My latest post on Big Government looks at the HCFA which was featured at CPAC by Dr. Eric Novack:
Leave a commentThe Conservative Political Action Conference isn’t all fiery speeches and political red meat. Following the rousing speech by Rep. Mike Pence on Friday, a much more subdued presentation by Dr. Eric Novack described the efforts of states to pass a version of the Health Care Freedom Act, which I previously discussed here. Much has happened since I last talked about the efforts of states to protect individual health care rights.
Print This Post
Matt Yglesias is upset and considers America to be “ungovernable” because Obama can’t just wave his hand and have his agenda pass without opposition:
We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.
No, it doesn’t. What we have is a system that protects itself from the whims of fanciful, but ill-considered change.
The guardian has also taken up the cause of whining about America’s “broken” system, which just refuses to allow the immediate and thoughtless adoption of a sweeping, radical agenda.
This is not Latin America, where any colorful demagogue can rise to power and immediately reshape an entire nation in his imagine. Where Matt Yglesias and the hard-left see a bug, those more concerned about the nature of American democracy than the ability to ram through radical legislation see a feature.
The Senate is the only body in the government which protects minority rights from the trampling of the majority. It was designed specifically for that purpose, and although the nature of how it does so has changed, it continues to serve that purpose today. We should not undo our governing model on the basis of the dictatorial impulses of Matt Yglesias.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Just as Massachusetts Democrats played political games surrounding a potential appointment following Ted Kennedy’s death, so too are New Jersey Democrats seeking to alter the rules now that there is a Republican governor.
Concerned that Governor Christie might get an opportunity to replace 85 year-old Frank Lautenberg with a Republican should he step down or pass away, New Jersey Democrats want to change the rules and require the Governor to appoint someone from the same party if a vacancy opens.
Is there no limit to the depths to which they are willing to sink in the name of rank partisanship? The rules should not change every time the party dynamic does. They best way to handle vacancies should be adopted and left alone, not changed every time Democrats want to maximize their partisan advantage.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Michelle Malkin is collecting a list of bribes for wayward Democrats in need of “convincing” to vote for Harry Reid’s so-called health care reform legislation. The bribes include $100 million for the vote of Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Two-hundred and nineteen Democrats and a single Republican voted to pass the health care monstrosity PelosiCare. The Republican was Anh “Joseph” Cao, recently elected to fill William “Frozen Money” Jefferson’s seat. He’s one of the most liberal Republicans in the House in a very blue district. So there isn’t much point getting worked up over his vote, beyond the amusement of listening to the spinners claim use it to claim bipartisanship.
The real bipartisan vote was the opposition, where 39 Democrats defected to oppose the bill. But let’s not kid ourselves, many (like Dennis Kucinich) did it because they think it didn’t offer enough socialism.
All is not lost. Like cap-and-trade has been to date, PelosiCare will likely get bogged down in the Senate. There’s also reason to believe that the House coalition won’t be sustainable if it passes the Senate and returns following reconciliation. It is imperative we keep the pressure on. They must know that there will be costs for destroying American health care, economic prosperity and our general liberties.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Since Congressional Democrats refuse to do it, Republicans have scheduled a reading of H.R. 3962 from 2:00 to 6:00 PM EST this afternoon. You can catch it live here.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Weighing in at 1990 pages, the latest health care legislation (H.R. 3962) is a familiar collection of big government policies. Misleadingly touted by Democrats and media as costing $894 billion, the bill is actually “a $725 billion tax increase and a $1.5 trillion spending program,” according to Jim Capretta. CBO once again warns that its analysis is colored by rosy and politically unlikely assumptions, rendering it highly unlikely that the deficit reductions they find will actually materialize.
The bill contains a plethora of tax increases, which is reflected by its language. Words like “taxes,” “fee,” and “penalty” are sprinkled liberally throughout. Americans for Tax Reform counts 13 new taxes or increases, including an employer mandate and excise taxes on medical devices.
The only thing this massive tome of big government liberalism doesn’t have is any actual policy to help bring down costs or make health care more responsive to consumers.
2 comments Print This Post
Read the latest health-care inspired assault on trees, introduced by The Dingus, here.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I had to put this together real quick for work, but it makes sense to share it here as well. The information is not particularly timely, as it’s all a couple of weeks old.
Cost Estimates
On October 7th the CBO released their analysis of the Chairman’s mark of America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009. The analysis was based on “the specifications posted on the committee’s Web site on October 2, 2009, corrections posted on October 5, and additional clarifications provided by the staff of the committee through October 6.” The actual legislative language (S. 1796) has only recently been released and thus has not yet been scored.
Based on the Chairman’s mark, CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation found a gross cost of $829 billion over 2010-2019 for its “credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers.” These costs would be offset by $201 billion in revenues from an excise tax on “Cadillac” plans, and another $710 billion in various other spending changes and cuts. The net 10 year deficit impact would be a reduction of $81 billion. The 10 year projection is somewhat skewed by an apples-to-oranges comparison where proposed tax increases and spending cuts would begin immediately, while the new expenditures and benefits would be delayed for 3 years.
CBO heavily qualifies this analysis, pointing out that the mark, which might not even survive the process of being operationalized into legislative language, included questionable assumptions which CBO had to accept. Specifically they note, “These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments… The long-term budgetary impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed or not fully implemented.”
Critics point out that legislative history suggests these reductions will never be allowed. Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute notes that, “the bill assumes that Congress will implement a 21% reduction in Medicare payments that is already scheduled under current law. The only problem is that Congress has been supposed to make those reductions since 2003 — and never has. There is no reason to believe it will do so this time either.”
The CBO estimate only looked at the costs imposed by the expansion of health insurance coverage. Economist Donald Marron finds that in addition to these costs, the bill includes $75 billion in additional spending, like the almost $21 billion for expanding the Medicare drug benefit. Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute points out an additional $33 billion in unfunded mandates placed on the states. He also notes that in Massachusetts, costs imposed on the private sector, omitted by CBO, accounted for almost 60% of the total cost. Using this figure he calculates that the real cost of the Baucus bill could be over $2 trillion.
Tax Increases
The largest tax increase comes in the form of a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans that offer individual benefits in excess of $8,000, or family benefits of $21,000. The plan also includes an effective tax as high as $5.4 billion per year companies producing medical devices. This amounts to an excise tax on items like powered wheelchairs, pacemakers and prosthetic limbs. A similar tax, euphemistically referred to as an “annual fee,” is levied on the pharmaceutical industry. The effective tax on drug manufacturers could be as high as $3.1 billion per year.
Other proposed changes to the tax code will amount to tax increases for many individuals. The limit on employer-sponsored tax-free flexible spending accounts would be reduced from $5,000 to $2,000, while payroll taxes would be increased. Those with high out-of-pocket health expenses would see an increase as the threshold necessary for tax deductible medical expenses would be raised from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of gross income. Only about half of households would qualify for the subsidies paid for by these taxes.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Government interventionist used the pretense that some organizations are “too big to fail” to justify unpopular corporate giveaways euphemistically referred to as “bailouts.” Now they’re taking this same false premise and using it to lay the groundwork for socialism.
The New York Times manages to reach a new low by trying to paint this unprecedented government takeover of industry as the moderate choice. The article cites no one who questions the premise and interventionist assumptions, and instead finds only critics who say this isn’t enough. They are the new fifth column.
Congress and the Obama administration are about to take up one of the most fundamental issues stemming from the near collapse of the financial system last year — how to deal with institutions that are so big that the government has no choice but to rescue them when they get in trouble.
A senior administration official said on Sunday that after extensive consultations with Treasury Department officials, Representative Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, would introduce legislation as early as this week. The measure would make it easier for the government to seize control of troubled financial institutions, throw out management, wipe out the shareholders and change the terms of existing loans held by the institution.
What is the plan for when government is too big to succeed? We need to make it easier for the people to seize control of troubled governmental institutions, throw out elected officials, wipe out the bloated bureaucracy and change the terms of existing laws designed to benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science and work in public policy, but please don't hold that against me.
