url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/the-fiscal-cliff,The Fiscal Cliff,2012-12-12,2012,2012-12,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"Congressman Tom McClintock

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.

December 12, 2012

Mr. Speaker:

To understand the federal budget mess and the so-called fiscal cliff, it’s important to remember three numbers: 39, 37 and 64.

Thirty nine percent is the combined increase of inflation and population over the last ten years. Thirty nine percent.

Thirty seven percent is the increase in revenues during the same period. That’s despite the recession and tax cuts. Not quite keeping place, but pretty close.

Sixty four is what’s killing us. Sixty four percent is the increase in federal spending in that period. That’s nearly twice the rate of inflation and population over the last ten years.

The spending side of the fiscal cliff is the so-called sequester: automatic cuts in federal spending. To hear some tell it, these cuts will mean the end of western civilization.

Hardly. After a 64 percent increase in expenditures this decade, the sequester doesn’t actually cut spending at all: it simply limits spending growth next year to about a half a percent.

I opposed the budget deal that created the sequester last year because it fell woefully short of what Standard and Poors clearly warned was necessary to preserve the nation’s triple-A credit rating. Sadly, that fear was born out. But now, the sequester is all we have.

It’s true that defense takes the brunt of it, but does our defense spending today really need to be higher – inflation adjusted -- than it was at the height of the Vietnam War, when we faced down the Soviet Union and had 500,000 combat troops in the field?

The sequester isn’t stepping off a cliff – it’s taking one step back from the cliff.

The tax increases, however, are a different matter. Without intervention, the federal tax burden will balloon 21 percent at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve, taking somewhere between two and three thousand dollars from an average family. This summer, the House passed legislation to protect our nation from such a calamity, but Mr. Obama vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.

Instead, Mr. Obama tells us that he will veto any plan that keeps taxes from going up on those very wealthy folks making over $200,000, who, he says, need to pay their fair share.

(I suppose fairness is in the eye of the beholder. The top one percent earns 17 percent of all income but pays 37 percent of all income taxes. But that’s beside the point).

The fine point of it is that a lot of those very wealthy folks making over $200,000 aren’t very wealthy and they aren’t even folks: they’re 1.3 million struggling small businesses filing under sub-chapter S. Our small businesses produce two-thirds of the new jobs in our economy.

This battle IS very much FOR the middle class. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Mr. Obama’s tax increase on the so-called wealthy will actually throw some 200,000 middle and working class families into unemployment. Two hundred thousand. And that’s the optimistic estimate. An independent analysis by Ernst and Young puts that figure at closer to 700,000 lost jobs.

That’s because the President’s taxes would slam 84 percent of net small business income – that’s precisely the income used to support and expand the labor force.

In their blind pursuit of an “eat the rich” ideology, Mr. Obama and his acolytes are imposing a policy that would utterly devastate hundreds of thousands of middle class families who depend on the jobs these small businesses provide.

And for what? To wring enough money to fund Mr. Obama’s spending spree for a grand total of eight days. It’s telling that three-fourths of the new taxes he has proposed would be used to finance the new spending that he has also proposed.

Republicans don’t want to see taxes go up on anyone, period. We don’t want to see this government willfully throw hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work by this policy.

The President obviously believes that in the 11th hour, Republicans will have no choice but ultimately to protect as many taxpayers as we possibly can, since the only alternative will be tax increases on everyone, including the job creators. He may be right.

But that would mean a bleak and bitter new year for all those families who will watch helplessly as their jobs evaporate before their eyes.

Let us pray the President has a change of heart before setting this calamity in motion.

# # #",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:11:51Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mek-statement,MEK Statement,2012-09-28,2012,2012-09,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"Statement by Congressman Tom McClintock: ""The delisting of MEK as a terrorist organization recognizes the crucial role it is playing in opposition to the fascist regime of Iran. It is long overdue.""",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:11:34Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/the-export-import-boondoggle,The Export-Import Boondoggle,2012-05-09,2012,2012-05,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"House Chamber, Washington, D.C.

May 9, 2012

Mr. Speaker:

The Export-Import Bank dragoons American taxpayers into subsidizing loans to foreign companies, making it cheaper for them to buy products from politically-favored American companies which in turn use those products to compete against less-favored American companies.

Past beneficiaries include such upstanding enterprises as Solyndra and Enron. Since 2007, almost half of its money has gone to support that plucky little start-up called Boeing. Air India got $5 billion to purchase Boeing aircraft allowing them to undercut American carriers like Delta with their own tax money.

We’re told we need to compete with other nations that do the same thing. If other nations want to impoverish themselves in this manner – we don’t need to imitate them.

We’re told this doesn’t cost taxpayers – that in the last several years it’s actually turned a profit. That what they used to say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – until they blew up in our face.

Legitimate companies have plenty of access to private capital and don’t need these subsidies. The illegitimate ones shouldn’t be propped up with the hard-earned dollars of working taxpaying Americans.

# # #",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:11:08Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/congressman-mcclintock-to-hold-town-hall-meeting-in-pollock-pines,Congressman McClintock to Hold Town Hall Meeting in Pollock Pines,2012-04-17,2012,2012-04,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"Congressman Tom McClintock will hold a town hall meeting on Monday, April 30th in Pollock Pines.

The meeting will be held at the Pollock Pines-Camino Community Center, 2675 Sanders Drive, Pollock Pines. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM.

###",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:11:02Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/town-hall-meeting-in-foresthill,Town Hall Meeting in Foresthill,2012-04-05,2012,2012-04,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"Congressman Tom McClintock will hold a town hall meeting in Foresthill on Wednesday, April 11th. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM and will be held at the Foresthill Veterans Memorial Hall, 24601 Harrison Street, Foresthill.

# # #",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:11:02Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/response-san-francisco-chronicle,Response San Francisco Chronicle,2012-02-22,2012,2012-02,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"I have submitted a shorter letter responding to the Chronicle’s front-page article by Carolyn Lochhead (“Central Valley reps bill would upend water rights,” February 17, 2012), but believe the inaccuracies and omissions in it are so stark that it deserves a more detailed reply.

“Representatives from the Central Valley pushed legislation through a House committee Thursday that would upend the state's system of water rights, deploying the federal government to extract water from Northern California farms, fisheries and cities to send to farmers in the valley.”

Title IV of the measure specifically reaffirms and guarantees the state’s system of water rights and brings the full force of federal law to protect those rights.

Indeed, the Northern California Water Association, representing the very water users Ms. Lochhead contends would have their rights “upended” and their water “extracted” strongly supports the bill. It writes:

“The bill, if enacted, now contains provisions that would not only protect the interests of senior water rights holders in the Sacramento Valley, but would also provide significant, material water policy improvements to current federal law. The bill, if enacted, would provide an unprecedented federal statutory express recognition of, and commitment to, California’s state water rights priority system and area of origin protections. This is important for the region to provide sustainable water supplies for productive farmlands, wildlife refuges, and managed wetlands, cities and rural communities, recreation, and meandering rivers that support important fisheries.”

Additionally, Title I, Section 105 of the bill permits Delta and Bay Area districts to re-use environmental water once it has served its purpose, increasing the amount of water available to Northern California communities.

Finally, the vote was bi-partisan, with Democrats Jim Costa (D-California) and Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) joining Republicans in adopting the bill 27 to 17.

“The legislation would halt restoration of the San Joaquin River, leaving as much as 40 miles of the river dry, restore irrigation contracts and override fish and wildlife protections in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.”

This charge, which was also made in the Chronicle’s editorial of February 16, 2012, is categorically false. In fact, Title II merely replaces the coldwater fishery established under the San Joaquin River Settlement Act of 2009 with a warm water fishery more conducive to the Central Valley habitat, guaranteeing year round flows. During my opening statement, I said:

“(The bill) replaces the San Joaquin River Settlement Act that was imposed in 2009 with a workable and vastly less expensive alternative.

“Let me put the current San Joaquin River Settlement Act in perspective. It will spend more than one billion dollars to achieve the stated goal of establishing a population of 500 salmon below the Friant dam. That comes to two million dollars per fish. And that’s without accounting for the costs that will be incurred by Central Valley farmers as water that is already in critically short supply is diverted to this project that are estimated to increase the actual cost ten-fold.”

During committee discussion, I went on to say, “The San Joaquin River is on the hot valley floor – the only time it has been a cold-water fishery was during very wet years and then only sporadically.”

“McClintock negotiated an agreement from fellow Republicans to preserve local water rights to protect his Sacramento district from the original bill.”

In fact, I said in my opening statement that my office had conducted “a laborious eight-month process of consulting more than 60 northern California water agencies – in both Democratic and Republican congressional districts -- and the result is an unprecedented consensus reflected in the amendment.” During the committee debate, I read a list of 11 water districts in Democratic Congressman Garamendi’s district alone that we worked with on amendments to protect their water rights.

Whatever our personal biases and opinions, we should at least be able to agree that readers are entitled to the truth, particularly in a story appearing on the front page of a major metropolitan newspaper over a matter of significant public importance. All of the facts and statements cited above were made during the public meeting and should have been known to all those who attended it. I believe that this article clearly crossed the line into demonstrable falsehood and I challenge the management of the Chronicle to set the record straight.

Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:10:41Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/weve-heard-this-song-before,We've Heard this Song Before,2012-01-25,2012,2012-01,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"After President Clinton took a drubbing from voters in the 1994 Congressional election, he realized his policies weren't working. He promptly declared, ""The era of big government is over,"" and he then went about making good on that declaration:

• He reduced spending by a miraculous 3 1/2 percent of GDP.

• He attacked entitlement spending and abolished the ballooning open-ended welfare system.

• He signed what amounted to the biggest capital gains tax cut in American history.

• He delivered the only four budget surpluses in four decades.

• And he produced a period of prolonged economic expansion.

President Obama faced a similar cross-road as he delivered his fourth State of the Union Address to Congress. If he had followed the example of his successful Democratic predecessor, he could have redeemed his presidency, revived the economy and rallied the country.

Instead, he succumbed to the basic ingredient of hubris: that the more we invest in our mistakes, the less willing we are to correct them.

Instead, his fourth State of the Union Address was indistinguishable from the three before it – the same big government bromides that have utterly failed to revive the economy while squandering trillions of dollars of the nation’s wealth.

For two full years, lopsided Democratic majorities in Congress responded to eerily similar addresses by giving him everything he asked for, including the biggest single spending bill in history that he promised would keep the unemployment rate under eight percent.

His fourth State of the Union speech came on the 35th consecutive month of unemployment rates over eight percent -- unemployment rates that would be still higher except that millions of Americans have simply given up looking for work and therefore are no longer counted among the unemployed. Indeed, fewer Americans are working today than on Inauguration day, 2009.

In pursuing these policies, he has piled up as much debt in three years as the nation acquired from the first day of the George Washington administration to the last day of the George H. W. Bush administration and destroyed America's Triple-A credit rating.

True, Mr. Obama inherited a terrible mess caused by his predecessor. George W. Bush went on his own spending and borrowing binge to ""stimulate"" the economy. He approved the biggest expansion of entitlement spending since the Great Society. He intervened in the housing market by guaranteeing that struggling taxpayers would bail out banks from their bad decisions. He ran up crippling budget deficits (that now seem quaint by today's standards).

Yet instead of reversing these disastrous policies, Barack Obama has spent the last three years doubling down on them, and he showed no interest in changing course in the final year of his term.

Ronald Reagan inherited an economy plagued by double-digit unemployment, double-digit inflation, mile-long lines around gas stations and interest rates at 21 ½ percent. He told the country, ""In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem -- government IS the problem.""

Reagan reduced the tax and regulatory burdens that were crushing the economy and produced a period of prolonged economic expansion and prosperity. Former Senator Phil Gramm recently estimated that if the economy under Obama tracked as it had under Reagan, 15.7 million more Americans would be working today and per capita income would be over $4,000 higher than it is today.

Nor was Reagan a pioneer. Warren Harding, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy, pursued similar policies and produced similar results.

If Barack Obama had presented a comparable vision, he would have had the enthusiastic support of the Republican majority in the House and a year from now could claim the mantle of leadership in putting the nation back on the road to prosperity. Instead, what he prescribed is guaranteed to produce gridlock, finger-pointing and sniping, as his combative tone clearly signaled is his intention.

That’s a tragic waste of an entire crucial year when we could be implementing policies to relieve our economy of the burdens that are crushing it – just as a Democratic President working with a Republican Congress did during the Clinton years.

Whittier’s words haunt the country in the aftermath of this lost opportunity: “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ‘it might have been.'”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:10:31Z
https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/congressman-mcclintock-to-hold-truckee-town-hall-meeting,Congressman McClintock to Hold Truckee Town Hall Meeting,2012-01-06,2012,2012-01,Republican,House,CA,Tom McClintock,M001177,mcclintock.house.gov,mcclintock,https://mcclintock.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases,scraper,"Congressman Tom McClintock will hold a town hall meeting in Truckee on Tuesday, January 10 at 6:00 PM.

The meeting will be held in the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Conference Room, 11570 Donner Pass Road, Truckee.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T21:10:31Z