The Congressional Budget Office on Friday released its analysis of President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal and found it does less to rein in deficits and the debt than the administration had estimated.
CBO estimates Obama's plan would produce 10 years of deficits totaling $9.5 trillion. By 2021, it would increase the debt held by the public to 87 percent of gross domestic product.
The administration, using different methods, estimated budget deficits would total $7.2 trillion over the next 10 years under the 2012 budget. It forecast that total debt in 2021 would be 77 percent of GDP.
Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Federal Government. Show all posts
Friday, March 18, 2011
Time to tackle regulatory reform
On the classic TV show “Star Trek,” space was the “final frontier.” In the political world, it’s the byzantine world of the federal regulatory agencies that is the final frontier. While we struggle with health care reform, energy reform and entitlement reform, no reform may be more critical to the health of our country than regulatory reform.
The truth is that we will never be able to successfully reform our health care system — or our energy and environmental policy, or entitlements, or education or, quite frankly, to tackle any other challenge facing this country — until we begin the difficult process of regulatory reform.
When it comes to health care reform, patients, providers, insurance companies and employers all face a tangled web of new and ever-changing regulations as a result of the passage of Obamacare. Some business owners, confused and frustrated, are openly talking about just paying the fines for noncompliance. They are making the business decision that noncompliance might be easier than trying to comply with the new regulations.
While the health care regulations have left the relevant players confused, regulations in the energy and environmental arena have not just created confusion; they have become a bureaucratic dead end. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and energy prices have increased dramatically, as a result of inaction by regulatory agencies charged with overseeing energy exploration.
The truth is that, intertwined in almost every major challenge we face is a complex bureaucracy — a bureaucracy that often undermines well-intended efforts to reform whatever sector that agency oversees.
This is an important first step. Few know more about the unintended, and too often job-killing, consequences of the regulatory bureaucracy than the folks who deal with these agencies every day.
Read More
The truth is that we will never be able to successfully reform our health care system — or our energy and environmental policy, or entitlements, or education or, quite frankly, to tackle any other challenge facing this country — until we begin the difficult process of regulatory reform.
When it comes to health care reform, patients, providers, insurance companies and employers all face a tangled web of new and ever-changing regulations as a result of the passage of Obamacare. Some business owners, confused and frustrated, are openly talking about just paying the fines for noncompliance. They are making the business decision that noncompliance might be easier than trying to comply with the new regulations.
While the health care regulations have left the relevant players confused, regulations in the energy and environmental arena have not just created confusion; they have become a bureaucratic dead end. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and energy prices have increased dramatically, as a result of inaction by regulatory agencies charged with overseeing energy exploration.
The truth is that, intertwined in almost every major challenge we face is a complex bureaucracy — a bureaucracy that often undermines well-intended efforts to reform whatever sector that agency oversees.
This is an important first step. Few know more about the unintended, and too often job-killing, consequences of the regulatory bureaucracy than the folks who deal with these agencies every day.
Read More
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Letter to the Editor: TEA Party movement falling prey to lack of organization, power hungry leadership and political prostitution
BY: Roy Hollingsworth
With the taste of victory experienced by the TEA Party in the last elections came a false sense of power for some. As a loose confederation of like-minded individuals mad about government spending and overreach, the group found it easy to affect the political conversation. I was one of that number. But the details of policy are proving to be a little messier. The same group that railed at the audacity of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s flaunting of House rules to push her big government agenda have no problem demanding that Republican’s now do the same.
The current argument between House leadership and TEA Party activist’s swirls around that stalwart of publicity, Michelle Bachmann; the geographically challenged representative from Minnesota. Mrs. Bachmann has packaged herself as the TEA Party leader in the House by doing little more than grandstanding for political points. She, along with Representative Steve King, wants to add language to the current Continuing Resolution (CR) that will strip funding for Obama care from the federal budget.
Here’s the rub: The CR temporary spending bill is an appropriation bill, not an authorization bill. And you cannot take away "authorized" money on an appropriations bill without playing Pelosi style loose and goosey with the rules. If the TEA Party is about principle, then we should stick to that principle. If it’s now about winning at all costs, then some of our self-described patriots have shown themselves to be dupes at Bachmann’s self-constructed alter. I want no part of that.
Furthermore, many of the King/Bachmann supporters say they are willing to force a government shutdown over the whole affair. The shutdown would effectively slow government spending, but it wouldn’t cut government spending. And the House leadership is on track to do that across a large swath of federal agencies by passing CR’s, allowing for comprehensive reductions back to 2008 funding levels. This tactic not only follows the House rules, it puts our federal government back on a path to sustainable spending. We need not cut off our nose to spite our face. These problems didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved in a week.
This lack of forward thinking by the TEA party “leadership” illustrates how the movement is coming apart at the seams. One of the latest state-wide leadership meetings attracted only a handful of people. Many Mississippians still identify with the basic TEA Party message of less spending and less government. But, I have spoken with a number of TEA Party members who believe that overzealous behavior and a lack of education with respect to process is exacting a price. The “cry wolf syndrome” without first studying all aspects and angles of an issue is pushing away many previously active members of the group. The members I have spoken with say current leadership seems to have allowed the new found power to go their head, as they begin to make decisions without consulting rank and file members.
TEA Party leaders continue to tout the organizations numbers for obvious reasons. But, the latest episodes show the gloss is wearing thin. The “mad as hell” antics are getting tired. It is time for the TEA Party to get serious about educating itself if it hopes to remain a force in politics. Launching an arm of the group that focuses on development of policy, procedure, and how to disseminate that information to members would be a good start. Until the TEA Party rank and file can have calm, considerate and informed discussions with public officials, we are ripe for the picking for state and national opportunists and personalities, and we will continue to fall prey to political prostitution.
With the taste of victory experienced by the TEA Party in the last elections came a false sense of power for some. As a loose confederation of like-minded individuals mad about government spending and overreach, the group found it easy to affect the political conversation. I was one of that number. But the details of policy are proving to be a little messier. The same group that railed at the audacity of then Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s flaunting of House rules to push her big government agenda have no problem demanding that Republican’s now do the same.
The current argument between House leadership and TEA Party activist’s swirls around that stalwart of publicity, Michelle Bachmann; the geographically challenged representative from Minnesota. Mrs. Bachmann has packaged herself as the TEA Party leader in the House by doing little more than grandstanding for political points. She, along with Representative Steve King, wants to add language to the current Continuing Resolution (CR) that will strip funding for Obama care from the federal budget.
Here’s the rub: The CR temporary spending bill is an appropriation bill, not an authorization bill. And you cannot take away "authorized" money on an appropriations bill without playing Pelosi style loose and goosey with the rules. If the TEA Party is about principle, then we should stick to that principle. If it’s now about winning at all costs, then some of our self-described patriots have shown themselves to be dupes at Bachmann’s self-constructed alter. I want no part of that.
Furthermore, many of the King/Bachmann supporters say they are willing to force a government shutdown over the whole affair. The shutdown would effectively slow government spending, but it wouldn’t cut government spending. And the House leadership is on track to do that across a large swath of federal agencies by passing CR’s, allowing for comprehensive reductions back to 2008 funding levels. This tactic not only follows the House rules, it puts our federal government back on a path to sustainable spending. We need not cut off our nose to spite our face. These problems didn’t happen overnight, and they won’t be solved in a week.
This lack of forward thinking by the TEA party “leadership” illustrates how the movement is coming apart at the seams. One of the latest state-wide leadership meetings attracted only a handful of people. Many Mississippians still identify with the basic TEA Party message of less spending and less government. But, I have spoken with a number of TEA Party members who believe that overzealous behavior and a lack of education with respect to process is exacting a price. The “cry wolf syndrome” without first studying all aspects and angles of an issue is pushing away many previously active members of the group. The members I have spoken with say current leadership seems to have allowed the new found power to go their head, as they begin to make decisions without consulting rank and file members.
TEA Party leaders continue to tout the organizations numbers for obvious reasons. But, the latest episodes show the gloss is wearing thin. The “mad as hell” antics are getting tired. It is time for the TEA Party to get serious about educating itself if it hopes to remain a force in politics. Launching an arm of the group that focuses on development of policy, procedure, and how to disseminate that information to members would be a good start. Until the TEA Party rank and file can have calm, considerate and informed discussions with public officials, we are ripe for the picking for state and national opportunists and personalities, and we will continue to fall prey to political prostitution.
TEA Party wants it all and they want it now despite not being sure how to get it.
Bring on the Big Stuff, Republicans
Not even the craftiest incrementalism is going to cut it with tea party types. They're still mad as hell and now griping as much about GOP leaders as they did last year about Obama.
Where's the big stuff -- such as switching Medicare to a voucher system for private insurance and raising the retirement age for Social Security? Oh there it is, lurking backstage in the planning for next year's budget.
What about blasting entire agencies, like EPA, out of the water? Or defunding NPR? This is the sort of stuff that warms the cups of your tea parties.
High Noon in April
Republican chiefs on Capitol Hill get to crunch time in about a month, when the Treasury Department loses its borrowing authority if the debt ceiling is not raised. So far, GOP leaders have claimed they would not back more borrowing unless "meaningful" cuts are made.
An undefined standard like that allows plenty of running room to trim fat and call it meaningful -- except with tea party folks, who will accept nothing less than cutting bone.
Time is running out for Republicans who privately call themselves the party's "adults." They are facing a very public split with the kids.
Not even the craftiest incrementalism is going to cut it with tea party types. They're still mad as hell and now griping as much about GOP leaders as they did last year about Obama.
Where's the big stuff -- such as switching Medicare to a voucher system for private insurance and raising the retirement age for Social Security? Oh there it is, lurking backstage in the planning for next year's budget.
What about blasting entire agencies, like EPA, out of the water? Or defunding NPR? This is the sort of stuff that warms the cups of your tea parties.
High Noon in April
Republican chiefs on Capitol Hill get to crunch time in about a month, when the Treasury Department loses its borrowing authority if the debt ceiling is not raised. So far, GOP leaders have claimed they would not back more borrowing unless "meaningful" cuts are made.
An undefined standard like that allows plenty of running room to trim fat and call it meaningful -- except with tea party folks, who will accept nothing less than cutting bone.
Time is running out for Republicans who privately call themselves the party's "adults." They are facing a very public split with the kids.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
House Hearings over federal pay could get testy.
Federal pay and benefits back in the spotlight
The Republican-led House is scheduled to hold its first hearing today on the compensation of federal employees, pitting the Obama administration and federal worker union leaders against conservative fiscal experts armed with detailed reports suggesting federal employees are paid too generously when compared to private sector workers.
The hearing comes as state governments are working to overhaul public pension plans and scrap collective bargaining rights for state workers and as Republican continue introducing proposals to curtail federal pay and the workforce. Among the bills, some GOP lawmakers hope to cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, implement a two-week furlough of most workers, freeze some pay raises, fire tax-delinquent feds, prohibit federal retirees from earning workers compensation payments and cut the pay for overseas diplomats.
Wednesday's hearing is the first of several House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meetings on these issues that are also likely to serve as tutorials for freshmen members less familiar with the complexities of the federal personnel system.
Disagreements are likely to begin today with Rep. Dennis Ross's opening statement. The Florida Republican, chairman of the subcommittee on the federal workforce, suggests that federal employees earned an average $101,628 in total compensation in 2010 -- nearly four times the average private sector salary.
According to his opening statement, Ross combines the Office of Personnel Management average 2010 federal salary ($74,311) with statistics suggesting the government pays 36 percent of employees' base pay health insurance and pension benefits, plus the financial value of the government's "generous" paid leave system.
Those figures are sure to irk OPM Director John Berry and National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen M. Kelley, two of the scheduled witnesses who have spoken in defense of federal salary levels before. The others witnesses are Partnership for Public Service CEO Max Stier -- a relatively neutral, nonpartisan, well-quoted expert on the issue -- and American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew G. Biggs and Heritage Foundation labor policy expert James Sherk -- who've penned detailed studies on the size and scope of the federal pay and benefits system.
The Republican-led House is scheduled to hold its first hearing today on the compensation of federal employees, pitting the Obama administration and federal worker union leaders against conservative fiscal experts armed with detailed reports suggesting federal employees are paid too generously when compared to private sector workers.
The hearing comes as state governments are working to overhaul public pension plans and scrap collective bargaining rights for state workers and as Republican continue introducing proposals to curtail federal pay and the workforce. Among the bills, some GOP lawmakers hope to cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, implement a two-week furlough of most workers, freeze some pay raises, fire tax-delinquent feds, prohibit federal retirees from earning workers compensation payments and cut the pay for overseas diplomats.
Wednesday's hearing is the first of several House Oversight and Government Reform Committee meetings on these issues that are also likely to serve as tutorials for freshmen members less familiar with the complexities of the federal personnel system.
Disagreements are likely to begin today with Rep. Dennis Ross's opening statement. The Florida Republican, chairman of the subcommittee on the federal workforce, suggests that federal employees earned an average $101,628 in total compensation in 2010 -- nearly four times the average private sector salary.
According to his opening statement, Ross combines the Office of Personnel Management average 2010 federal salary ($74,311) with statistics suggesting the government pays 36 percent of employees' base pay health insurance and pension benefits, plus the financial value of the government's "generous" paid leave system.
Those figures are sure to irk OPM Director John Berry and National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen M. Kelley, two of the scheduled witnesses who have spoken in defense of federal salary levels before. The others witnesses are Partnership for Public Service CEO Max Stier -- a relatively neutral, nonpartisan, well-quoted expert on the issue -- and American Enterprise Institute scholar Andrew G. Biggs and Heritage Foundation labor policy expert James Sherk -- who've penned detailed studies on the size and scope of the federal pay and benefits system.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Update: Senator Lugar of Indiana changes his tune on House spending cuts bill in the Senate
Update: GOP Sen. Lugar says he'll support House Republican spending cuts
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who faces a Tea Party-backed challenge in his 2012 primary, has withdrawn his stated opposition to House-passed spending cuts.
Lugar said Tuesday afternoon that he made a mistake when he told reporters earlier in the day that he would oppose H.R. 1, the House GOP plan to cut an additional $57 billion from the 2011 budget.
“I’m going to vote with the Republicans on the issue when H.R. 1 comes up,” Lugar said. “If it’s strictly an affirmative vote, I will be for H.R. 1 because all the Republicans will be voting for H.R. 1.”
Lugar said he does not like the “formulation” of the spending cuts passed by the House and would like Congress to go even further to cut the deficit.
Republican Sen. Lugar to oppose House GOP's $61B spending cuts
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the most senior member of the Senate Republican conference, said Tuesday he will oppose the House-passed proposal to make drastic cuts to the federal budget.
He is the first Senate Republican to publicly state his opposition to a plan that Democrats have blasted as “reckless.”
Lugar, who is facing a Tea Party-backed challenge in the 2012 Indiana Republican primary, is taking a political risk. But he and other centrist Republicans have concerns about steep spending cuts that will eliminate funding for some federal programs in mid-year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pledged to schedule an up-or-down vote on the House-passed plan to put centrists on the record about whether they support it or not.
“The plan the Tea Party pushed through the House is an irresponsible plan,” Reid said Tuesday. “It’s a reckless plan. It’s dangerous for the health of our economy and certainly the citizens of our great country.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has criticized cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that benefits many constituents in his home state, where the temperature plummets in the wintertime.
The House bill would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood. It would also cut substantially from the federal nutrition program for women, children and infants.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who faces a Tea Party-backed challenge in his 2012 primary, has withdrawn his stated opposition to House-passed spending cuts.
Lugar said Tuesday afternoon that he made a mistake when he told reporters earlier in the day that he would oppose H.R. 1, the House GOP plan to cut an additional $57 billion from the 2011 budget.
“I’m going to vote with the Republicans on the issue when H.R. 1 comes up,” Lugar said. “If it’s strictly an affirmative vote, I will be for H.R. 1 because all the Republicans will be voting for H.R. 1.”
Lugar said he does not like the “formulation” of the spending cuts passed by the House and would like Congress to go even further to cut the deficit.
Republican Sen. Lugar to oppose House GOP's $61B spending cuts
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the most senior member of the Senate Republican conference, said Tuesday he will oppose the House-passed proposal to make drastic cuts to the federal budget.
He is the first Senate Republican to publicly state his opposition to a plan that Democrats have blasted as “reckless.”
Lugar, who is facing a Tea Party-backed challenge in the 2012 Indiana Republican primary, is taking a political risk. But he and other centrist Republicans have concerns about steep spending cuts that will eliminate funding for some federal programs in mid-year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has pledged to schedule an up-or-down vote on the House-passed plan to put centrists on the record about whether they support it or not.
“The plan the Tea Party pushed through the House is an irresponsible plan,” Reid said Tuesday. “It’s a reckless plan. It’s dangerous for the health of our economy and certainly the citizens of our great country.”
Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) has criticized cuts to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program that benefits many constituents in his home state, where the temperature plummets in the wintertime.
The House bill would eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Planned Parenthood. It would also cut substantially from the federal nutrition program for women, children and infants.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Federal Health and Human Services emails response to Utah instructing them not to use email.
Over Email, Federal Government Tells Utah It Can’t Use Email to Communicate With Medicaid Recipients
Utah officials waited for eight months to find out if the state would be allowed to use e-mail rather than paper to communicate with Medicaid recipients and save $6 million a year, he said.
"They sent us a denial by e-mail," [Utah’s Republican Governor Gary] Herbert said. "The irony is rich." The state is continuing to pursue that Medicaid waiver and several others.
I’m not sure which is more absurd: That HHS said no, or that Utah had to ask in the first place. It’s not particularly surprising, though, given the administration’s overall track record on the issue. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent states a letter earlier this month suggesting ways they could make Medicaid more efficient and less costly. But the administration’s position on the matter essentially comes down to “don’t make cuts; instead, do more with less.” That’s just not a workable solution.
Utah officials waited for eight months to find out if the state would be allowed to use e-mail rather than paper to communicate with Medicaid recipients and save $6 million a year, he said.
"They sent us a denial by e-mail," [Utah’s Republican Governor Gary] Herbert said. "The irony is rich." The state is continuing to pursue that Medicaid waiver and several others.
I’m not sure which is more absurd: That HHS said no, or that Utah had to ask in the first place. It’s not particularly surprising, though, given the administration’s overall track record on the issue. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent states a letter earlier this month suggesting ways they could make Medicaid more efficient and less costly. But the administration’s position on the matter essentially comes down to “don’t make cuts; instead, do more with less.” That’s just not a workable solution.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
House Republicans stumble on Patriot Act Reauthorization
Rank-and-file reject Patriot Act
House Republicans Tuesday night got a harsh introduction to the majority, as more than two dozen rank-and-file GOP lawmakers voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
There was no sign that the leadership saw the setbacks coming. The Patriot Act was moved to the floor under suspension of the rules — a provision that requires two-thirds majority (290 votes) to pass and is often used for noncontroversial legislation. After holding the vote open well past the 15-minute window, it failed 277 to 148 with five Republicans and four Democrats not voting.
Republican leaders will bring the bill back to the floor under a rule, where it will almost certainly secure the 218-vote threshold.
It was a specifically rough patch for Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was the subject of much finger-pointing after the vote, as he is charged with vote-counting. Erica Elliott, spokesman for McCarthy, noted that most House Democrats voted against the bill, “deny[ing] their own administration’s request for key weapons in the war on terror.”
Other Republicans blamed Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) for the debacle. Sensenbrenner is a senior Judiciary Committee Republican.
Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office had no comment on the trade bill or Patriot Act failure. He did not vote, which is somewhat of a tradition for the speaker. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and McCarthy voted for the Patriot Act extension.
The Patriot Act has long been a contentious issue on Capitol Hill. It was passed shortly after Sept. 11 to give the government expanded surveillance powers, while breaking down barriers between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies.
But many — ranging from liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), to libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — have long expressed concerns over the sweeping breadth of the legislation. Kucinich called Tuesday’s vote a “significant defeat,” adding that it will “fuel opposition” to the measure nationwide.
Indeed, many members were concerned about Patriot Act provisions that would allow the government to access medical and business records, GOP sources said.
And a handful of the no-votes were freshmen who felt completely uninformed by their leadership. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), who voted for the bill, said he “didn’t know anything about (the vote) until today.”
Politico
House Republicans Tuesday night got a harsh introduction to the majority, as more than two dozen rank-and-file GOP lawmakers voted against reauthorizing the Patriot Act.
There was no sign that the leadership saw the setbacks coming. The Patriot Act was moved to the floor under suspension of the rules — a provision that requires two-thirds majority (290 votes) to pass and is often used for noncontroversial legislation. After holding the vote open well past the 15-minute window, it failed 277 to 148 with five Republicans and four Democrats not voting.
Republican leaders will bring the bill back to the floor under a rule, where it will almost certainly secure the 218-vote threshold.
It was a specifically rough patch for Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was the subject of much finger-pointing after the vote, as he is charged with vote-counting. Erica Elliott, spokesman for McCarthy, noted that most House Democrats voted against the bill, “deny[ing] their own administration’s request for key weapons in the war on terror.”
Other Republicans blamed Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) for the debacle. Sensenbrenner is a senior Judiciary Committee Republican.
Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office had no comment on the trade bill or Patriot Act failure. He did not vote, which is somewhat of a tradition for the speaker. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and McCarthy voted for the Patriot Act extension.
The Patriot Act has long been a contentious issue on Capitol Hill. It was passed shortly after Sept. 11 to give the government expanded surveillance powers, while breaking down barriers between the CIA, FBI and other intelligence agencies.
But many — ranging from liberals like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), to libertarians like Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) — have long expressed concerns over the sweeping breadth of the legislation. Kucinich called Tuesday’s vote a “significant defeat,” adding that it will “fuel opposition” to the measure nationwide.
Indeed, many members were concerned about Patriot Act provisions that would allow the government to access medical and business records, GOP sources said.
And a handful of the no-votes were freshmen who felt completely uninformed by their leadership. Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.), who voted for the bill, said he “didn’t know anything about (the vote) until today.”
Politico
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Lawmakers celebrate decision to place training mission at Key Field Air Guard Station in Meridian
New Aircraft, Personnel Help Ensure Future for Meridian Military Facility
WASHINGTON, D. C. – U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, with Congressman Gregg Harper, today celebrated the U.S. Air Force decision to locate a new formal training unit at Key Field Air National Guard Base at Meridian.
The Mississippi lawmakers, as well as Governor Haley Barbour and Meridian Mayor Cheri M. Barry, were informed early Wednesday that Key Field had been selected as the Air Force’s “preferred alternative” to host a C-27J formal training unit (FTU) mission.
The decision will bring two additional C-27J aircraft to Meridian, increasing the planned total to six. An estimated 37 full-time employees and 85 trainees annually will be associated with the FTU, bringing the total personnel associated with the C-27J platform to 142 by 2015 when the mission is fully operational.
“I am convinced that the qualities represented in Key Field, the Mississippi Air National Guard and the people of Meridian were instrumental in leading the Defense Department to this decision. This new training mission is a solid indication that Key Field will be a long-term asset to the Air National Guard and the U.S Air Force as Mississippi continues to contribute to our nation’s security,” Cochran said.
“The Air Force’s decision to base this training mission at Key Field is another strong reminder of the importance of Meridian to our military,” said Wicker. “Mississippi’s long history of supporting our Armed Forces proudly continues through the MC-12 and C-27J operations.”
“Gaining the C-27J training mission is a tribute to the men and women of Key Field and their ability to adapt and succeed at any task or mission they are given,” said Harper. “Key Field was evaluated alongside several impressive bases during the Air Force’s site survey process, and I am confident that the base’s past successes and the friendly nature of the people of Meridian influenced the Department of Defense’s decision.”
“Gaining this additional mission has been a long-standing goal for the state,” Governor Barbour said. “Having the C-27J training mission at Key Field is important to Mississippi, as the state continues to play a crucial role in our national defense.”
“We are thrilled that the 186th Air Refueling Wing has been selected as the location for the Air National Guard’s C-27J Flying Training Unit. The city of Meridian is truly grateful for the diligent effort of Senator Cochran, Senator Wicker and Congressman Harper that went into this project,” Mayor Barry said.
In being named the preferred alternative site, Key Field edged out five other sites considered for the tactical transport aircraft training mission, which involves preparing pilots, loadmasters and maintenance crews for C-27J operations. The decision will be finalized pending an environmental impact analysis.
The decision to land the C-27J training mission at Key Field will build on the number of those aircraft located in Meridian. The training mission will add two C-27J aircraft at Key Field, where the Air Force had already decided to base four other C-27Js starting in early FY2012. The Air Force indicated that the two additional C-27J aircraft will be transferred in the third quarter of FY2014, with initial operational capability achieved in late 2014. The new FTU would be fully operational by the third quarter of FY2015.
The Air Force based its decision on criteria that considered airspace, facilities and infrastructure, as well as mission and training requirements.
The Key Field Air National Guard Station is currently home to the 186th Air Refueling Wing. In its 2005 BRAC Recommendations, the Department of Defense decided that by 2012, it would move the 186th Air Refueling Wing’s KC-135R aircraft to Wisconsin, Tennessee and Maine, leaving Key Field without a clear mission. This decision changes that, giving Meridian responsibility for a crucial mission well into the future.
The C-27J is a twin turbo-prop engine aircraft that provides short take-off and landing capabilities that are best suited for the transport of cargo among intra-theater locales.
WASHINGTON, D. C. – U.S. Senators Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, with Congressman Gregg Harper, today celebrated the U.S. Air Force decision to locate a new formal training unit at Key Field Air National Guard Base at Meridian.
The Mississippi lawmakers, as well as Governor Haley Barbour and Meridian Mayor Cheri M. Barry, were informed early Wednesday that Key Field had been selected as the Air Force’s “preferred alternative” to host a C-27J formal training unit (FTU) mission.
The decision will bring two additional C-27J aircraft to Meridian, increasing the planned total to six. An estimated 37 full-time employees and 85 trainees annually will be associated with the FTU, bringing the total personnel associated with the C-27J platform to 142 by 2015 when the mission is fully operational.
“I am convinced that the qualities represented in Key Field, the Mississippi Air National Guard and the people of Meridian were instrumental in leading the Defense Department to this decision. This new training mission is a solid indication that Key Field will be a long-term asset to the Air National Guard and the U.S Air Force as Mississippi continues to contribute to our nation’s security,” Cochran said.
“The Air Force’s decision to base this training mission at Key Field is another strong reminder of the importance of Meridian to our military,” said Wicker. “Mississippi’s long history of supporting our Armed Forces proudly continues through the MC-12 and C-27J operations.”
“Gaining the C-27J training mission is a tribute to the men and women of Key Field and their ability to adapt and succeed at any task or mission they are given,” said Harper. “Key Field was evaluated alongside several impressive bases during the Air Force’s site survey process, and I am confident that the base’s past successes and the friendly nature of the people of Meridian influenced the Department of Defense’s decision.”
“Gaining this additional mission has been a long-standing goal for the state,” Governor Barbour said. “Having the C-27J training mission at Key Field is important to Mississippi, as the state continues to play a crucial role in our national defense.”
“We are thrilled that the 186th Air Refueling Wing has been selected as the location for the Air National Guard’s C-27J Flying Training Unit. The city of Meridian is truly grateful for the diligent effort of Senator Cochran, Senator Wicker and Congressman Harper that went into this project,” Mayor Barry said.
In being named the preferred alternative site, Key Field edged out five other sites considered for the tactical transport aircraft training mission, which involves preparing pilots, loadmasters and maintenance crews for C-27J operations. The decision will be finalized pending an environmental impact analysis.
The decision to land the C-27J training mission at Key Field will build on the number of those aircraft located in Meridian. The training mission will add two C-27J aircraft at Key Field, where the Air Force had already decided to base four other C-27Js starting in early FY2012. The Air Force indicated that the two additional C-27J aircraft will be transferred in the third quarter of FY2014, with initial operational capability achieved in late 2014. The new FTU would be fully operational by the third quarter of FY2015.
The Air Force based its decision on criteria that considered airspace, facilities and infrastructure, as well as mission and training requirements.
The Key Field Air National Guard Station is currently home to the 186th Air Refueling Wing. In its 2005 BRAC Recommendations, the Department of Defense decided that by 2012, it would move the 186th Air Refueling Wing’s KC-135R aircraft to Wisconsin, Tennessee and Maine, leaving Key Field without a clear mission. This decision changes that, giving Meridian responsibility for a crucial mission well into the future.
The C-27J is a twin turbo-prop engine aircraft that provides short take-off and landing capabilities that are best suited for the transport of cargo among intra-theater locales.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Why Obama Caved on the Bush Tax Cuts
By David Paul Kuhn
It's the liberal version of George H.W. Bush reneging on his "read my lips" tax pledge. Candidate Obama excoriated the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But Monday evening, President Obama tentatively agreed to extend those same tax cuts.
Call it compromise or call it caving, the deal will anger the Democratic base. It opens Obama to charges of hypocrisy. Perhaps Obama saw it as a raw deal. But he also likely believes it's the best deal he can get.
This partly comes down to votes. Democrats lack the 60-Senate votes to extend the tax cuts for earnings under $200,000. That left Democrats with two options: expire all or extend all.
Expiration was Obama's worst option. It amounted to bad policy and bad politics. Major tax hikes have a bad record in bad economies. And this economy has struggled to weather smaller headwinds. Democrats would also have to explain to all working Americans, not merely top earners, why their taxes rose in hard times.
Tax hikes have long been a political loser for Democrats. Many liberals argued that Democrats should blame Republicans for obstructing middle class tax cuts to win tax cuts for the rich. But Democrats retain control of Congress and the presidency (for a few more weeks). And they have learned a DC-axiom the hard way: the party that controls Washington accounts for Washington.
Imagine the Bush tax cuts expiring. The conservative Americans for Tax Reform currently have a "Countdown to the Biggest Tax Increase in American History." The most-cogent message wins debates. And Republicans have long had it on taxes.
Timing is another issue. Democrats waited until the eleventh hour to have this debate. Republicans were not going to let Democrats move to the next issue until the tax issue was resolved. This White House still hopes to ratify the new START treaty with Russia as well as end "don't ask, don't tell" this term. Republicans were also unwilling to extend unemployment benefits for about 2 million Americans without extending the tax cuts to the top income bracket. In the game of chicken, Democrats had more to lose. Democrats would also only have a worst hand next year, with a slimmer Senate majority and a Republican House.
The tentative deal was a political win for Republicans. But Obama has a deal he can stand on. If the deal comes to fruition, the package will extend the Bush tax breaks for two years in exchange for an additional 13 months of unemployment benefits. It will also cut payroll taxes to spur hiring.
The package will cost about $900 billion over the next two years. The deal comes only days after the deficit commission report, which urged serious action to combat America's long-term debt problem (or crisis).
Ironies abound. Democrats spent years railing against George W. Bush for not paying for his tax cuts. Democrats are now emulating the very actions they criticized. Republicans have spent two years preaching about the primacy of deficits. The GOP victory however means a tax deal that will likely prove more costly to the deficit than the stimulus package. This bi-partisan compromise is, oddly, politics as usual.
Obama said Monday evening the "framework" for the tax deal "was not perfect." Yet it's conceivable Obama saw an upside to losing this debate.
In Obama's ideal world, he would bolster programs like food stamps or extend the unemployment benefits independent of the tax cut debate. This is liberal orthodoxy. It is also however not without reason.
Consider the math of Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and a past-advisor to both parties. Zandi calculates that every dollar spent on food stamps, for example, has a $1.74 impact on the economy (the money goes entirely to goods). The bang-for-buck for extending unemployment benefit is $1.61 (unemployed spend what little they have to stay afloat). By comparison, Zandi calculates that extending the Bush tax cuts will only have a 32-cent impact on the economy for every dollar (affluent earners feed government coffers but they are also more likely to save their tax cut, and therefore not greatly stimulate growth).
But Obama lacks the coalition to win his ideals. That ship sailed long ago. And Obama's political recovery is tied to the economic recovery. Obama will take what stimulus he can get.
Read More
It's the liberal version of George H.W. Bush reneging on his "read my lips" tax pledge. Candidate Obama excoriated the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. But Monday evening, President Obama tentatively agreed to extend those same tax cuts.
Call it compromise or call it caving, the deal will anger the Democratic base. It opens Obama to charges of hypocrisy. Perhaps Obama saw it as a raw deal. But he also likely believes it's the best deal he can get.
This partly comes down to votes. Democrats lack the 60-Senate votes to extend the tax cuts for earnings under $200,000. That left Democrats with two options: expire all or extend all.
Expiration was Obama's worst option. It amounted to bad policy and bad politics. Major tax hikes have a bad record in bad economies. And this economy has struggled to weather smaller headwinds. Democrats would also have to explain to all working Americans, not merely top earners, why their taxes rose in hard times.
Tax hikes have long been a political loser for Democrats. Many liberals argued that Democrats should blame Republicans for obstructing middle class tax cuts to win tax cuts for the rich. But Democrats retain control of Congress and the presidency (for a few more weeks). And they have learned a DC-axiom the hard way: the party that controls Washington accounts for Washington.
Imagine the Bush tax cuts expiring. The conservative Americans for Tax Reform currently have a "Countdown to the Biggest Tax Increase in American History." The most-cogent message wins debates. And Republicans have long had it on taxes.
Timing is another issue. Democrats waited until the eleventh hour to have this debate. Republicans were not going to let Democrats move to the next issue until the tax issue was resolved. This White House still hopes to ratify the new START treaty with Russia as well as end "don't ask, don't tell" this term. Republicans were also unwilling to extend unemployment benefits for about 2 million Americans without extending the tax cuts to the top income bracket. In the game of chicken, Democrats had more to lose. Democrats would also only have a worst hand next year, with a slimmer Senate majority and a Republican House.
The tentative deal was a political win for Republicans. But Obama has a deal he can stand on. If the deal comes to fruition, the package will extend the Bush tax breaks for two years in exchange for an additional 13 months of unemployment benefits. It will also cut payroll taxes to spur hiring.
The package will cost about $900 billion over the next two years. The deal comes only days after the deficit commission report, which urged serious action to combat America's long-term debt problem (or crisis).
Ironies abound. Democrats spent years railing against George W. Bush for not paying for his tax cuts. Democrats are now emulating the very actions they criticized. Republicans have spent two years preaching about the primacy of deficits. The GOP victory however means a tax deal that will likely prove more costly to the deficit than the stimulus package. This bi-partisan compromise is, oddly, politics as usual.
Obama said Monday evening the "framework" for the tax deal "was not perfect." Yet it's conceivable Obama saw an upside to losing this debate.
In Obama's ideal world, he would bolster programs like food stamps or extend the unemployment benefits independent of the tax cut debate. This is liberal orthodoxy. It is also however not without reason.
Consider the math of Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics and a past-advisor to both parties. Zandi calculates that every dollar spent on food stamps, for example, has a $1.74 impact on the economy (the money goes entirely to goods). The bang-for-buck for extending unemployment benefit is $1.61 (unemployed spend what little they have to stay afloat). By comparison, Zandi calculates that extending the Bush tax cuts will only have a 32-cent impact on the economy for every dollar (affluent earners feed government coffers but they are also more likely to save their tax cut, and therefore not greatly stimulate growth).
But Obama lacks the coalition to win his ideals. That ship sailed long ago. And Obama's political recovery is tied to the economic recovery. Obama will take what stimulus he can get.
Read More
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
CHARLIE MITCHELL: Voters haven’t ‘changed their minds’ about anything
 |
| Mitchell |
Three Mississippians – returning U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper of District 3 along with newly elected Rep. Alan Nunnelee of District 1 and Rep. Steven Palazzo of District 4 – are in the thick of it.
There’s been a shallow but consistent media chorus since midterm elections. The story line has been, “Why did Americans turn against Obama?” and “Why did voters change their minds?”
Bogus questions, both of them. Voters didn’t turn against Obama. And voters certainly have not changed their minds.
Let’s define Middle America as the voters who swing elections. They dwell between the extremes of liberalism and conservatism. Two years ago, Middle America embraced Barack Obama’s rising star and accepted his pledge to be a president for all the people – one who would focus on the economy and bring federal spending under control. (He really did make those pledges.) Middle America also responded to his promise to bring rationality, equity and cost controls to the delivery of health care and to resolve immigration issues, among many other things. Yes, Obama was a “liberal,” but he was solution-oriented. That resonated.
Obama’s rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., called his opponent “naïve,” but Americans not only backed the far more charismatic candidate, they also provided President Obama with clear Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress. Media folk called this a big victory for liberalism. Wrong. It was a big endorsement of problem-solving.
In the two years since, Middle America has not undergone a giant shift in its collective ideology. Only the most simplistic talk show hosts would suggest that has happened. Lefties are still lefties. Righties are still righties. What Middle America wants is solutions.
So what that means is that Republicans – even without control of the White House or the Senate – must either deliver in the next two years or it will be their turn to decide who gets invited to farewell parties.
Within the party itself, there are divisions.
Harper, Nunnelee and Palazzo have aligned with the super-conservative core of the GOP.
Harper, from Pearl, went to Washington at the same time Obama did. Regarding the $787 billion stimulus bill, Harper had a great quote. When trying to get out of a hole, a good first step is to stop digging, he said in voting “no.” He was re-elected to a second term to deliver the same “stop spending” message. (Interestingly, Harper has been chastised for voting against new spending that would have benefitted Mississippi. Nothing like knocking a guy for doing what he said he’d do.)
Nunnelee, from Tupelo, managed Mississippi’s money as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the state Senate. Although he and Palazzo don’t take office until January, Nunnelee is on the record with other incoming House Republicans to stop earmarks immediately. (For the record, Obama also pledged to review earmarks “line by line,” yet has signed off on hundreds.)
The way to make the people happy is to fix what’s broken and fixing what’s broken means crafting legislation that (1) Middle America understands and (2) in which Middle America has confidence.
It’s easier said than done, of course.
But folks need to stop saying voters changed. It’s just not true.
NEMS360
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Laforge: Earmark Moratorium will have NO impact on the federal budget.
Yesterday the Senate Republican conference agreed on a two-year moratorium on earmarks. Republican Leader Mitch McConnell reluctantly changed his position of supporting earmarks, went along with the party’s conservative wing, and embraced the idea of a moratorium, thus ensuring the endorsement of the Republican caucus, and avoiding a bitter and devisive intra-party battle. This is all in reaction to the election and to voter interests in the government, especially the Congress, doing everything possible to reduce spending and get the financial house in order. Congressional Republican leaders feel it is necessary to restore trust in government by the American people.
However, in reality, it is a mere symbolic gesture…a political reaction and a “feel-good” outcome for politicians who believe that they must listen to the American people and do their will on this issue. It will have NO impact on the federal budget. Earmarks are not “new” money. They only direct where the money will be spent. Essentially, they are directives from Congress on how taxpayers’ dollars should be spent, rather than allowing executive branch agencies to make all the decisions. The same amount of dollars will still be on the table and will be spent. The sad difference now is that Congress is abdicating its constitutional responsibility and privilege regarding the power of the purse, and turning over all the decisions to the executive branch. To me, this is very short-sighted. But it is an issue rife with demagoguery and political messaging. Politicians are falling all over themselves trying to outdo their rivals on this issue, so you will note that an unlikely coalition involving the President and congressional Republicans is having a field day with this issue. For many, perception has become reality, and it appears that the moratorium is real, at least for now.
The Senate action by Republicans comes on the heels of similar action by House Republicans earlier this year. It remains to be seen how congressional Democrats in both houses will respond and what they will do next. It is possible that all or some Democrats, and possibly even some Republicans, will continue to request earmarks. Politically I would envision Republicans making any Democratic earmarks a big issue during the next campaign. Hell hath no fury like a reformed earmarker! Only time will tell.
Bill LaForge is an attorney, Washington, D.C. office managing shareholder and Government Relations Practice Group leader with Winstead PC. A Cleveland, Mississippi native, Laforge was chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, and culminated his government career as Chief Legislative Counsel and Chief of Staff to United States Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi.
Tea Party Fuels Born-Again Earmark Opponents
Tuesday's Republican vote on imposing an earmark moratorium was a direct response to the rising influence of Tea Party conservatives in the Senate. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the de facto leader of the Tea Party Senate caucus, said "the significance of this policy victory cannot be overstated" in an e-mail to supporters.
But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.
Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.
"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."
Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.
HL
But a close look at Tuesday's voice vote to impose a non-binding moratorium on earmarks not only showcases the Tea Party's clout in the Senate this year, but its significant influence in GOP primary politics in 2012 and beyond.
Several Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2012 and who have previously sought millions in earmarks reversed course on Tuesday to vote for the measure -- a move for some that was undoubtedly intended to shore up their right flank in 2012. And even newly elected moderate Republican senators, like Illinois' Mark Kirk and New Hampshire's Kelly Ayotte, backed the measure, an indication that the politics of opposing earmarks is now viewed in the GOP as a clear political winner.
"Part of a politician's DNA is to talk out of both sides of their mouths," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, an organization that opposes earmarks. "So it's not surprising that they have put their fingers into the political wind and sensed it has changed directions on earmarks."
Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker (R) is another surprising supporter of the moratorium. A veteran appropriator, Wicker requested $384 million worth of earmarks in 2010, in a state that's relied on federal funds for its military bases and shipyards, among other projects. But he's up for re-election in 2012, and his support of the moratorium is probably with a primary challenger in mind.
HL
Friday, November 5, 2010
How the GOP Can Stop the Spread of Obamacare
Progressive pundits and policy wonks boast that, despite Tuesday's Republican victory in the House, ObamaCare will be very difficult to eradicate. They correctly point out that, to get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), both houses of Congress must pass repeal legislation and that a Democrat filibuster would more than likely forestall any such effort in the Senate. They further point out that President Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill that somehow found its way to his desk, and that there is virtually no chance that his veto would be overridden. All of this is absolutely true. Moreover, the PPACA infection has already been introduced into the health care system and has begun to spread. Nonetheless, when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January, they will still have the ability inoculate us against future outbreaks of this contagion.
The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective -- in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first "universal coverage" law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state's legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That "reform" program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, "DukakisCare" is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.
The many similarities between the DukakisCare and ObamaCare situations have not received any attention in the media, of course, but they have not been lost on everyone. Mike Stopa, who unsuccessfully sought the 2010 Republican congressional nomination for the MA-3 district, offered a PPACA repeal plan whose introduction declared, "[T]he experience of Massachusetts in the late 1980's… serves as a model in our current situation." Indeed it does. Not long after the Dukakis legislation passed, the GOP made significant gains in the state legislature and immediately set about dismantling the bill. There are also parallels in the executive branch. As Stopa put it, "Michael Dukakis passed universal healthcare in 1988 and his term as governor ended in 1990. Barack Obama passed PPACA in 2010 and his term ends in 2012." All of which suggests that the "MA vaccine" could work on ObamaCare.
For the newly empowered GOP, however, the most difficult stage of the vaccination process may be the first -- getting solidly behind the defunding project. Their vociferous denunciations of PPACA notwithstanding, many House Republicans have expressed reservations similar to those of Rep. Paul Ryan: "Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, 'No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things." Similar noises have been heard in the upper chamber. Retiring Senator Judd Gregg recently said, "I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here …"
These and other Republicans are understandably chary of fighting a PR war with the White House. Their shellacking by Bill Clinton in 1995 is still green in their memories. But much has changed since then. Fifteen years ago, the Democrat-friendly "news" media could exert considerable control over the public perception of a battle between Congress and the President. Now, the blogosphere and conservative talk radio can -- and will -- provide an alternate narrative. And the voters who came out in such impressive numbers to repudiate the Democrats are not likely to be patient with a pusillanimous approach on this issue. Most would likely agree with the chairman of DeFundIt.org, who responded thus to Ryan's squeamishness: "[I]t is a policy battle we must fight…. Make no mistake, the conservative base will revolt against a Republican Party that backs down in a funding fight over ObamaCare."
Assuming the Republicans can absorb this reality and summon the courage to face down the President on funding, they can move to the second stage of the vaccination process. In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation. They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment. It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just ... must redistribute wealth."
The third and final stage of the vaccine must, of course, be administered in 2012. The event that enabled Massachusetts legislators to finish off the 1988 universal coverage bill was the replacement of Michael Dukakis with Republican William Weld. The decision, by the former, not to seek reelection in 1990 made that process easier than might otherwise have been the case. Needless to say, Barack Obama is very unlikely to follow the Duke's example. However, if the President stays true to form and refuses to face the reality that the American people do want to "re-litigate" the reform issue, it is at least possible that a good Republican opponent can beat him in the 2012 presidential contest. And Tuesday's big GOP gains in key state houses and legislatures, particularly in crucial battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio, render an Obama defeat even more plausible.
Cynics will argue that, even if Obama can be given the bum's rush in 2012, that doesn't guarantee the success of this three-stage vaccine. And it is certainly true that it didn't permanently inoculate the Bay State from new and more virulent strains of health "reform." But that's hardly an argument for supinely allowing the PPACA to spread or waiting for the Supreme Court to provide a miracle cure. This contagion must be eradicated now. John Boehner was right when he said, "[W]e have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill…" And, if outright repeal isn't possible, then the MA vaccine is the next best alternative.
AS
The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective -- in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first "universal coverage" law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state's legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That "reform" program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, "DukakisCare" is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.
The many similarities between the DukakisCare and ObamaCare situations have not received any attention in the media, of course, but they have not been lost on everyone. Mike Stopa, who unsuccessfully sought the 2010 Republican congressional nomination for the MA-3 district, offered a PPACA repeal plan whose introduction declared, "[T]he experience of Massachusetts in the late 1980's… serves as a model in our current situation." Indeed it does. Not long after the Dukakis legislation passed, the GOP made significant gains in the state legislature and immediately set about dismantling the bill. There are also parallels in the executive branch. As Stopa put it, "Michael Dukakis passed universal healthcare in 1988 and his term as governor ended in 1990. Barack Obama passed PPACA in 2010 and his term ends in 2012." All of which suggests that the "MA vaccine" could work on ObamaCare.
For the newly empowered GOP, however, the most difficult stage of the vaccination process may be the first -- getting solidly behind the defunding project. Their vociferous denunciations of PPACA notwithstanding, many House Republicans have expressed reservations similar to those of Rep. Paul Ryan: "Well, yeah, technically speaking, we can put riders in appropriations bills that say, 'No such funds can go to HHS to do x, y, or z in implementing ObamaCare.' He's gotta sign those things. And he doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would sign those things." Similar noises have been heard in the upper chamber. Retiring Senator Judd Gregg recently said, "I don't think starving or repealing is probably the best approach here …"
These and other Republicans are understandably chary of fighting a PR war with the White House. Their shellacking by Bill Clinton in 1995 is still green in their memories. But much has changed since then. Fifteen years ago, the Democrat-friendly "news" media could exert considerable control over the public perception of a battle between Congress and the President. Now, the blogosphere and conservative talk radio can -- and will -- provide an alternate narrative. And the voters who came out in such impressive numbers to repudiate the Democrats are not likely to be patient with a pusillanimous approach on this issue. Most would likely agree with the chairman of DeFundIt.org, who responded thus to Ryan's squeamishness: "[I]t is a policy battle we must fight…. Make no mistake, the conservative base will revolt against a Republican Party that backs down in a funding fight over ObamaCare."
Assuming the Republicans can absorb this reality and summon the courage to face down the President on funding, they can move to the second stage of the vaccination process. In addition to the power of the purse, the new House majority will also have subpoena power that can be used to delay implementation. They can hold numerous and protracted public hearings, while demanding all manner of documentation from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). They can summon HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to answer questions about her 2009 gag order to insurance companies and her growing reputation as an enemy of the First Amendment. It would also be instructive to hear CMS administrator Donald Berwick to elaborate on statements like, "Any healthcare funding plan that is just ... must redistribute wealth."
The third and final stage of the vaccine must, of course, be administered in 2012. The event that enabled Massachusetts legislators to finish off the 1988 universal coverage bill was the replacement of Michael Dukakis with Republican William Weld. The decision, by the former, not to seek reelection in 1990 made that process easier than might otherwise have been the case. Needless to say, Barack Obama is very unlikely to follow the Duke's example. However, if the President stays true to form and refuses to face the reality that the American people do want to "re-litigate" the reform issue, it is at least possible that a good Republican opponent can beat him in the 2012 presidential contest. And Tuesday's big GOP gains in key state houses and legislatures, particularly in crucial battlegrounds like Pennsylvania and Ohio, render an Obama defeat even more plausible.
Cynics will argue that, even if Obama can be given the bum's rush in 2012, that doesn't guarantee the success of this three-stage vaccine. And it is certainly true that it didn't permanently inoculate the Bay State from new and more virulent strains of health "reform." But that's hardly an argument for supinely allowing the PPACA to spread or waiting for the Supreme Court to provide a miracle cure. This contagion must be eradicated now. John Boehner was right when he said, "[W]e have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill…" And, if outright repeal isn't possible, then the MA vaccine is the next best alternative.
AS
Ole Miss Political Professor says he wants the truth about Obamacare, but . . .
Robert Albritton is a professor of American and comparitive politics at the University of Mississippi. He writes in The Hill's Congress Blog that in essence the Democrat's inability to explain the positive sides of PPACA, and their sheepishness on taking to task the GOP naysayers led to there demise. He is "puzzled how this much-needed program to assist Americans with the high costs of medical care could become so demonized by the opposition."
I'm puzzled by how anybody could have ever thought it was about health care at all.
Mr. Albriton writes:
In hindsight, of course, the Democrats failed to handle this challenge adequately. Instead of ducking the issue, they should have asked the appropriate questions of Republican opponents, and these questions are no less appropriate for the coming Congressional debates: “Just what parts of the healthcare legislation do you want to repeal?” Prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions? Prohibiting companies from terminating coverage of chronic conditions? Providing portability of medical insurance coverage when the insured change employment or location? Coverage for the millions of Americans who have no access to healthcare, including millions of children who are not covered under CHIP, because they live in the wrong state? Prohibiting termination of coverage for persons with catastrophic needs? Yes, there is a huge price, but the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the long run, the legislation will save billions of dollars in healthcare costs.
Maybe Mr. Albritton prefers the confusing and costly bill that cuts into the already dangerously fragile Medicare system. But, THIS ONE by the GOP seems to not only makes sense, but the price tag is easier to deal with too.
Our taxdollars at work shrinking the private sector
Management of our nation’s armed forces, for instance, is best left solely to the federal government and is, in fact, mandated in the constitutional provision to “provide for the common defense.” But must those providing the troops with meals or uniforms also be federal employees? Should someone working the concession stand at a national park be on the government payroll?
Serving ice cream at Yellowstone or making combat boots can easily, and likely more efficiently and cheaply, be contracted out to a private company.
Yet, barely two months into his presidency, Barack Obama ordered all federal agencies to figure out how to make more private contractors into public employees. The Office of Management and Budget months later required such insourcing reviews occur “on a regular basis.”
This practice does not necessarily, as argued, provide taxpayers with more efficient service. Nor does it save money. The most obvious thing it does is increase the number of dues-paying union members. Over the past 25 years, the number of union workers in the private sector dwindled to just over ten percent. At the same time, unionization grew among government workers. Over 35 percent of government workers are now in unions.
Insourcing, at its core, is an attempt by big-government liberals to fill the coffers of organized labor at the expense of taxpayers and workers in the private sector. Over a period of time, Americans will have to pay more in taxes to pay the generous benefits and salaries of federal union workers, who will be impossible to fire regardless of their quality of work.
Nonetheless, over the past few years, liberals in Congress and Obama administration functionaries have been strategically inserting language into bills that fund the government. Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill contained strict insourcing mandates, and must-pass spending bills forced private contractors to compete with government wages and benefits. While such language has had to pass every year on its own, attempts are now being made to make this policy permanent.
Ill-conceived policies such as insourcing will lead to a larger and more intrusive federal government that will take away more hard-earned taxpayer dollars to pay for it.
Everyone can’t be a federal employee, but everyone has to pay for them. How many more can America afford and at what cost to liberty?
DC
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Freddie Mac posts $4.1B loss for Q3
Government-controlled mortgage buyer Freddie Mac on Wednesday posted a narrower loss of $4.1 billon in the third quarter as it asked for an additional $100 million in federal aid - substantially less than the $1.8 billion it sought in the second quarter.
Freddie Mac’s loss attributable to common stockholders for the July-September quarter works out to $1.25 a share. It takes into account $1.6 billion in dividend payments to the government. It compares with a loss of $6.7 billion, or $2.06 a share, in the third quarter of 2009.
The government rescued McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie Mae nearly two years ago to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans, and it estimates the bailouts will cost taxpayers up to $259 billion.
That’s nearly twice the $133 billion Fannie and Freddie are in line to receive from taxpayers so far and would make theirs the costliest bailout of the financial crisis.
Read More: MBJ
Freddie Mac’s loss attributable to common stockholders for the July-September quarter works out to $1.25 a share. It takes into account $1.6 billion in dividend payments to the government. It compares with a loss of $6.7 billion, or $2.06 a share, in the third quarter of 2009.
The government rescued McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie Mae nearly two years ago to cover their losses on soured mortgage loans, and it estimates the bailouts will cost taxpayers up to $259 billion.
That’s nearly twice the $133 billion Fannie and Freddie are in line to receive from taxpayers so far and would make theirs the costliest bailout of the financial crisis.
Read More: MBJ
Friday, October 8, 2010
Congressman Harper says new job numbers report is "very disappointing"
 |
| Congressman Gregg Harper |
“Over 18 months ago, American citizens were promised that unemployment would not surpass eight percent if the President’s trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ plan were to become law. Sadly, Mississippi has lost 30,800 jobs since this promise was made.
“Republicans understand that the federal government does not create jobs, businesses do. This is why we urged the Democratic leadership to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts before leaving Washington for the November elections. If the current tax rates are not extended by January 1, 2011, small businesses owners that pay in the 35 percent tax bracket will pay 39.6 percent. To boot, individuals that file in the lowest tax bracket will be subject a 50 percent tax increase, with their rate rising from 10 to 15 percent.
“The federal government should lend a hand to America’s employers, not weigh them down with more heavy tax increases. Today’s report of 95,000 more jobs lost in our country is very disappointing.”
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Demint: The Fired Congress
 |
| Senator Jim Demint |
In December, more than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them.
Some companies have a policy that once someone is fired, they aren’t allowed back on the premises out of fear they might do further damage to the company. It’s too bad Congress doesn’t have the same policy. Because before they’re replaced in January, all of the Democrats who are put out of a job in November will be able to come back and rob the nation blind.
More than a dozen senators will come back to Washington and decide how much more tax money to take from Americans, without being accountable to any of them. Higher taxes, cap-and-trade, amnesty, and card check will be top-priority items for the Fired Congress, otherwise known as the lame-duck Congress. They’re also likely to roll unfinished appropriations bills into a massive, pork-stuffed omnibus to snag every last possible earmark on their way out of Washington.
This must not happen. The only acceptable outcome of the lame-duck session is a continuing resolution to keep government operating at current levels of spending and taxation, as I pushed the Senate to do in 2006 after Republicans lost the majority to the Democrats. No last-minute earmarks, no add-ons, no tax increases, and no big deficit spending.
By simply passing a continuing resolution that kept the government funded at current levels until February 2007, Republicans stopped more than 10,000 earmarks from being enacted and prevented big spenders in Congress from wasting billions of dollars on pork-barrel projects. Then, 2007 became the year without earmarks, because when that temporary continuing resolution expired in February, Congress extended it for the rest of the year. We should adopt the same approach during the 2010 lame-duck session.
To stop a wasteful omnibus and instead secure a continuing resolution, Republicans must hold together. Fortunately, the GOP may have a few reinforcements on the way. Three new senators will take office immediately following the midterms — one each from Delaware, Illinois, and West Virginia, where special elections are being held to replace temporarily appointed senators. And the Republicans running in these races are eager to help.
Illinois Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk has promised that if he wins, “I will become the 42nd Republican senator, with the opportunity to put the brakes on any lame-duck overreach.”
Delaware Republican candidate Christine O’Donnell has made it part of her pitch, too. “Who do you want serving in that lame-duck session?” she has said. “Someone who’s going to promote that very liberal agenda that can’t even get enough Democratic support, or someone who is going to push back against the establishment?”
West Virginia’s Republican Senate candidate, John Raese, who is up in the polls, has stated unequivocally that he would oppose the Democrats’ lame-duck agenda. He has said, “It is completely inappropriate for House and Senate Democrats, who would be in cahoots with President Obama, to take up any legislation that would significantly affect the country after an election that will considerably alter the political landscape of Congress. Any attempt to do so would be a slap in the face to all Americans who voted for a change from the liberal status quo.”
More candidates should go on the record with such statements. There’s a whole month of campaigning left before the midterms, and voters can extract promises from their elected officials not to let the Fired Congress pass major legislation. This is a reasonable request that even the Democrats should be able to support. Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck has called on Democratic senator Michael Bennet to promise to oppose any tax hikes Harry Reid may try to ram through during the lame-duck session. All Senate Democrats up for election this year should be asked to do the same.
Getting more elected officials to speak out against a spendthrift lame-duck session can help deter the Democratic leadership from cramming it with votes. It’s been reported that Democrats are considering as many as 20 pieces of legislation to bring up for a vote. After failing to get the New START Treaty (an agreement that hurts America’s missile-defense systems) ratified, to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and to pass legislation to give amnesty to illegal aliens, Democrats see opportunity after the elections, when a number of their members won’t have anything to lose.
Democrats are also hoping that the pressure of a Christmas deadline will get some Republicans to break their way. White House senior adviser David Axelrod recently said he thinks Republicans will “blink” and help Democrats raise taxes as the end-of-the year deadline approaches. Republicans must not cave.
Democrats are playing political games and Americans are going to fire them for it in November. When the Democrats come back in December to box up their personal belongings, Republicans must make sure that’s all they take with them.
Jim DeMint is a U.S. senator from South Carolina.
NRO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)