have jumped way ahead from the 2008 figure, with the 
current figure on that chart, just barely behind the European 
countries.
  If you take a look at President Obama's past 5 months in office, you 
will see the largest proposed 10-year spending increase in our Nation's 
history. We have a stimulus bill worth $787 billion, or close to $1.3 
trillion if interest is taken into account. We have nearly exhausted 
the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, and we have a budget 
proposal estimated to create a $9 trillion deficit over the next 10 
years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that is what is 
going to happen.
  To put that another way, Federal spending would be nearly 24 percent 
of our Nation's GDP. Government spending, alone, in 2009 will reach 27 
percent. That is Federal Government spending alone. In 2009, it will 
reach 27 percent. When you add in State and local spending, that would 
put us nearly on par in total government spending with Germany. You can 
see from this chart, we are almost right there.
  The American people, especially Utahans, are speaking out against 
this increase in the size of government. They are organizing ``Tax 
Enough Already,'' or TEA, rallies around the country, and they are fed 
up with government bailout after bailout. They correctly wonder when or 
if this government expansion will ever stop.
  That is why I have introduced two pieces of legislation to reduce 
government spending. One is called the Limitation on Government 
Spending Act, the LOGS Act, to limit government spending to 20 percent 
of GDP. The second is called the Stop TARP Asset Recycling Act, the 
STAR Act, and that is to prevent perpetual bailouts and to repay our 
national debt with returned TARP funds--don't just take them and spend 
more. Give them back to the taxpayers. Give them back to the government 
so we can pay down some of these deficits and some of these problems 
that are going on. They are two very important bills.
  Let me discuss them again. The Limitation on Government Spending Act 
would limit government spending to the national historic average of 20 
percent of GDP. While I believe government spending should be much 
lower than that, the least we can do is ensure that government spending 
does not get out of control like the way it is currently headed.
  Furthermore, the Stop TARP Asset Recycling Act would require all 
funds paid out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP--and that 
amounted to $700 billion--as to all those funds that are returned or 
paid back, they must be placed in the general fund to pay down the 
Nation's debt instead of being recycled back into TARP or more 
spending. Otherwise, TARP could become a revolving slush fund for the 
Treasury Department to bail out or seize companies. It is time we put 
an end to that.
  The Obama administration's honeymoon is over. More Americans than 
ever agree we need to rein in this administration's runaway government 
spending. I might add, we better be prepared for massive taxation too. 
Their belief is to spend and tax and build the Federal Government at 
all costs. More Americans than ever agree we need to rein in this 
administration's runaway government spending.
  According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, barely half of 
Americans are now confident that President Obama's $787 billion 
stimulus measure will boost the economy. Think about it: barely half of 
all Americans. Furthermore, a USA Today poll reveals that a 51-percent 
majority disapproved of the job he has done in controlling Federal 
spending. Even President Obama agrees with this.
  After the massive amounts of government spending he has signed into 
law, President Obama had the audacity to proclaim in an April 18 weekly 
address that we need to restore responsibility and accountability to 
our Federal budget. Who are we kidding? The President cannot put us on 
the course to a $9 trillion deficit and then tell us we need to be more 
fiscally responsible. That is akin to someone killing their parents, 
and then complaining about being an orphan.
  In the same address, the President continued this hypocrisy by 
saying, ``We are on an unsustainable course'' and ``we need to restore 
the people's confidence in government by spending their money wisely.'' 
But wait. It gets even better. After signing into law a $787 billion 
stimulus and a $3 trillion deficit, he nobly stated:

       If we want to spend, we need to find somewhere else to cut.

  If you doubt the hypocrisy, you do not have to look further than the 
current health care debate or the cap-and-trade program he proposes to 
pay for by levying even more taxes. The closest the President has come 
to cutting spending was by calling upon his Department heads to find 
$100 million in savings--$100 million. I guess you would call that 
``pocket change'' we can believe in.
  Enough is enough. No more spending. No more taxes. No more government 
expansion. We are not looking for a new New Deal. We are looking for 
smaller, more efficient government. We are not looking for another 
government bailout. Whatever happened to: Ask not what your country can 
do for you, ask what you can do for your country?
  Where ``Obamanopoly'' is concerned, it is time to say: Game over. It 
is time to pull the reins on this headlong rush toward the 
Europeanization of America. As former President Gerald Ford said:

       A government that is big enough to give you all you want is 
     big enough to take it all away.

  I am concerned about what is going on. I admit that President Obama 
is a very attractive human being. I personally like him. But I think 
this tax-and-spend set of policies we are seeing is taking our country 
down to the point of ruin, and we have to stand up and stop it. I have 
to tell you, if we do not do it, our kids and our grandkids and our 
great-grandkids--and Elaine and I have all three--are going to be 
paying a huge price.

                          ____________________