MARK MEADOWS

Mark Meadows supports the Ryan Plan, as well as a balanced budget amendment, both of which would require deep cuts in important programs like Medicare and Social Security. Meadows also supports the so-called Fair Tax, which would raise the tax burden on the most vulnerable Americans.

Ryan Budget Bold

Meadows Called the Ryan Budget Bold. According to the Mark Meadows for Congress Facebook page, Meadows called the Ryan Plan Bold - Congressman Paul Ryan again boldly sounds the alarm on the debt crisis. A powerful message. [Mark Meadows for Congress Facebook, 3/16/12] Meadows Promised to Protect Benefits for Seniors. According to Asheville Citizen-Times, Meadows said there needs to be true cuts, but government needs to provide services without rolling the costs of cuts on to the states. He said he would protect benefits for seniors and make sure there was a safety net. He also said recipients need to take personal responsibility and consider what services cost before they use their benefits. [Asheville Citizen-Times, 6/23/12] Wall Street Journal: Ryan Plan Would Essentially End Medicare. According to Naftali Bendavid at the Wall Street Journal, The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. [Wall Street Journal, 4/4/11] Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel: Ryan Budget Plan Would Nearly Double Out-OfPocket Costs for Seniors. The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel reported that The Ryan budget plan would cut federal spending on Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, and begin distributing money by block grant to states. The plan would do away with Medicare's direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The plan would do away with Medicare's direct payment for health care for seniors, replacing it with a voucher system in which recipients choose private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office found that part of the plan, which would take effect in 2022, could nearly double out-of-pocket costs for seniors. [Ft Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, 4/16/2011]

Economic Policy Institute: Ryan Budget Would Result in Roughly 900,000 Jobs Lost in 2012 and Roughly 1.3 Million Jobs Lost in 2013. According to the Economic Policy Institute, Using a standard macroeconomic model that is consistent with that used by private- and public-sector forecasters, we estimate that the shock to aggregate demand from near-term NSD spending cuts would result in roughly 900,000 jobs lost in 2012 and roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013. Cumulatively, cuts of this magnitude would result in a loss of 2.2 million jobs over the next two years, or 3.1 million full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs. [Economic Policy Institute, 4/13/11] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Two-Thirds of the Ryan Plans Cuts Come from Programs Helping the Poor and Middle Class. In April 2011, Robert Greenstein, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said that nearly two-thirds about $2.9 trillion of the Ryan Plans $4.5 trillion in budget cuts over ten years comes from programs aiding the poor or disadvantaged. The $2.17 trillion of these cuts come from Medicaid and repeal of the expansion of Medicaid under the 2011 health care reform law. The remainder of the $2.9 trillion would come from non-health related services to the poor, such as Pell Grants, food stamps, and low-income housing programs. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Press Release, 4/20/11, 4/20/11] New York Times Editorial: Ryan Plan Would End Medicares Guaranteed Benefit. The House Republican budget would mean that older Americans no longer have a guarantee that Medicare will pay for their health needs. [] He would still offer the elderly a fixed amount of money to shop for their own health insurance, but allow the option of enrolling in traditional Medicare. [New York Times Editorial, 3/20/12]

Supported a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment

Meadows Supported a Balanced Budget Amendment. According to Mark Meadows for Congress Website, During the last four years, our gross national debt has skyrocketed by 63% to over $15 trillion dollars. Our government borrows over 40% of every dollar it spends. I will support true spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment. [Mark Meadows for Congress Website, Accessed 7/26/12] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP): Balanced Budget Would Threaten Significant Economic Harm While Raising a Host of Problems for Social Security. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution including the version that the House is expected to consider this week would be a highly ill-advised way to address the nations long-term fiscal problems. It would threaten significant economic harm while raising a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and other vital federal functions. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/27/11] CBPP: Balanced Budget Amendment Would Risk Tipping Economy Into Recession and Making Recessions Longer, Causing Large Job Losses. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, By requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, such an amendment would raise serious risks of tipping weak economies into recession and making recessions longer and deeper, causing very large job losses. Thats because the amendment would force policymakers to cut spending, raise taxes, or both just

when the economy is weak or already in recession the exact opposite of what good economic policy would advise. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/27/11] CBPP: Balanced Budget Amendment Would Force Benefit Cuts in Social Security, Military Retirement. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security could not draw down its reserves from previous years to pay benefits in a later year but, instead, could be forced to cut benefits even if it had ample balances in its trust funds, as it does today. The same would be true for military retirement and civil service retirement programs. Nor could the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation respond quickly to bank or pension fund failures by using their assets to pay deposit or pension insurance, unless they could do so without causing the budget to slip out of balance. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 7/27/11]

Supported Fair Tax, The Real Equalizer

Meadows Spoke In Favor Of The Fair Tax. During an ICaucus interview, Meadows spoke in favor of the Fair Tax. Meadows said: Quite frankly, it becomes one of those things that becomes a real equalizer if you look at it from a consumption tax point of view but it has a real marketing problem. [ICaucus Interview, 2012] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: National Sales Tax a Regressive Tax System. In September 2004, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy wrote on a Fair Tax proposal that advertised a 23 percent national sales tax: Under current law, federal income and estate taxes are progressive. That means that taxpayers with high incomes pay a larger share of their incomes in taxes than do middle- and low-income taxpayers. A national sales tax would be exactly the opposite. It would take a much higher share of the earnings of low- and middle-income families than the wealthy would have to pay. Thats because most Americans must spend most or all of their incomes to make ends meet, while better-off people can afford to spend a much lower share of their incomes. Moreover, older Americans tend to spend a higher share of their incomes than younger ones, which means that a national sales tax would be particularly burdensome on the elderly. As a result, replacing most federal taxes with a national sales tax would mean very large tax increases on most Americans and very large tax cuts for the wealthy. [Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, September 2004; U.S. Library of Congress, 108th Congress, H.R. 25, accessed 6/1/12] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Middle-Income Families Would Pay More. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FairTax proposals would significantly change the distribution of state taxes: middle-income families would pay more, while businesses and high-income households would pay less. Sales taxes are regressive that is, lower- and middle-income families pay a larger share of their income in sales taxes than do high-income families. For income taxes, the opposite is true: higher-income families pay a larger share of their income in income taxes because of a graduated rate structure in many states and because personal exemptions and standard deductions exempt a smaller share of their income. Thus, repealing the state income tax would benefit high-income families disproportionately, while low- and middle-income families would bear the largest burden of an increase in the sales tax. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 9/7/10] Annenberg Public Policy Center: Prebates Shifts Tax Burden to Families Earning Between $15,000 and $200,000 per Year. According to the Annenberg Public Policy

Center, The FairTax plan, however, helps to alleviate this difficulty by exempting sales taxes on all income up to the poverty level. Taxpayers would receive a prebate, which Edwards calculates to be about $5,600 annually. The Treasury Department estimates that the prebate program would cost between $600 billion and $700 billion annually, making it the largest category of federal spending. Americans for Fair Taxation disputes the Treasury Department numbers, claiming that the actual cost would be closer to $485 billion per year. The Treasury Department has so far refused to release its methodology, making it difficult to determine whose estimate is correct. With the prebate program in effect, those earning less than $15,000 per year would see their share of the federal tax burden drop from -0.7 percent to 6.3 percent. Of course, if the poorest Americans are paying less under the FairTax plan, then someone else pays more. As it turns out, according to the Treasury Department, someone else is everybody earning between $15,000 and $200,000 per year. The chart below compares the share of the federal tax burden for different income groups under the current system and under the FairTax. Those in the highest and the lowest brackets will see their share decrease, while everyone else will see their share of taxes increase. [Annenberg Public Policy Center, FactCheck.org, 5/31/07] Annenberg Public Policy Center Found the 23 Percent Figure Often Cited by Fair Tax Proponents Misleading, Actually Closer to 30 Percent. In May 2007, the Anneberg Public Policy Centers FactCheck.org service analyzed Fair Tax proposals. They found that the 23 percent figure often cited by proponents was misleading, writing First consider the way in which sales tax is normally figured. A consumer good that carries a $100 price tag might be subject to a 5 percent sales tax. That means that the final bill for the item is $105. The 5 percent figure is the amount of tax that is charged on the original purchase price. But now suppose that instead of pricing the item at $100, the shop owner simply priced the item at $105, then sent $5 directly to the state. The $105 price would be a tax-inclusive sales price. But $5 is just 4.8 percent of $105. That 4.8 percent number, however, is relatively meaningless. You are still paying exactly the same 5 percent tax on the item. The 23 percent number in H.R. 25 is the equivalent of the 4.8 percent in the previous example. To calculate the real rate of the sales tax, we have to determine the original purchase price of an item. [Annenberg Public Policy Center, FactCheck.org, 5/31/07] Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy: Sales Tax Would Have to be Closer to 50 Percent to Meet Current Tax Revenue. In September 2004, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy wrote on a Fair Tax proposal that advertised a 23 percent national sales tax: Allegedly, almost a third of the projected sales-tax revenues are supposed to come from taxes that the government will pay to itself. Build a road, pay yourself a tax. Buy some planes for the Air Force, pay yourself some more. And so on. Unfortunately, that cant work. Without these phantom governmental tax payments, the sales tax rate would have to jump to 42 percent to break even. In addition, a quarter of the remaining sales taxes are supposed to be paid on things like church services, free care at veterans hospitals and a variety of hard-totax financial services like free checking accounts. If we disregard the supposed taxes on these items, the sales tax rate would have to climb to 50 percent or more to break even. [] For 2005 (a relatively low-tax year), we calculate that the required break-even sales tax rate would be between 45 percent and 53 percent, depending on how certain tax-base issues are resolved. [Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, September 2004; U.S. Library of Congress, 108thCongress, H.R. 25, accessed 6/1/12]