America's independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers.


Blog Contributors

Brandon Arnold
Executive Vice President 

Dan Barrett
Research and Outreach Manager 

Melodie Bowler
Government Affairs Intern 

Demian Brady
Director of Research 

Christina DiSomma
Communications Intern 

Jihun Han
Communications Intern 

Timothy Howland
Creative Content Manager 

Samantha Jordan
Communications Intern 

Curtis Kalin
Communications Intern 

Ross Kaminsky
Blog Contributor 

David Keating
Blog Contributor 

Douglas Kellogg
Communications Manager 

Sharon Koss
Government Affairs Intern 

Michael Liguori
Government Affairs Intern 

Richard Lipman
Director of Development 

Joe Michalowski
Government Affairs Intern 

Diana Oprinescu
Communications Intern 

Austin Peters
Communications Intern 

Kristina Rasmussen
Blog Contributor 


Export-Import Bank: A Bad Deal for Taxpayers
Posted By: Melodie Bowler - 08/19/14

If you haven’t heard about the Export-Import Bank, here’s a quick rundown of the basics:

  • Commonly called Ex-Im, the bank was established by executive order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, 1934.
  • Ex-Im provides loans and loan guarantees to U.S. companies attempting to export and to foreign companies wanting to import U.S. goods.
  • If Congress does not reauthorize Ex-Im by the end of September, it will cease providing loans or loan guarantees. It would continue to service current loans.

While budget-neutral in theory and often on paper, this notion is perpetuated only through faulty accounting and misleading statistics. Let’s debunk some of the rumors running wild on Capitol Hill.



90 percent of Ex-Im loans go to small businesses.

Based on the number of loans, almost 90 percent did benefit small businesses in 2013 (according to the bank’s very inclusive definition of “small”). Based on the number of dollars loaned, the large majority of taxpayer-backed financing went to behemoth businesses. In fact, Congress requires 20 percent of the total dollar value of Ex-Im transactions to go to small businesses, but the bank has repeatedly failed to meet that number.

Ex-Im financing is necessary for American businesses to compete in the global market.

In 2013, Ex-Im financed only 1.6 percent of U.S. exports.

Ex-Im is a “self-sustaining agency” that returns profits to the Treasury.

Ex-Im uses faulty accounting procedures rather than fair value accounting to create an illusion of profits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Ex-Im costs taxpayers $200 million each year.

If we take a closer look at Ex-Im’s transactions, the bank’s financing becomes even more questionable. In many cases, large corporations benefitting from Ex-Im financing could have received loans from the private sector. In other instances, the Ex-Im-backed ventures were so risky that private lenders would not fund them. In either scenario, U.S. taxpayers should not be responsible for providing low-interest loans that are unnecessary or unlikely to be paid.

To demonstrate the true horror of what Ex-Im does with our money, the House Financial Services Committee created a blog series titled “Egregious Ex-Im Bank Deal of the Day.” Each weekday, the staff publishes another awful deal that Ex-Im decided was worthy of taxpayer funding. Remember Solyndra, the failed manufacturer of solar panels? After receiving $535 million from the stimulus package, Ex-Im officials decided the now-bankrupt company could use additional help, in the form of a $10.3 million loan guarantee for a foreign supermarket chain to buy Solyndra’s products. In a recent deal, the Australian Roy Hill Iron Ore project received a $694 million loan from Ex-Im after the private market refused to offer financing. Not only are Americans funding this without their consent to bear the risk, but the project will compete with U.S. mines, jeopardizing domestic jobs. Possibly the most egregious deal yet has been $4.975 billion in direct loans to assist building Sadara Chemical Company, a project of Saudi Aramco, the state-owned oil company of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi Arabian government needs American exports for its pet project, they can likely finance those purchases without help from U.S. taxpayers.

If that weren’t enough reason to let Ex-Im’s authorization lapse, in addition, the bank’s transactions are fraught with bribery and cronyism. Abengoa International, a Spanish green-energy company, managed to receive about $150 million in total loans from Ex-Im, to no one’s surprise, since former governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson sat on the board for both the company and the bank. Four other Ex-Im officials are currently undergoing investigations of bribery and favoritism. While Ex-Im is financing growth for our foreign competitors, including Russia and Brazil, the U.S. continues to experience economic and employment hardships at home. Rather than risking taxpayers’ dollars for the benefit of other countries, it is time to let the Export-Import Bank expire.

1 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Celebrating Friedman Legacy Day
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 07/29/14

Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, would have celebrated his 102nd birthday on Thursday. To honor his countless contributions to economics and public policy, NTUF is joining with the Tax Foundation and Liberty on the Rocks, D.C. to host an event in downtown Washington this evening, and you're invited!

If you can join us in person, we'll be meeting for happy hour at the Laughing Man Tavern, just blocks from the White House. You can mingle with policy experts and grassroots citizens alike to discuss Friedman's economic philosophy and the impact it still has on policy debates today. We'll also be playing Friedman-themed games, enjoying some celebratory drinks, and even hearing from those who studied alongside Friedman and knew him personally. Be sure to bring your spare pens, markers, and folders, too- there will be donation bins for school supplies in order to benefit Perry Street Prep School, a D.C. charter school that operates with the independence that Friedman advocated for throughout his life.

Not in the D.C. area? No problem. You can also participate with us online through our interactive #milton102 website, where we're asking folks from all over the country to vote for the tax reform proposal they'd most like to see become reality. Friedman had his own thoughts on the matter, but we want to hear from you -- would you prefer a flat tax? FairTax? Let us know, and you'll be entered to win a $50 Visa gift card!

We hope to see you tonight or get your input online. Happy birthday, Milton Friedman!

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Milton Friedman's Legacy
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 07/28/14

As a Nobel laureate, winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and founder of the Chicago school of economic theory, few would argue that Milton Friedman's economic philosophy hasn't been widely influential. However, his modern fame and recognition make it possible to forget that in the beginning of his career, he faced great opposition to his work and few would have predicted it would earn him the respect it has today.

A 2006 memoriam in The Economist offered some perspective:

"In the wake of the Great Depression and the second world war, with the Keynesian revolution still young, championing the free market was deeply unfashionable, even (or especially) among economists. Mr Friedman and kindred spirits -- such as Friedrich von Hayek, author of 'The Road to Serfdom' -- were seen as cranks. Surely the horrors of the Depression had shown that markets were not to be trusted? The state, it was plain, should be master of the market; and, equipped with John Maynard Keynes's 'General Theory', governments should spend and borrow to keep the economy topped up and unemployment at bay. That economists and policymakers think differently now is to a great degree Mr Friedman's achievement."

Friedman was a tireless advocate for smaller government, and took a staunch position when it came to tax reform: "I am in favor of reducing taxes under any circumstances, for any excuse, for any reason whatsoever." One of Friedman's major contentions with the U.S. tax system that he frequently lamented was its complexity. The tax system, he said, was an "unholy mess" that was so dominated by special interests and lobbying groups that he went so far as to claim reform was "impossible." Despite his pessimism regarding tax reform, he saw some of his ideas translated into reality after the Code was revised in 1986.

Had Friedman had his way, though, he likely would have supported one of two alternative tax systems.

  • He was known as a supporter of the "negative income tax," which would offer a stipend to those earning incomes below a certain threshold. He argued that doing so offered the poverty-reducing benefits of programs like food stamps and rent subsidies, but without the bureaucratic inefficiencies that usually accompany them. In other words, as the New York Times put it, "[i]f the main problem of the poor is that they have too little money, he reasoned, the simplest and cheapest solution is to give them some more."
  • Friedman also supported a flat tax system in his well-known 1962 work "Capitalism and Freedom." He told the Wall Street Journal in 1996 that "[a]ll things considered, the personal income tax structure that seems to me best is a flat-rate tax on income above an exemption."

July 31 would have been Milton Friedman's 102nd birthday. In celebration of his life and work, NTUF is hosting a happy hour event with Liberty on the Rocks D.C. and the Tax Foundation in downtown Washington, D.C. tomorrow evening (Tuesday, July 29). The event will feature discussion of Friedman's influence and a school supplies drive benefitting Perry Street Preparatory School, a local charter school whose independent status represents the education reforms Friedman spent so much time and energy advocating for.

If you can't make it in person, we're also hosting an online poll asking participants which tax reform proposal they'd like to see enacted. Friedman proposed a flat tax, but would you prefer a FairTax or Value Added Tax? Let us know, and you'll be entered to win a $50 Visa gift card!

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Florida’s 19th Special House Election: A Budgetary Guide
Posted By: Dan Barrett - 06/20/14

In what some are calling a quiet election, there’s still a lot to be said. Though the challenges of taking drug tests have largely been replaced with who can help create the most jobs in the next five months, before the next election for the same office, Florida residents are asking the same questions of candidates as they did in Florida’s other recent special House election: What will you do in Washington, D.C.? Especially in the wake of their last Congressman, Trey Radel, who resigned after being arrested for possession of cocaine.

In just a couple of short months, three front runners have emerged to battle for the 19th District’s seat: businessman Curt Clawson (R), businesswoman and former political activist April Freeman (D), and former health worker Ray Netherwood (L). Each candidate offers different general solutions to America’s fiscal ills but details have yet to come out about how each would actually change the federal budget. However, by using a methodology similar to National Taxpayers Union Foundation’s (NTUF) BillTally project, taxpayers can see where the candidates stand on at least some of the spending issues. For this brief study, we took direct quotes and campaign materials of candidates and matched them with budget and legislative data to see exactly what the differences and similarities are.

Similar to the New Jersey Special Senate and Florida’s 13th Special House elections, details were few and far between. Even with the campaigns releasing economic plans and platform summaries, we’re still left asking what will they do if elected as the House of Representative’s newest member?

Check out the entire line-by-line analysis of all three candidates. As with NTUF’s other BillTally and campaign studies, only changes in current spending are recorded (similar to the Congressional Budget Office). The reports do not include changes in revenues or costs outside the federal government. Below are summaries of each candidates’ proposals.

Curt Clawson (R) has proposed two (out of 12) quantifiable policies that NTUF was able to score. Combined, they would decrease annual spending by $395.8 billion. The largest budget-influencing item that he supports would cap federal expenditures at 19 percent of GDP, which would be implemented using the “Penny Plan,” which would cut spending by one percent each year as long as the budget is not balanced.

  • Block Grant Education Funds to States: Unknown
  • Continue Federal Flood Insurance Rates: Unknown
  • Create a Budget Cutting Committee: Unknown
  • Freeze Federal Employment: Unknown
  • Limit Federal Spending: $331.9 billion (savings)
  • Require Congressional Approval for Major Regulations: Unknown
  • Block Grant Medicaid Funds to States: Unknown
  • Eliminate Government Health Care Bureaucrats: Unknown
  • Protect Health Insurance Access for those with Pre-Existing Conditions: Unknown
  • Provide for Health Care Plans and Accounts: Unknown
  • Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: $63.9 billion
  • Restore Medicaid Advantage Funding: Unknown

April Freeman (D) has two (out of 12) policy items that NTUF could fiscally score. Together, they would increase spending by $20.203 billion each year for the next five years. Her largest quantifiable proposal would overhaul the immigration system.

  • Ensure Wage Equality: $3 million
  • Support Domestic Industries: Unknown
  • Support Teachers: Unknown
  • Ban Hydraulic Fracturing: Unknown
  • Expand Alternative Energy Sources: Unknown
  • Fully Fund Water Infrastructure Improvements: Unknown
  • Fight Human Trafficking: Unknown
  • Pass Immigration Reform: $20.2 billion
  • Protect Citizens’ Privacy: Unknown
  • Secure the Border: Unknown
  • Normalize Relations with Cuba: Unknown
  • Ensure Veterans’ Benefits: Unknown

Ray Netherwood (L) had one proposal that NTUF could identify. It would be to replace the current income-based tax system with a national sales tax, known as the Fair Tax. The measure would cut an average $19 billion in federal outlays for each of the next five years.

Normally, there would be some overlap between the candidates’ platforms. In the other Florida Special Election, the front runners supported increasing current spending by $180 million per year to delay a scheduled rate increase for the National Flood Insurance Program. That was not the case in this House race, although the three candidates were not asked similar questions when interviewed by the same source.

What does this mean for taxpayers and residents of the 19th District? It’s time for the campaigns to give Americans more details. While candidates are asking Floridians for their vote, taxpayers are asking for the roadmap of each candidate’s path to reach a better and expanding economy. As highlighted above and in the full report, the absence of budgetary facts and figures opens the possibility that all of the candidates could have much larger or smaller spending aspirations in mind. Clawson, Freeman, or Netherwood need only clarify their intentions with dollar figures to help complete this report and help educate Americans on important and pressing issues that we’re all facing.

Note: National Taxpayers Union Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Our research efforts are intended only to educate Americans on how their tax dollars are being or will be spent by those in office, seeking office, or in appointed positions. For more information on NTUF go here.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Corporate Welfare Battered from All Sides of the Political Spectrum at Transpartisan Conference
Posted By: Nan Swift - 05/28/14

NTU Executive Vice President, Pete Sepp, was a panelist at yesterday’s “Unstoppable: A Gathering of the Left-Right Convergence” conference sponsored by Ralph Nader and the Center for Study of Responsive Law. The conference was held in conjunction with launch of Nader’s latest book, Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State.

sepp2014convergenceThe conference featured speakers from across the political spectrum who identified potential areas of cooperation on topics such as civil liberties, pentagon spending, and corporate welfare – the panel in which Sepp participated along with Ryan Alexander of Taxpayers for Common Sense, Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, Greg LeRoy of Good Jobs first, and James T. Bennett, an economist at George Mason University. 

LeRoy highlighted three states where activists on the left and right are working to bring transparency and accountability to economic development incentives at the state and local level. For example, in Arizona, the Goldwater Institute has teamed up with the state chapter of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) to bring to light misuse and crony deals made by the Arizona Commerce Authority.  Bennett noted the serious social welfare impact of corporate welfare, pointing to the high price of food due to Marketing Orders that confiscate crops in order to artificially inflate prices.

Sepp discussed NTU’s annual Common Ground report done in conjunction with U.S. PIRG where, despite our disparate views on the role and scope of government, the groups have been able to agree on the need to end the Export-Import Bank and rein in costly crop insurance premiums. 

Sepp also explained that NTU works closely a wide variety groups on issues such as reforming or eliminating the Renewable Fuel Standard and reducing wasteful spending at the Pentagon. Transitioning to corporate welfare outside DC, Sepp’s assertion that the political right needed to work harder to end sports welfare that saddles taxpayers with expensive, unnecessary stadiums, noting that Common Cause of Georgia and leftist groups in Minnesota are doing an exceptional job at tackling the issue in their states. This received a huge round of applause from attendees.

Pete concluded his remarks by urging listeners to work hard to protect ballot initiatives, saying that this form of direct democracy was the best tool activists have for holding out-of-control legislators accountable.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

(VIDEO) End Ex-Im Capitol Hill Event - On Capitol Hill, May 6
Posted By: Douglas Kellogg - 05/06/14

Watch the Export-Import Bank take punches from many of the 30 groups opposing its reauthorization at yesterday's event organized by Americans for Prosperity. National Taxpayers Union's Nan Swift begins at 14:04.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Fight for LNG Exports Reveals Ex-Im Bank Hypocrisy
Posted By: Nan Swift - 04/03/14

Next week the House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider a bill, H.R. 6, to open up new markets for natural gas exports. Currently, natural gas exports (in the form of liquefied natural gas or LNG) are restricted to the handful of countries with which the U.S. has a free trade agreement. In order to export LNG to other countries, applicants must first pass a public interest review and the process is marked by extensive delays.

The government-imposed export restrictions are hampering the growth of the domestic natural gas industry, even as new technology makes more and more resources available.  When domestic consumption of natural gas is flat and natural gas prices and consumption are high abroad, it makes perfect economic sense to take our abundant supply to the global demand. Our neighbors in British Columbia are doing so and expect to see 4 percent economic growth over the next few years.  Increased LNG exports would not only bolster the profitability of domestic natural gas production, but also bring with it new jobs and economic development – two things our struggling economy desperately needs.

Writing in at today, Raymond Keating, chief economist of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council explained:

According to the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas, each new terminal created to ship LNG overseas could generate more than $10 billion in investment for the U.S. economy, including wages and purchase orders for equipment. A single project will likely generate more than $10 million per year in new tax revenue at the federal, state and local levels. For good measure, it’s estimated that very $1 billion of LNG produced creates about 5,000 construction and manufacturing jobs.

So, while it’s still frustrating that government is still standing in the way of an industry’s success, what’s even more surprising is how U.S. taxpayer-backed dollars are being used to prop up the LNG industries of other nations even as our own producers are stymied by our government.

When it came to light that recent Administration-imposed sanctions towards Russia had put the kibosh on an Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) financing deal for the Russian OAO Novatek Yamal LNG project,   I wondered – how many other LNG export projects do we support in other countries? A quick search turned up quite a few.

Robust competition and free trade dictate that competitors to U.S. natural gas will and should develop their own energy resources. But the federal government shouldn’t be propping up direct competitors for U.S. products using cheap, taxpayer-backed credit. Not when our own producers are not allowed to compete on that playing field. This is doubly true when the recipients of Ex-Im Bank largess are giant corporations more than capable of securing their own private capital.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Florida’s Special Election: Taxpayers Need Details
Posted By: Dan Barrett - 02/21/14

With the passing of Congressman Bill Young (R-FL), residents of the 13th Congressional District of Florida have a special election coming up on March 11th to decide who will represent them for the remainder of the 113th Congress. Three candidates are viewed as the frontrunners: former general counsel to Bill Young David Jolly (R), activist and commercial diver Lucas Overby (L), and former Chief Financial Officer of Florida Alex Sink (D). Each candidate offers different general solutions to America’s fiscal ills but few details have been released by any campaign as to what specific policies that he or she would support as Florida’s newest Representative.

National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has long been analyzing what candidates would specifically do if elected to federal office. We take the direct quotes and campaign materials of candidates in contentious races and match those statements, goals, and affirmations to show the public what kind of a budget candidates are really calling for. The cost estimates and sources used in the studies are similar to those used in the BillTally project.

Since the election in has a shortened campaign period and because each of the three campaigns supplied few budgetary platform items, NTUF was able to compile a limited number of proposals but was unable to release a full study, such as the special election in New Jersey between now-Senator Cory Booker and former Mayor Steve Lonegan.

Remember, all of the figures highlighted in this post and in our line-by-line analysis of the three candidates are annualized and only include changes in current spending (or outlays). They do not include changes in revenue or costs outside of the federal government. For more information on NTUF’s Methodology, go here.

David Jolly (R) has three (out of ten) quantifiable policies that NTUF was able to score. One would decrease annual spending by $63.9 billion and two would increase outlays by $3.86 billion for a net $60.04 billion reduction in federal expenditures each year. His proposal with the largest impact on the federal budget is to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

  • Index the Minimum Wage: Unknown
  • Prevent National Flood Insurance Premium Rate Hike: $180 million
  • Block Medicaid Expansion Without Federal Guarantee: Unknown
  • Purchase Insurance Across State Lines: Unknown
  • Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: -$63.9 billion (savings)
  • Secure the Border: $3.68 billion
  • Ensure the Military is Properly Equipped: Unknown
  • Fight for Local and Regional Military Installations: Unknown
  • Strengthen America’s Foreign Policy: Unknown
  • Protect Veterans Programs and Funding: Unknown

Lucas Overby (L) has proposed two (out of eight) policy items that NTUF could fiscally score. Combined, they would grow annual federal spending for a total of $191 million. His largest quantifiable measure would extend current federally-subsidized flood insurance premiums by four years.

  • Prevent National Flood Insurance Premium Rate Hike: $180 million
  • Tie Academic Performance with Financial Aid: Unknown
  • Permit States to Decide on Offshore Drilling: Unknown
  • Use Block Grants to Diversify Energy Sources: Unknown
  • Expand Federal Employee Benefits to Domestic Partners: $11 million
  • Reform the Health Care Sector: Unknown
  • Reform the Immigration System: Unknown
  • Revamp America’s Foreign Policy: Unknown

Alex Sink (D) has proposed three (out of nine) measures that NTUF could match with current cost estimates. All three would increase spending by a combined $20.391 billion each year. The largest budget-influencing item she supports is passing the comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate.

  • Build a Light Rail System in Pinellas County: Unknown
  • Increase the Minimum Wage: Unknown
  • Prevent National Flood Insurance Premium Rate Hike: $180 million
  • Use New Technologies and Streamline Costs: Unknown
  • Expand Federal Employee Benefits to Domestic Partners: $11 million
  • Allow for Prescription Drug Price Negotiation: Unknown
  • Delay Parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if Necessary: Unknown
  • Pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform: $20.2 billion
  • Ensure Veterans Access to Benefits and Employment: Unknown

While candidates have a number of conflicting platform items, they all share some common themes or goals. All three would vote to increase current spending by $180 million per year to delay a scheduled rate increase for the National Flood Insurance Program. The lower current rate would be in effect for four years and would allow officials to reexamine the maps and formulas used to determine price levels (more information can be found in a recent edition of The Taxpayer’s Tab). They would also, in varying ways, aim to secure the southern border. Jolly and Sink would use existing methods to do so, using federal resouces, while Overby would seek to utilize state resources. 

Overall, taxpayers should take note of the many and large gaps in each candidates’ agendas. The lack of budgetary details is a concern all Americans have when deciding who to send to their statehouse and Washington, DC. As the days tick down to March 11th, campaigns need to offer taxpayers clear details of what they would do with not only the tax dollars from the 13th District but from all of the Districts in America.

Note: National Taxpayers Union Foundation is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. Our research efforts are intended only to educate Americans on how their tax dollars are being or will be spent by those in office, seeking office, or in appointed positions. For more information on NTUF go here.

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Three Graphs That Put The Recovery In Perspective
Posted By: Michael Tasselmyer - 02/04/14

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released multiple reports on the state of the U.S. economy. One of them, "The Slow Recovery of the Labor Market," examines current job market conditions and projects where employment figures are heading relative to historical trends. The full report is available online, but here are three quick take-aways summed up in graphical form (visuals courtesy of CBO):

  • The economy is taking much longer to recover than it has after past recessions. Consumers are still hesitant to buy as many goods and services as they did before the downturn, which means employers aren't in any rush to hire.


  • People will choose to work less. Aging will contribute to lower labor force participation, but federal tax and spending policies will also motivate many people to work less than they otherwise would. Specifically, CBO cites the current tax code, as well as the Affordable Care Act (ACA): "[B]y providing subsidies that decline with rising income (and increase with falling income) and by making some people financially better off, the ACA will create an incentive for some people to choose to work less." On that point, CBO has estimated that the ACA will reduce the number of full-time employees by over 2 million over the next few years, with the largest impact being felt among low-wage workers.
  • Less of the population will be working at all over the next decade. According to CBO, to get back to pre-recession unemployment of five percent, 3 million people currently looking for work would need to find jobs. In 2006, just before the recession, the employment-to-population ratio was at 63.3 percent. By 2018, that could fall to 58.9 percent.


0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts

Report: Last Night’s Speech has $40 Billion Price Tag
Posted By: Dan Barrett - 01/29/14

NTU Foundation researchers were up long into the night and woke up extra early to tabulate the proposed costs in this year’s State of the Union (SOTU). Similar to NTUF’s candidate studies, we went line-by-line through the speech & identified all of the legislative actions President Obama proposed to the Nation. We then referenced those items with cost estimates from his own budget, legislation being considered in Congress right now, and third parties (like the Congressional Budget Office) to come up with a total spending agenda. Here’s a breakdown:

  • Number of Spending Increases: 12
  • Number of Spending Decreases: 1
  • Items with Unknown Spending Effects: 16
  • Total Number of Items: 29

Though this was not President Obama’s longest SOTU address, he managed to announce 29 different policies that would affect the budget. Because of the lack of information included in his speech and in documents released by the White House, NTUF was able to score 13 of those items; the other 16 could resurface with more clarity in future legislative measures, executive orders, or more regulations in the U.S. Code. How much are we talking about? Check out the totals:

  • Spending increases: $40.098 billion
  • Spending decreases: ($103) million
  • Total 2014 SOTU Net Spending: $39.995 billion

This total is light compared to last year’s $83.41 billion SOTU cost, but remember that this is just under $40 billion in NEW spending (i.e. adding to the deficit, which is projected to be $744 billion this year, according to the Administration’s Mid-Session Review). So if the 13 items were enacted, the government would be forced to borrow more money and keep future taxpayers on the hook for today’s decisions.

The largest budget-changing proposals include (figures are annualized):

  • Comprehensive Immigration Reform: $20.2 billion
  • Extending Emergency Unemployment Benefits: $12.8 billion
  • Providing 4 Year-Olds with Pre-Kindergarten: $3.5 billion

The only savings proposals that NTUF was able to clearly identify was a call to prevent future bailouts of the housing market, which was matched with a bill currently in Congress that would decrease spending by $103 million each year. S. 1376, the FHA Solvency Act was covered in a recent edition of The Taxpayer’s Tab and would bring in more mortgage insurance premium fees (counted as an offset to direct spending). More information on this bill can be found in a post by NTUF Policy Analyst Michael Tasselmyer (coming soon).

Wondering how each of President Obama's speeches compare? Check out NTUF's homepage.

Stay tuned for more SOTU analyses from the best team of tax and budget analysts in the country. 

0 Comments | Post a Comment | Sign up for NTU Action Alerts


Items 1 - 10 of 97  12345678910Next