Letter to Senator Snowe

The following letter was submitted to Senator Snowe at Congress.org with the option selected to post on a board that is available to all Congress.


Dear Senator Snowe,

I read on Politico.com that you are a moderate Republican with whom President Obama is hoping to work.

I am very uncomfortable with President Obama's free spending agenda and ask that you take into consideration Obama's record in Illinois which was to tax big and to legislate many entitlement programs, which did not have a successful effect on Illinois (See the following blog of an Illinois citizen http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-300-tax-increases-in-illinois.html)

However, since Congress is considering passing a "stimulus bill”, I would like to offer these comments in hopes that the stimulus bill will stimulate jobs and not just government spending and entitlements.

Excluding companies with tax havens from receiving bailout funds would be a very good start. I am not for raising taxes but companies avoiding taxes with off shore tax havens only makes everyone else’s taxes higher. This is a good direction for crafting the stimulus.

There should be a stipulation that the funds slated for modernizing federal buildings should not go to companies with off shore tax havens AND this stipulation should extend to all government spending.

I would also like to see an analysis of what companies provide jobs in the US. If 60-80% of the jobs are created by small business, then the other 20-40% must be generated by other business entities. The stimulus should be directed at supporting those businesses.

If nation states restricted bailout funds to entities that provide jobs and pay taxes in the nation state, then global corporate states would only be eligible for funds in the nation states where they pay taxes and provide jobs - This would be a good thing for the autonomy of nation states over global corporate states,

We hear abundant rhetoric on the need to get credit flowing to main street, but there is only $430 million suggested to go to finance small business loans, i.e. to finance, what the report describes as "the engine of new job creation" - while the bulk of the money goes to government spending and entitlement programs. If the bill is supposed to be a stimulus for the economy, why not make the direct focus on job creation and treat stimulus spending separately? We have already seen, with the first bailout to financial institutions, that trying the indirect approach to stimulating credit to main street didn't work. Isn't it time to try a more direct approach and to directly offer credit to companies, large and small alike, in proportion to the jobs those companies or privately owned businesses, can potentially stimulate in job creation?

As defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration, a small business concern is "one that is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation." The law also states that in determining what constitutes a small business, the definition will vary from industry to industry to reflect industry differences accurately. When a larger percentage of our economy is invested in small business, we are less vulnerable to the failure of a single business entity causing a ripple effect that brings down a global economy.

Obama marketed himself to the American public as the politician who was going to take the "bottom up" approach to the economy. Small business is the bottom and the groundswell of our economy so lets see this administration put its economic plans on the same page as it's election campaigning. You will not find that in the current plan which gives a very short stick to small business and apparently expects to stimulate the "engine of job creation" of our economy by the trickle down effect from big government spending and entitlement spending.

How about the "bottom up approach"- First you create jobs, which create the resources to justify spending. - Or at least shift the balance between the amounts of money invested that is anticipated to "trickle down" to the engine of job creation and the amount of money that DIRECTLY benefits the creation of sustained jobs.

I am also concerned about funds slated to bailout bankrupt states, while eliminating the matching funds requirement. This means that solvent states will have to foot the bill for the insolvent ones, which are often insolvent because they legislated so many large government programs.

As a conservative, I favor small government and the inherent vitality of the American people as expressed through the private economy. I hope that you will act as the voice of these interests.