Non-partisan Federal Budget Blog Carnival

December 18th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

Facing Up to the Nations Finances is back with a new Budget Blog Carnival! If you are unfamiliar, a blog carnival is an online magazine (blogo-zine) of sorts that focuses on a specific theme. This issue is all about the U.S. federal budget and the national debt.

As always, the carnival is comprised of a non-partisan collective of blog entries. While specific pieces may have ideological roots, the overall carnival is a testament to the diverse voices present in the ongoing debate that surrounds the budget, deficit and accumulated national debt.

Today, we are releasing an exciting array of entries from The Heritage Foundation, The Committee for a Responsible Budget, Econbrowser blog, ECONLOG blog and the Economists View blog, to name a few of the participants! Here is your guide to Facing Ups Dec. 2009 Budget Blog Carnival:

First and foremost, Scott Bittle, executive vice president of Public Agenda and co-author ofWhere Does the Money Go?, leads the pack with a piece entitled, The Three Questions for the Public on the Federal Budget. In the piece, Bittle highlights three key questions for the public (and American leaders) to consider: Can we afford it? Can we keep the status quo? and Am I willing to give up something I want because the government can’t afford it?According to Bittle,

Most of the people who’ve looked at this issue, whether they’re liberal or conservative, in or out of government, use the same word to describe the federal budget: “unsustainable.”

Next, economist Dr. Arnold Kling of the EconLog blog ponders various scenarios for resolving U.S. debt. From technological advances to hyperinflation, Kling provides valuable insight.

Conn Carroll of The Heritage Foundation penned a piece entitled, The Definition of Economic Insanity. In the entry, Carroll stands firmly against deficit spending as a means to stimulate the U.S. economy. In opposition to recent jobs summit proposals Carroll states,

These “new” ideas will fail for the same reason the past two government stimulus plans failed: governments do not create jobs.

In a separate piece, Carroll presents a series of government actions from the 1930s through modern times that he considers examples of the failure of government to spend its way to prosperity and makes his case for the government to step out of the way.

And Dan Perry penned an intriguing article about the urgency of the debt. Perry charges both parties with fiscal irresponsibility, as he finds fault in both President Obamas deficit spending and record-increases in spending during George W. Bushs presidency. While he sees the Tea Party movement as impressive, he writes the following:

After eight years of a Republican administration, the nation saw record spending and deficit levels without so much as a peep about the financial difficulties it might someday cause. Meanwhile, their solution to these economic woes are a series of tax cuts accompanied by no tangible reductions in spending.

Next, James Hamilton of the Econbrowser blog responds to Paul Krugman, one of the leading economists to argue that U.S. budget deficits are not that troubling in the current fiscal environment. Hamilton expresses his worries about current and future deficits. Please also read Krugmans writings on this subject here and here.

Also, heres another piece from Hamilton an assessment of federal budget commitments and the danger present in continuing on our current budgetary path.

Another exciting partner in the current Facing Up carnival is the bi-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Committee submitted two pieces one about theessentials associated with tax reform and another that explores the true costs of health care reform. Both of these entries provide insight into the current debate over the national debt.

And, Mark Thoma from the Economists View blog highlights the three ways in which debt can make future generations worse off, while covering some of the bogus arguments that are given in the budget debate. Thoma concludes by calling some of the Republican opposition weve seen as unduly alarmist.

In a more-lighthearted commentary, Bob McCarty writes about the similarities he sees between the movie Friday the Thirteenth and the economic stimulus package.

Finally, in Musings on America’s Budgetary Challenge, David D. Kent provides a fun-filled look at federal expenditures and ponders the what ifs of potential spending scenarios.

Thats it for this edition of the blog carnival. Stay tuned for more!


Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Live From Copenhagen: Blame America First Mentality

December 17th, 2009 Gerrit Lansing

The Heritage Foundation’s Steven Groves and Ben Lieberman are live at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference reporting from a conservative perspective. Follow their reports on The Foundry and at the Copenhagen Consequences Web site.

Though Barack Obama garnered much attention for his Nobel Peace Prize win, the United States has won three lesser-known, tongue-in-cheek awards at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference from a liberal environmentalist organization that has been critical of America’s refusal to wholeheartedly embrace their radical agenda.

And what “ignoble actions” earned the United States these noble prizes? According to the people at Avaaz.org, the U.S. government took home the “Fossil of the Day” award for “stalling negotiation to save life on planet earth.” Along with the Climate Action Network, Avaaz.org runs a daily award show at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. It’s worth noting that Avaaz.org is dedicated to to clos[ing] the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want.

The Fossil of the Day award is indicative of the blame America first sentiment that pervades these conferences and the Heritage team is doing all it can to make sure that, despite  this anti-US  sentiment,  the real interests of the American people are part of this debate.

Here’s video of the red carpet ceremony shot by Heritages Ben Lieberman:

We at Heritage applaud this award in part because, climate change and research aside, signing a colossal UN resolution in Copenhagen this week would mean signing over our sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in the United Nations and Europe (not to mention the tremendous economic harm Copenhagen regulations would wreak on the U.S. economy). Heres to fourth Fossil of the Day Award.


Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Sen. Inhofe Discusses Climategate, “The Greatest Scandal in Modern Science”

December 8th, 2009 Todd Thurman

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), spoke to bloggers at The Heritage Foundation’s weekly Bloggers Briefing today and focused his remarks on the controversial “Climategate” scandal — the series of leaked e-mails that have blown holes through the theory of man-made global warming.

As Sen. Inhofe sat down to speak, he opined that he was just in the Senate trying to convince Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to investigate the subject of the e-mails, instead of the people who uncovered the e-mails. Sen. Inhofe was the leader of the global warming opposition ten years ago when he chaired the EPW Committee; when a blogger asked him what he thought about the emergent news that the science was flawed, the Senator quipped, “Redemption.”

Senator Inhofe is not alone in his views on “Climategate.” The UK Telegraph called it the “greatest scandal in modern science,” and the UK MET is reevaluating over 160 years of climate data because “public opinion of man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.” Sen. Inhofe seemed confident that neither climate bills would pass the Senate, but feared the Obama Administration would circumvent the legislative process and use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to force regulation through the Clean Air Act. Sen. Inhofe fired back by releasing a YouTube video saying that the EPA finding that CO2 is a pollutant was based on faulty science.

Now, the United Nations is in the middle of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, where “the science is settled.” However, as we have stated, the science is far from settled. Now, the world has learned that the basis of the science that climate change was founded on could be proven faulty. This has not stopped the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change from creating a treaty that will be costly to the US economy and not have any real impact on the environment. And it’s a treaty that would infringe on our national sovereignty.

You can listen to Sen. Inhofe’s remarks here.

You can watch the video of his remarks here.


Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

CBO Report Shows ObamaCare Raises Premiums

December 3rd, 2009 Mike Gonzalez

Media coverage of the CBO scoring of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care bill left out some of the fine print and heroic assumptions that were in the report. The Heritage Foundation believes they merit your consideration.

Premiums Rise

The media quotes the CBO as saying that ObamaCare would not make premiums rise for people who get their insurance through their job or other groups. This is mostly because millions of people would no longer receive coverage from their employer, and instead would buy insurance in the so-called “non-group” market that sells individual health plans. These would likely be older and sicker Americans.

While this transition could make premiums cheaper for those who would continue to receive health benefits through their workplace, they would likely see higher taxes down the road for subsidies that would be offered to people buying individual insurance, the CBO reports. And the CBO notes that other taxes imposed on medical device manufacturers, insurers and other providers would be passed onto consumers “in the form of higher premiums for private coverage.”

Additionally, the CBO said Sen. Reid’s health care bill would raise premium rates for people who buy it in the so-called “non-group” markets, and these increases would be 10 to 13 percent. So anyone who cites the CBO as saying Americans would not see their premiums jump assumes that employers will not dump their workers into an exchange where people get insurance individually.

There Is a Crowd-Out Effect

And that’s an assumption that goes too far. In fact, the CBO notes that roughly 6.4 million people who have work-based health coverage under the current law would lose it under Sen. Reid’s bill. That’s because some businesses would find it unaffordable to offer health care to their workers under the Reid bill. They’ll opt for paying the $750 fine and dumping their workers onto a health exchange. Many older and sicker employees would likely lose their job-based coverage, even if they like it, according to the CBO. Businesses would push these workers to get their health care in the “non-group” or individual market because it’s cheaper for companies. But as noted above, it’s not a better deal for the individuals.

Younger People Assumed to Fall in Line

At the other end of the spectrum, the CBO analysts make the assumption that younger, healthier workers are going to comply with the “individual mandate” in the bill. That’s the one that forces every American to buy health insurance or pay a fine (a provision whose constitutionality has been and will continue to be questioned). However, these younger workers will look at the option between a much more expensive, mandated health plan — providing benefits they don’t want or need — and a less expensive annual fine and be much more likely to forgo the health insurance plan and pay the fine. As the CBO reports, it’s the younger workers who are the biggest losers in this “reform.”

More from Heritage


Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Writing Under the Influence: A Misguided Missive Against School Choice

December 3rd, 2009 Joe Brichacek and Chuck Donovan

Opponents of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program have been losing the war of public opinion since last February when President Barack Obama and the Democrats on Capitol Hill voted to phase out the program. Even liberal political pundits like MSNBC’s Chris Mathews have expressed their outrage over the decision to deny thousands of families in Washington the opportunity to choose a safe and effective school for their children.

Opponents of the scholarships have used every reason they can muster to defend their position.

They argued that the program doesn’t work, despite the fact that the Department of Education released a report earlier this year finding that a student who enters the DCOSP in kindergarten will graduate high school reading two grade levels above their peers in the D.C. Public Schools.

They argued that the local government doesn’t want the program to continue, which is also false. A majority of the D.C. City Council supports the program.

They argue cost, but it’s actually cheaper to educate a child through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. The $7,500 voucher is half the amount spent per pupil by the D.C. Public Schools. Also, the taxpayers of D.C. overwhelmingly support the program. A poll conducted over the summer found that seven of 10 D.C. residents support continuation of the program.

Just when it seemed all the reasons to oppose the program were exhausted, D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells and D.C. State Board of Education President Lisa Raymond got a little creative over cocktails.

The Washington Examiner reports:

At a cocktail party on Capitol Hill a week or so ago, D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells found himself chatting with Lisa Raymond, president of the D.C. State Board of Education… When he was on the school board, he had lobbied against vouchers. But when he saw that many poor kids were actually thriving in private schools, he considered organizing the council in favor of vouchers. D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and the teachers unions hammered him. His discussion with Raymond sealed the deal, especially when she pointed out that federal funds were going to religious schools, many Catholic, that she argues discriminate against gays and lesbians.

After getting roughed up by Delegate Norton and the teachers unions, Wells decided to flip back and oppose the DCOSP, calling the program “discriminatory.” According to the Washington Post, Wells and Raymond sent a letter to Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) this week claiming that because Catholic institutions do not “provide employee benefits to same-sex spouses,” public funds should not go to their schools (879 of D.C.’s approximately 1,700 vouchers go to the city’s Catholic schools).

The Wells-Raymond letter is likely to be seen by both sides in the debate over the opportunity scholarships as an unwelcome attempt to inject another issue, with attendant religious tension, into a debate that has focused thus far on the well-being of students, whose parents make the choice among public schools, charter schools, and private schools of various kinds. It would be ironic as well if the debate over the definition of traditional marriage, which has included assertions that a redefinition will not hurt existing marriages, instead negatively impacted existing parental choices in education.

Still more disconcerting is the idea that Congress might be persuaded to agree to discriminate against low-income families (the DCOPS enrolls children from families with earnings at or below 185 percent of poverty) by limiting their choices in a demonstrably effective program. As Senator Durbin and others weigh the future of parental choice in education in the nation’s capital, that is the grievous form of discrimination on which they should focus and not on Wells and Raymond’s misguided missive after aperitifs.

To learn more about the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, watch the Heritage Foundation’s new documentary, Let Me Rise: The Struggle to Save School Choice in the Nation’s Capital at www.VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org.


Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Video: Obamacare is Not a Good Fit for Women

November 27th, 2009 Gerrit Lansing

Click here to view the embedded video.

First Lady Michelle Obama’s video on health care reform raises important issues about female patients who are falling through the cracks of the U.S. health care system. It’s not a perfect system, but Nina Owcharenko explains that ObamaCare would take women and the rest of the country in the wrong direction. Having to depend on politicians or faceless bureaucrats to make decisions about their care doesn’t empower women or improve their health care situations. Plus, the Obama health reform agenda isn’t what women want. A majority of female respondents told the Independent Women’s Forum in a recent survey that they don’t think government-run health care is best for them or their families.


Rating: 2.5/5 (2 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Senate Votes Obamacare One Step Closer to the Finish Line

November 21st, 2009 Brian Darling

The Senate voted on Saturday by a 60-39 majority to commence debate on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s bill that would radically expand government control over private health care decisions. The bill is over 2000 pages long, costs an estimated $2.5 trillion over the first ten years of implementation and carries a half trillion dollars in new taxes. Many Americans have to be thinking right now — they have heard from their dissenting constituents at Town Hall meetings and have seen the poll numbers for Obama’s health care bill dropping like a rock so why would they keep moving this bill forward?

This debate will center around many issues including huge taxes increases, economy-killing employer mandates and:

1. Abortion: Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) offered an amendment to the House bill to ban all federal funds flowing into the health care system from funding abortion. Senator Reid put language in the bill that allows some funds to go to abortion services by using an accounting gimmick. This issue could take the bill down, because the House approach is far different from the Senate approach. If this bill becomes a referendum on abortion policy, it may fail.

2. Cost: Senator Reid has promoted his bill as costing the federal government $849 billion and as a budget cutting bill. Conservatives in the Senate have pointed out that the costs are more accurately $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years of implementation because the benefits are not even scheduled to be paid out until 2014. There is a huge disparity between the two sides as to the cost of the bill and if it gets bigger and bigger on the Senate floor, then it may suffer a legislative implosion.

3. The Public Plan: Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) has pledged to support a filibuster of any bill containing the public option. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) will only accept a public option with a trigger. Other Senators have expressed reservations about different permutations of the public option. A bill with a too strong public option may not have the support to pass the Senate.

4. Wild Card: As with all these debates, there may be an issue that comes out of the blue and becomes central to the bill. There were debates over “death panels” during initial stages of the debates and controversies over coverage for illegal immigrants. Some other issue may be offered as an amendment or may be buried in the 2000 pages of the bill that may become the next controversy to prevent passage.

The week after Thanksgiving, the Senate will start the process of considering and voting on amendments to the bill. This process may go in one of two directions. It is possible that Reid uses the amendment process to buy just enough votes to pass the bill through targeted special interest amendments. Expect Connecticut, Nebraska, Arkansas, and, yet again, Louisiana to receive special treatment in the amendment process. If Senator Reid is able to buy support during this process, the bill will pass and the President will sign Obamacare before his State of the Union.

Scenario two kicks in if opponents of the bill play hardball. If opposing Senators offer non-germane amendments, like the legislation to restore the 2nd Amendment in the District of Columbia or a resolution of disapproval for Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to try Kahlid Sheik Mohammed in federal courts, then the Senate would be mixing some volatile issues into the health care mix. Regardless the course of action, this bill will either pass or fail as a direct result of the actions of a handful of Senators.

Read more about the five major flaws of Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care bill here and at FixHealthCarePolicy.org.


Rating: 2.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Comparing Senate Democrats Health Care Reform Bill to HCR Bill Passed by House

November 20th, 2009 Tax Foundation - Tax Foundation's "Tax Policy Blog"

Late Wednesday night, the Congressional Budget Office released its report on the proposed piece of legislation: the gross price tag for the coverage provisions is $848 billion. It would cut the deficit by $130 billion if fully enacted, according to CBO estimates. The main financing mechanisms would be cuts to Medicare, a new excise tax on high-valued Cadillac health insurance plans, a 1/2 percentage point increase in the Medicare tax rate for high-income earners, and various tax hikes imposed on the health care sector including fees on manufacturers and insurance companies.

Meanwhile, the CBO has released an update to its estimate of the House health care bill that passed two weeks ago. That House health care reform bills financing differs from the version outlined by Senate leadership. In addition to the House bill having a larger gross price tag (over $1 trillion), the House bill is financed largely via a surtax on high-income taxpayers, which the Senate bill does not include. Furthermore, the House bill has more cuts to Medicare than the Senate bill, although the Senate bill does cut more non-Medicare spending than the House bill.

For a pie chart comparison of how the two bills are financed, click here for the Senate bill and click here for the House bill. The table below also presents the data that is in the pie chart.

Note that all figures are from the most recent CBO scores of the two bills. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Financing Mechanism Senate Bill
(as proposed by Reid)
House Bill
(as passed by the House)
     
Medicare Cuts to Providers (Net) $331 billion $440 billion
Other Health Care Spending Cuts (Net) $150 billion $14 billion
Surtax on high-income taxpayers $0 $460 billion
Excise Tax on Cadillac Plans $149 billion $0
Fees/Taxes on Medical Devices, Manufacturers & Insurers $102 billion $22 billion
Penalties on Individuals/Businesses for no insurance $36 billion $168 billion
Other Taxes and Revenues $156 billion $88 billion
Increase in Medicare Tax Rate for high-wage earners $54 billion $0
     
Gross Price Tag $848 billion $1,052 billion
Deficit Reduction $130 billion $138 billion

More from the Tax Foundation


Rating: 1.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Health Care Hoops

November 19th, 2009 Billy Hallowell

CMPI had released another excellent health care video.  See how a simply game of hoops compares to the ones youll be jumping through once the government takes over the American health care system:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video


Rating: 2.8/5 (5 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!

Global Warming Ate My Homework: 100 Things Blamed on Global Warming

November 17th, 2009 Nick Loris

Late for a party? Miss a meeting? Forget to pay your rent? Blame climate change; everyone else is doing it. From an increase in severe acne to all societal collapses since the beginning of time, just about everything gone wrong in the world today can be attributed to climate change. Here’s a list of 100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem.

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe

And the list goes on. The truth is climate change is causing some of these events, but the earth’s average temperature has been increasing and decreasing since the beginning of time. Maybe the increase in UFO sightings can’t be pinpointed to climate change but certainly animals will adapt to new habitats as the climate changes. But climate change and adaptation to it is nothing new. There’s an underlying assumption that human activity is causing the climate to change in many of these stories, but the scientific consensus on what causes climate change is anything but a consensus. Temperatures have risen and fallen many times before and the earth was cooling as recently as the period from the 1940s to the 1970s giving rise to fears of a coming ice age:

“At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

The other implication of this list is that a reduction in Co2 with cap and trade policies like Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry will cure problems as disparate as hurricanes, wars, crime, hunger and…cow infertility. The problem is that no one can actually claim that a reduction of Co2 will prevent these occurrences; one can only speculate that they will be worse in a world that has more rather than less Co2. Given cap and trade’s massive economic consequences and negligible effects on the earth’s temperature, this is a bold and potentially very costly speculation.

Katie Brown co-authored this post.

More from the Heritage Foundation


Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Did you enjoy this article? If so, please subscribe to my blog!