|
Posted by
on
July 21, 2009
Why is the President complaining? By Sam Youngman The president, seeking to prod the Democratic-controlled Congress to show significant progress on healthcare reform before the August recess, directed blame at the GOP for the stalled legislation. Obama blasted the "familiar script" of Republicans who "have openly declared their intention to block healthcare reform."...
Posted by
on
July 20, 2009
Speeding Towards Socialism Well, now there’s yet another person who has agreed. Jeffrey Frankel is a veteran of the last health care debate. He was appointed to the council of economic advisors by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1996. He was recently quoted on the National Journal website saying that Obamacare “is just another case of good economics getting steamrollered by politics.” As for Obamacare, you have seen the chart displaying how complicated it will be. Now, I hope you will remember a few statistics on the many ways it will reduce effective medical care in America. Millions – Number of people who may still be uninsured in 10 years. After $1.3 TRILLION, there still won’t be universal health care coverage. 114 million—Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage under the bill, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group. 4.7 million—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer. (Consider how devastating this could be at a time when unemployment is rocketing towards 10%) $1.28 trillion—New federal spending in the next ten years, according to a Congressional Budget Office score of selected elements of the bill. 53—Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement expansions. (Just another reason for big-spending liberals to tax and spend more in the future.) $10 billion—Minimum loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud; the government-run health plan does not reform the ineffective anti-fraud statutes and procedures that have kept Medicare on the Government Accountability Office’s list of high-risk programs for two decades.
Posted by
on
July 14, 2009
Yesterday, the Treasury Department announced that the Federal Budget Deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time. MOST UNDERPLAYED STORY OF THE DAY -- DOESN'T MAKE A SINGLE FRONT PAGE -- Wall Street Journal A4, '$1 Trillion Deficit Complicates Obama's Agenda: Annual Budget Gap Passed Benchmark in June, Dimming Outlook for Economic Recovery and Appetite for Big-Ticket Policies,' We are only 9 months into the fiscal year and the deficit is soaring. In June alone, this Administration and liberal Congressional leaders have racked up a $94.32 billion budget deficit. In June 2008, there was a $33.55 billion surplus. But, why should we be surprised? In the last 6 months, we’ve seen: • Non-stimulating stimulus packages So far this year, Washington Democrats have forced taxpayers to pay for: • A trillion-dollar stimulus spending bill that – in spite of the Administration’s repeated attempts to spin it in a positive light – is riddled with waste and inefficiency on projects such as a skateboard park in Rhode Island, a new auxiliary runway at Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) Airport for No One in Pennsylvania, and checks for the deceased in Maryland. • A $400-plus billion “omnibus” spending bill loaded with more than 9,000 unscrutinized earmarks. • A budget that adds a staggering $13 trillion to the debt, doubling our national debt in five years and tripling it in 10 years. • $50 billion in federal aid for General Motors, which has entered bankruptcy. Now, Democrats are going to unveil a $1 trillion plus government run health care plan.
Posted by
on
June 24, 2009
852—Pages in the bill 120 million—Number of individuals who could lose their current coverage as a result of the government-run plan reimbursing at Medicare rates created in the bill, according to non-partisan actuaries at the Lewin Group 4.7 million—Number of jobs that could be lost as a result of taxes on businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance coverage, according to a model developed by Council of Economic Advisors Chair Christina Romer $88,200—Definition of “low-income” family of four for purposes of health insurance subsidies Trillions—New federal spending, which likely could exceed the $1.6 trillion reported price tag of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus’ legislation 32—Entitlement programs the bill creates, expands, or extends 48—Additional offices, bureaus, commissions, programs, and bureaucracies the bill creates over and above the entitlement programs listed above 1,367—Uses of the word “shall,” representing new duties to be carried out by federal bureaucrats and mandates on individuals, businesses, and States $10 billion—Minimum loss sustained by taxpayers every year due to Medicare fraud; the government-run health plan utilizes the same ineffective anti-fraud statutes and procedures that have kept Medicare on the Government Accountability Office’s list of high-risk programs for two decades $1.75 billion—Mandatory spending on home visitation services that would educate parents on “skills to interact with their child” Zero—Prohibitions on government programs like Medicare and Medicaid from using cost-effectiveness research to impose delays to or denials for access to life-saving treatments 2017—Year Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted—a date unchanged by the legislation, which re-directs savings from Medicare to finance new entitlements for younger Americans
Posted by
on
June 15, 2009
Please click here to read an interesting op-ed on the proposed Cap-and-Trade bill. A bill I often call Cap-and-Tax.
Posted by
on
June 11, 2009
The Honorable Eric Holder Re: DOJ Objection to Georgia Submission No. 2008-5243
Dear Attorney General Holder: We urge the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to reconsider its decision to object to the citizenship verification program implemented by the state of Georgia. If the objection is allowed to stand, it will allow non-citizens to vote and undermine the integrity of elections in the state of Georgia. In 2007, the state of Georgia worked closely with DOJ lawyers to develop a verification program that would ensure the integrity of the vote and follow the federal election guidelines set forth under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The program allows Georgia elections officials to verify the identities and citizenship of newly registering voters by matching their applications with driver’s license and Social Security data. If the information on the driver’s license and Social Security does not match the information on the voter registration form, the applicant is given the opportunity to clarify the information in a way that is consistent with existing, precleared Georgia law. While DOJ criticizes potential errors in the reports generated by Georgia’s verification program, it relies primarily on the alleged impact on minority voters. While DOJ states repeatedly that the likelihood of minorities appearing on the flagged lists is “statistically significant,” it never explains which statistics it finds significant. DOJ also never explains whether its statistical analysis takes account of the fact that, in Georgia, individuals of voting age who are minorities are statistically more likely to be non-citizens. According to Census Bureau statistics, African-American individuals of voting age are twice as likely to be noncitizens as white individuals of voting age, and only 55% of Asian individuals of voting age and 34% of Hispanic individuals of voting age in Georgia are citizens. Thus, it is entirely possible that the appearance of minorities on flagged lists is not discriminatory at all, but just consistent with the non-citizen rate of the voting age population. DOJ never explains how it dealt with these important questions, but instead concludes that the statistics for citizenship verification show discriminatory effect. DOJ also cannot explain, and does not address, Georgia’s dramatic and historic increases in minority voter turnout throughout the 2008 election cycle without a single reported case of voter disenfranchisement due to the verification program. We strongly disagree with the conclusion that Georgia’s verification program is discriminatory, especially in light of the activities of other states using very similar processes. Because DOJ finds that Georgia’s program is especially discriminatory, we can only conclude that it will move to take action against Arizona and states not covered by Section 5 that administer similar programs. This decision further underscores the issues many of us raised with the application of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act during its renewal in 2006. The people of the state of Georgia deserve to have a fair election process that prevents non-citizens from voting. We ask that you reconsider your decision to reject the citizenship verification program in the state of Georgia. We thank you for your attention to this matter. Jack Kingston John Linder Tom Price
Posted by
on
June 09, 2009
An excerpt: “The U.S. now has about the highest combined corporate tax rate, second only to Japan among industrialized countries. That rate is so high that U.S. firms have an enormous disadvantage versus competitors. The average corporate tax rate for the major developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2008 was about 27 percent, more than 10 percentage points lower than the U.S. rate.”
Posted by
on
June 02, 2009
Many Americans are concerned about some of Judge Sotomayor's rulings. To view The Hill's publication of my biggest concern click here.
Posted by
on
May 28, 2009
CNBC Newsflash: The government's stake in the company originally was to be 50 percent, according to GM's regulatory filings. But it now could be as high as 69 percent. The Canadian government also could get equity for up to $8 billion in aid for the automaker. “With Chrysler LLC in bankruptcy proceedings and General Motors Corp. apparently ready to follow suit, 42 percent of poll respondents say Obama's role has hurt the domestic automakers while 39 percent say he's been helpful. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
