Tag Archives: Congressional Budget Office

It All Depends On How You Name Something

Posted on by

There have been some negative comments lately from Democrats worried about how the implementation of ObamaCare will impact the 2014 mid-term elections. Historically, a President in his second term loses big in the mid-term elections, so the Democrats don’t want any additional difficulties. Recently a Democrat referred to ObamaCare as a ‘train wreck’ about to happen. That certainly does not improve the image of ObamaCare. Also, a lot of 26-year-olds are timing out of their parents’ health insurance and realizing that the IRS will be fining them if they do not pay the increased premiums ObamaCare requires from them. Keep in mind that increasing premiums on younger people is supposed to subsidize medical expenses for the elderly and for those with pre-existing health conditions.

Well, now it’s time for the goodwill tour for ObamaCare. Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that as part of the Mother’s Day offensive for ObamaCare, President Obama has described ObamaCare as “largest health care tax cut for working families and small businesses in our history. “ Really. If you believe that, please call me about buying some waterfront property in Arizona–or maybe I could interest you in a bridge in New York.

The article reports:

His argument was a Hail-Mary effort to redesignate subsidies for individuals to purchase health insurance on government-run exchanges as a “tax cut.” But according to the Congressional Budget Office, these subsidies actually qualify as more than $1 trillion in “Exchange Subsidies and Related Spending.” (Emphasis mine.)

Far from being a historic tax cut, Obamacare actually qualifies as one of the largest tax increases in history. It contains roughly $1 trillion in taxes — on insurance plans, medical devices and investment income. And many of the taxes will end up falling on the middle class. The law’s individual mandate, which the Obama administration successful argued was a tax before the U.S. Supreme Court, is projected to hit nearly 5 million Americans with incomes less than $60,000 by 2016.

I understand that right now we have a lot of low-information voters who know more about American Idol than about what is going on in Washington. However, as these people begin to notice what is happening to their household budgets, maybe they will wake up and start paying attention. I can relate to the low-information voters–I used to be one. My excuse was not American Idol–my excuse was juggling family, work, etc. Either way, it’s time for America to wake up and begin to vote for people who will actually tell us the truth and practice fiscal restraint. I am sure that we have people in politics who are capable of that–I am just not sure how much power they have right now. We need to pay attention and vote accordingly.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Disturbing Report On The Economy

Posted on by

CNS News posted a story yesterday about the fate of the American economy under President Obama. The article cites a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report projecting that America will never see full employment under President Obama.

The article reports:

The natural unemployment rate, according to CBO, is the “rate of unemployment arising from all sources except fluctuations in aggregate demand. Those sources include frictional unemployment, which is associated with normal turnover of jobs, and structural unemployment, which includes unemployment caused by mismatches between the skills of available workers and the skills necessary to fill vacant positions and unemployment caused when wages exceed their market-clearing levels because of institutional factors, such as legal minimum wages, the presence of unions, social conventions, or wage-setting practices by employers that are intended to increase workers’ morale and effort.”

CBO Director Doug Elmendorf has stated, “we think it will take four more years to get back close to full employment.”

I believe that America will recover from this recession. I also believe that the recovery would be much faster if businesses were not totally over-regulated by the government. A glaring example of this is the fact that the energy revolution that is taking place in America is taking place on private land–the government has blocked fracking on government land. If the government land were opened up and the Keystone pipeline put in place, the economy would recover very quickly.

We can recover, but we need to let private citizens have more power and the government have less. That won’t happen as long as the current Washington politicians are in power.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Obama Administration Targets Women And Children First

Posted on by

Actually, the Obama Administration targets the elderly, and women and children first. Today’s American Spectator posted an article about a recent announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that it plans to cut an extra 2.2 percent from the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. This new cut, which came as a surprise to everyone except Obama’s health care commissars, will be added to the $200 billion in cuts Obamacare has already mandated for MA. What does this have to with low-income and minority seniors? The administration’s new Medicare cuts will come directly out of their pockets.

Medicare Advantage is one of the most popular health care plans among senior citizens. It is successful because it involves competition in the private sector.

The article reports:

… The MA plans are already taking a huge hit pursuant to Obamacare’s $200 billion cut, and they will be unable to absorb these newest slashes in the program without passing at least some of the costs to the patients in the form of increased co-pays and deductibles.

And it is by no means an exaggeration to say that these extra out-of-pocket costs will hit the seniors who can least afford them. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group to which many MA carriers belong, recently issued a report confirming that reality: “Sixty-one (61) percent of all minority (nonwhite) beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage in 2011 had incomes of $20,000 or less; 59 percent of African-American and 75 percent of Hispanic Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had incomes of $20,000 or less.”

…”This reduction in funding will leave many vulnerable seniors with fewer benefits, higher out-of-pocket costs, and in some cases the loss of their current MA coverage.”

It will indeed. As AHIP reminds us, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that the reform law’s payment cuts alone will result in three million fewer people enrolled in Medicare Advantage.” The group goes on to point out that Obamacare is already expected to increase the out-of-pocket expenses endured by MA enrollees: “Actuaries at Oliver Wyman estimate that the health insurance tax will result in seniors facing $220 in higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced benefits next year and $3,500 in additional costs over the next ten years.”

It is time to repeal and replace Obamacare. Otherwise the American health care system will never be able to recover from the damage being done to it.Enhanced by Zemanta

The Senate Has Finally Produced A Budget

Posted on by

The Senate has finally produced a budget. John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today explaining what was in that budget.

The article states:

The process has proved revealing: the Democrats’ budget never balances, increases spending by 62% over ten years, and adds $7 trillion to the national debt despite raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. So Senate Democrats must agree with President Obama that the nation does not face a debt crisis.

The article quotes a statement President Obama made yesterday on ABC:

[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place….

There’s not–-in any way–-an immediate crisis with respect to our finances. …

Heritage.org posted an article yesterday explaining some of the details.

The article at Heritage.org states:

…Murray’s budget includes a massive tax increase. She raises taxes by almost $1 trillion ($975 billion to be exact) over the next 10 years by “closing loopholes.” Closing loopholes is Washington-speak for eliminating deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Which loopholes to close Murray leaves up to the Senate Finance Committee. But she is pursuing this tax increase unnecessarily. The Congressional Budget Office says that revenues will be 19 percent of GDP at the end of the current 10-year budget window. That is uncomfortably above the 18.5 percent of GDP that tax revenues have averaged in times of economic growth since the end of World War II. Murray’s budget would push revenues close to 20 percent of GDP by 2023, well above average—yet still not enough to catch up with her budget’s excessive spending.

Until Congress limits spending to 18 percent of the GDP (which is what we generally collect in tax revenue) we can expect deficits to grow. It is time to cut the spending in order to prevent the growth of deficits. Otherwise, we are simply creating a debt our children and grandchildren will never be able to repay.Enhanced by Zemanta

I Don’t Believe This, But It Will Make The Discussion More Interesting

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted that federal revenues for 2013 will exceed $2.7 trillion in 2013, slightly higher than the $2.6 trillion the government collected in 2007, when the last recession officially began.

The article reports:

Government revenues had fallen by nearly $500 billion during the recession to $2.1 trillion in 2009, contributing to the $1.5 trillion deficit that year. However, federal revenues have been recovering since the recession ended in June 2009, and the CBO now projects that they will slightly eclipse their pre-recession peak.

In fact, the $2.7 trillion in revenue will be the most money the federal government has collected in history.

Obviously, if government revenue is the highest it has ever been in history, why do we have to increase taxes?

The article reports:

“Democrats say we should replace the president’s ‘sequester’ with revenue increases, or delay it.  Republicans say we should replace [it] with responsible reforms that will help put us on a path to balance the budget in 10 years,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Frankly, I would love to see federal revenues increase, but I am not convinced they will. Unemployment is still high, and the number of people working part-time who want to work full-time is at an all time high. Much of the revenue the government gets comes from personal income taxes, and if the unemployment situation does not change, I don’t think the revenues will change significantly. The CBO does its calculations based on the numbers it is given. It would be interesting to know where they got the numbers that convinced them 2013 was going to be a banner year for tax revenue.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Avoiding The Solution Because You Would Rather Have The Problem

Posted on by

Yesterday CNS News posted an article suggesting a real solution to our current budget crisis. As I have previously stated, all of the doomsday forecasts about sequestration are simply another example of the Obama Administration crying wolf. The sequestration does not actually cut spending–it merely cuts the rate of growth.

The article suggests a solution to the ‘horrors’ of sequestration :

Conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer says President Obama could easily reduce the fear and panic engendered by the looming sequester if he would simply push Congress to pass a bill allowing a transfer of funds from less important federal accounts to more important federal accounts.

“And the president is the one who ought to propose it,” Krauthammer told Fox News on Wednesday. “He won’t, of course, because he is looking for a fight, and not a solution.”

You can’t cry ‘wolf’ or blame the Republicans if you actually solve the problem.

The former head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, puts the whole thing in perspective:

Despite talk of how much the sequester will hurt ordinary Americans, Holtz-Eakin said the reality will be very different: “The day after the sequester starts, people will get up and go to work at federal agencies. You’ll see very minimal impacts, the kinds of things you hear about, you know, the sequester causing a recession.”

The former CBO chief noted that the sequester calls for an $85-billion reduction in spending in the current fiscal year — out of a $3.6-trillion budget. “It’s going to come and go without much notice. It’s a $16 trillion economy. This isn’t going to crater the economy.”

Quite frankly, I am very tired of President Obama telling us that we will all go to hell in a hand-basket if Congress does not do everything he says they should do exactly how and when he says they should do it. There is a reason we have three branches of government, and President Obama does not seem to understand that. This President seems to be acting like a spoiled child who throws temper tantrums when he does not get his own way. My grandchildren stand in the corner for that sort of behavior.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Guess This Shouldn’t Be A Surprise

Posted on by

On Friday, Forbes Magazine posted an article about the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) health insurance tax. I hate to admit it, but this is news to me. I didn’t realize that there was an entire new group of taxes in Obamacare that will impact the middle class and the elderly.

The article reports:

…the tax increases that remain on the books will cost taxpayers more than $675 billion over the next ten years. Chief among these will be the sales tax on the purchase of health insurance, totaling $101.7 billion, and making it larger than all the other industry-specific taxes combined.

The article concludes:

In fact, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries will see costs rise from $16 to $20 per member per month in 2014 – increasing to between $32 and $42 by 2023. The costs for Medicare Advantage coverage over the next ten years is expected to reach $3,590. Individuals on Medicaid managed care will see increase costs on an average of $1,530 per enrollee between 2014 and 2023.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) supports Ignagni and Goodman’s warnings, stating that the health insurance sales tax will be “largely passed through to consumers in the form of higher premiums.” Unfortunately, as Goodman predicts, “this is only one example of many middle income taxes buried in ObamaCare.” The time to repeal and replace is narrowing, with just months now separating us from another massive tax hike that Americans cannot afford.

This is one more reason to repeal Obamacare. I suspect there may be a lot of Democrats at this point complaining that this is not what they signed up for. If it is what they signed up for, they should be voted out of office.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Wasn’t Great, But It Could Have Been Worse

Posted on by

Sorry for the lack of optimism in the new year, but the basically the average American was not the winner in the budget deal passed by Congress this week. Yes, we avoided the fiscal cliff, but we continued the direction of more government spending and bigger government.

Bloomberg reported yesterday that the bill the Senate passed would raise taxes on 77 percent of American households. The Hill reported yesterday that the bill the Senate passed will add roughly $4 trillion to the deficit when compared to current law, according to new numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

On December 31st, Breitbart.com reported that the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

So where do we go from here? I guess it depends on what America wants to be. When you look at the history of America, you realize that America was settled by people who were not content to stay where they were in their social or religious situations. The Pilgrims came here to find a place to practice their religion without government interference, the Irish fled the potato famine and the harsh conditions imposed by their British lords, and many Jews fled the pogroms of Russia and European countries. All of these people (particularly early in our history) took risks in coming here. Americans later left the comfort of their eastern homes to settle the western frontier. Historically, we have been a people with a work ethic who expect to be rewarded for our efforts. If government spending and programs continue at their current rate of growth, will we be able to maintain that spirit of adventure, risk taking and achievement or will it be wiped out by government programs? Recently I was talking to a friend who is a retired teacher, and she shared a story with me about an experience she had while working on her graduate degree. One of the students in the graduate program was the third generation of his family to be on welfare. Obviously, one of his goals in getting an education was to break that cycle. That is wonderful. However, it was less wonderful when he stated that if he couldn’t get the job he wanted after completing the program, he would simply go back on welfare because that paid pretty well. That is the danger we face with an ever-expanding government.

With the current President and current Congress, our chances of changing our current direction toward bigger government and increased taxes is very small. Conservatives are a very small part of Congress, and frankly, the Republican establishment is not a whole lot different from the Democrats when it comes to big government. The only real hope to turn this country around is the mid-term elections in 2014. Otherwise, we can expect to become Greece very soon.

One (very unpopular) solution to our current fiscal problem would be to make sure that every person in America pays taxes. Right now approximately 50 percent of Americans pay no income tax. If all Americans paid income taxes, they might be more inclined to elect people who were not likely to increase them!

Just one other note on the general state of affairs. As the third Quantitative Easing (QE3) begins to take effect, expect gasoline prices to rise. The current price for gasoline that we are paying at the pump is more related to the sinking value of the U. S. dollar than it is the price of oil. Unfortunately, unless economic policy in Washington changes, that will continue to be the case.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When It Doesn’t Pay To Work

Posted on by

John HInderaker at Power Line posted the following chart yesterday:

The chart was originally from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

The Congressional Budget Office has a similar chart:

The article at Power Line includes another chart from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare:

Before you believe the lie that federal spending cannot be cut, please study these charts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly What Is Fair ?

Posted on by

On Thursday the Washington Examiner posted an editorial with the title, “If top 5% paid 40% of taxes, what is their ‘fair’ share?”. That is a very reasonable question.

The current Democrat talking points are stated in the editorial:

Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, “want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: “Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.”

What does the amount of taxes the wealthy pay have to do with standing up for the middle class?

The editorial reminds us:

As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.

But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it’s hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren’t already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

It seems to me as if the wealthy are already paying more than their fair share. And if raising taxes on anyone is going to slow down an already struggling economy, why in the world would you want to raise taxes on anyone?

In March of this year I posted the following (rightwinggranny.com):

Fox News has a video posted showing President Obama stating in April of 2008 that, despite evidence it doesn’t increase revenue, he’d raise the capital gains tax on America’s richest Americans. Then-candidate Obama used one of his favorite words by saying it would be the “fair” thing to do! So it’s not really about revenue–it’s about redistributing wealth–taking money away from people who have earned it and giving it to people who have not earned it. How does that make our society better?

The purpose of being President (or House Minority Leader) is not to carry out your own personal vendetta upon those you resent because they are successful. It’s time to grow up and get past the idea that it is up to you as President or Congressmen to punish those who are successful.

We will all be seeing tax increases in January due to Obamacare. The question is how much additional taxation will we stand for. I personally feel taxed enough already–I think it’s time for the Tea Party to get back to their roots and begin to make noise again.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Added To The Fiscal Cliff…

Posted on by

The Washington Post reported on Wednesday (notice that it was not reported before the election) that President Obama may pass a carbon tax in order to cut the deficit.

The article reports:

A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.

The article further reports:

The tax would not necessarily add to the economy’s total tax burden, according to Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the research group. Such a tax may free up space for reductions in company taxes that dissuade employment, for example, Diringer said in an interview from Arlington.

“We have lots of need for new revenue to address our challenges,” which include priorities for conservatives such as extending tax cuts, avoiding deep defense cuts, reducing the corporate tax rate, reforming tax territoriality, and deficit reduction, the group said today in an e-mailed statement.

There are more than a few problems with this idea. Someone is going to have to pay this tax. If corporations pay it, the price of whatever they produce goes up, and the already beleaguered consumer pays higher prices. If the average American pays the tax, the standard of living in America, which has already fallen in the past four years, falls lower. This is an ideal way to create more poverty in America. Also, note the comment that ‘we have lots of need for new revenue.’ There is no recognition of the fact that we are overspending. In order for the American economy to thrive, government spending needs to be about 18 or 19 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). The problem with the Obama Administration is that their goal is to make it closer to 25 percent. That difference is largely responsible for the increases in the deficit under the Obama Administration.

Intellectualtakeout.org posted a chart showing the growth of government spending in relationship to the GDP. Please follow the link to see the chart.

Until we decrease spending to below 20 percent of the gross domestic product, the economy will not grow. We also need to remember that if interest rates go up (which they eventually will), our interest payments will be the biggest part of our budget. You can’t run a country on a maxed-out credit card.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Are The Fact Checkers ?

Posted on by

Yesterday CNS News reported that despite President Obama’s statement on Thursday that “we got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system,” the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has stated that the government will lose about $24 billion on the bailout.

On Thursday, President Obama stated, “We got back every dime we used to rescue the financial system, but we also passed a historic law to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good.”

The article reports the CBO’s statement:

“The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.

…CBO said that the cost of TARP “stems largely from assistance to American International Group (AIG), aid to the automotive industry, and grant programs aimed at avoiding home mortgage foreclosures,” noting that the losses will be so large they will eclipse the financial gains the government will realize from bailing out other large financial institutions.

It really is time to tell the truth about how American taxpayer money is spent and to rein in the budget.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of ObamaCare

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted an editorial explaining the impact Obamacare will have on jobs.

The article reports:

And so in order to avoid paying fines or buying massively more expensive health plans that are Obamacare-compliant, Darden is now experimenting with limiting its employees’ hours instead. By keeping workers to fewer than 30 hours per week, Darden can categorize them as “part-time.” Thus, the company avoids the Obamacare fines and leaves employees to the new government health insurance exchanges, where they may receive subsidies to purchase insurance. At least two other restaurant chains — White Castle and McDonald’s — are considering similar plans.

Thus, Obamacare is resulting in people working fewer hours, less tax revenue for the government, and bigger government.

The article concludes:

So to sum up, Obamacare is leading to fewer hours worked, less tax revenue for the government and bigger government subsidies for health insurance for people who were already insured in the first place. If enough companies do this, Obamacare will become a massive dead weight on the federal budget, even as it does little more than shuffle people from one insurance plan to another, whether they like it or not. The Congressional Budget Office estimates, at the high end, that 20 million workers could see their health plans dropped thanks to Obamacare.

One person who commented on the article at the Washington Examiner stated:

In 2009, Barack Obama stood up before the nation, and boasted that, if Obamacare was passed, you could keep your original health care plane.   That clearly was an out and out lie.

The more we see of Obamacare, the worse it gets. It needs to be repealed and replaced as soon as possible. The replacement needs to balance the needs of the health insurance consumer with the needs of the health insurance companies. There is nothing wrong with health insurance companies making a profit–that is why they are in business. The challenge is to make sure that they also meet the needs of the consumer.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Sounds Like A Lose Lose Situation

Posted on by

CNS News is reporting today that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is predicting that if tax rates rise in 2013, the economy will slip back into recession. Unless Congress acts, there will be a significant tax increase on January 2013.

The article points out that Congress will not act to change the projected increase in taxes until after the election. Great. Translated loosely, that means that Congress does not want to take responsibility for any actions they might take regarding taxes. As you know, President Obama is already saying that he won’t do anything to stop the drastic defense cuts included in sequestration unless the Republicans agree to raise taxes. Does anyone honestly believe that additional tax revenue will be used to pay down the deficit? In the past, when taxes have been raised, has spending ever actually remained the same or been cut?

The article concludes:

While CBO included mandatory spending cuts from the federal budget sequester (the “fiscal cliff”) in its analysis, the vast majority of the impact to the economy will come from the tax increases – the expiration of the Bush tax cuts — due to their sheer size.

CBO estimated that the combination of spending cuts and tax increases would reduce the federal deficit by $487 billion in fiscal 2013, with the vast majority of that figure coming from tax increases.

CBO projects that if current tax policies are kept in place and do not expire in 2013 as scheduled, revenues would be $5 trillion less between 2012 and 2022.

Congress is not expected to address either the mandatory spending cuts or the expiration of the Bush tax rates until after the election.

We need to examine the way that we look at taxes, tax rates, etc. The American public has been fed a line that somehow the government has a legitimate right to the earnings of the American people. It does not. There is nothing greedy about wanting to keep money that you have worked hard to earn. There is something basically wrong about taking money from people who have worked hard to earn it and giving it to people who have chosen not to work. I am sure we have all heard stories about people who refused to take low paying jobs because they could make more money simply by being on welfare and they didn’t have to go to work all day. Because of the amount of taxes taken out of all of our paychecks, the line between making money at the bottom of the economic spectrum and collecting welfare has become very blurred.

It’s time to remember that money belongs to the people who have earned it–no one else is entitled to it–not even the government. Unless we elect an administration that understands that people are entitled to the rewards of their hard work (they did build that!), we are going to wind up in the same place as the bankrupt countries of Europe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Accounting Tricks In Obamacare

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal (this is the link, but it is subscribers only) reported on an accounting trick used to disguise the actual cost of Obamacare. This is one of those articles I occasionally post that I do not fully understand. Be forewarned.

When the debt forecast was released Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) explained that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) subsidies are not indexed over the long term. This means that the numbers are not adjusted as the value of the dollar and the cost of living change. How does that impact the program? In one of two ways–the first is that Congress will intervene (as they do on the AMT to prevent it from impacting less wealthy voters) or that Americans will have to pay a larger part of their every increasing health insurance premiums. Under the first scenario the cost of the program to the government increases greatly, under the second scenario the cost of the program to every American increases greatly. Either way, it doesn’t sound like a good deal.

Unfortunately there has never historically been a government program that shrank instead of grew. Unless Obamacare is overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by the next Congress, it will be cost nightmare for all Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Budget ? What Budget ?

Posted on by

It’s been more than 1,000 days since the Senate fulfilled its legal obligation to pass a budget. The Democrat talking points say that a budget is unnecessary because of the spending agreement reached last year. Well, anyone who runs a house knows that one reason to have a budget is that it helps keep spending under control. This concept also applies to the government.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday on the current budget games being played by Congress.

The article reports:

Now, with no fanfare and no press coverage, the Democrats are attempting to negate–effectively, to repeal–the Budget Control Act by adopting spending bills that exceed its limits. Harry Reid and his Senate confederates have offered a bill to increase spending on the Post Office, S. 1789. The bill has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as increasing the federal deficit by $34 billion, and no provision has been made to recoup that money somewhere else in the budget. (Of course, we don’t have a budget because the Democrats in the Senate won’t pass one. But spending could still be cut somewhere else.)

The article includes a rather lengthy statement by Senator Jeff Sessions that is worth reading. This is a portion of that statement:

Under Senate rules, no committee can bring a bill to the floor that spends even one penny more than is already going to be spent under current law, or increases the deficit more than it will increase under current law.

 In other words, the spending and debt under the postal bill violates the debt limit agreement reached just last summer. In August, we agreed to modest, though insufficient, savings—in fact, discretionary spending will still increase $7 billion this year—and now the Senate is already planning to spend more than we agreed.

This is particularly odd since the President and the Senate Majority Leader have accused the House of breaking the budget agreement by trying to save extra money for taxpayers. This argument, of course, is not sound: The debt deal established basic spending caps—the maximum you can spend on discretionary accounts. Not one word in that law prevents you from doing your duty to try and save more money. Not one word in that law requires you to max out the cap. This is not a matter of interpretation: caps are the maximum, not the minimum, you can spend.

Almost everybody recognizes that deal was insufficient and the lawmakers trying to find more savings are doing their jobs and meeting their obligations.

Only in Washington does spending underneath a cap get you accused of breaking a deal while spending more than an agreement means people just look the other way. The Majority Leader and the Budget Committee Chairman are proud of the Budget Control Act, but where are they when it comes to making sure even these modest savings are enforced?
…
If this new spending is necessary, then isn’t it worth cutting spending somewhere else to pay for it? Do we really have to break our spending agreement before the ink is dry on it? At a time when we’re facing next year our fourth straight deficit in excess of a trillion dollars?

Washington is in a state of financial chaos. We are in denial. The Government Services Administration is throwing lavish parties in Las Vegas. The Government Accountability Office has identified $400 billion—$400 billion—being spent every year on waste, inefficiency, and duplication. Far worse, the Senate’s Democrat majority has failed to produce a budget plan in calendar years 2010, 2011, and now 2012. In fact, this Sunday, April 29th, marks exactly three years since the last time the Senate passed a budget.

…[N]ow, because the Senate can’t say no, and because the President refuses to exercise managerial discipline, we are set to spend another $34 billion in borrowed money.

The White House warns that Republicans want to cut too much spending. But the American people know the truth. And the truth is that we have never spent more money, more recklessly and with less accountability, than we are spending today.

This is a decisive moment. The point of order I will raise is not a mere formality. It is a crucial vote to see if the Senate will keep the agreement it made with the American people just last summer to reduce spending.

I am not optimistic about being able to change the uncontrolled spending of the current Congress. There are restraining forces (people who were elected in 2010), but there are not enough of them to be effective. Unless we elect people in November who respect the taxpayers’ money, we can expect our country to go bankrupt. We need to vote carefully this year.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Pay Attention–You Are About To Be Spun

Posted on by

Today the Heritage Foundation posted an article about the coming effort to convince the American public that ObamaCare is a good thing. The Heritage Foundation managed to get their hands on a four-page memo which revealed how the Obama Administration plans to see the program.

The article reports the plans listed in the memo:

“Remind people that the law is already benefiting millions of Americans by providing health care coverage, reducing costs and providing access to healthcare coverage. This message will include the ideas that these are benefits that politicans/the Court art (sic) are trying to take away from average Americans.”

“Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned. While lawyers will be talking about the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence, organizations on the ground should continue to focus on these more tangible results of the law.”

Unfortunately (as usual), feelings and sympathy are being played up instead of actual facts.

The article at the Heritage Foundation lists some inconvenient information:

…The latest news of Obamacare’s impact came from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week. In one of the CBO’s reported scenarios, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won’t come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.

Then there’s the issue of the unconstitutional individual mandate that forces Americans to buy government dictated health insurance or pay a penalty, as well as the anti-conscience mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, must provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception despite the fact that such services totally contradict many of these groups’ core religious beliefs.

Under Obamacare, costs will go up, people will lose the coverage they have, and quality of care will decline. Individuals and businesses will face penalties, seniors will feel the effects of Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare, doctors will suffer from increased regulation and lower government reimbursement for services, taxpayers will face new taxes, jobs will be lost, millions of Americans will remain uninsured and stuck in overcrowded emergency rooms, religious institutions and the faithful will suffer the loss of their religious liberties, and future generations will pay the costs.

It will be interesting to see how this media campaign to promote the benefits of Obamacare will do. Americans are getting smarter–they are beginning to suspect that what they are being told in the major media may not be totally accurate.

Just in case you are interested–this is the organizational chart for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare):

 

I can’t figure out how to make it bigger, but here is the link (Senate.gov). In case you missed it, the patient is the star in the lower right corner–there is only one line that links to him. All the other lines are bureaucracy connections.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What’s A Few Billion Amoung Friends ?

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Obamacare will cost $1.76 trillion over the next ten years. Originally, the program was projected to cost $940 billion.

The article reports:

Today, the CBO released new projections from 2013 extending through 2022, and the results are as critics expected: the ten-year cost of the law’s core provisions to expand health insurance coverage has now ballooned to $1.76 trillion. That’s because we now have estimates for Obamacare’s first nine years of full implementation, rather than the mere six when it was signed into law. Only next year will we get a true ten-year cost estimate, if the law isn’t overturned by the Supreme Court or repealed by then. Given that in 2022, the last year available, the gross cost of the coverage expansions are $265 billion, we’re likely looking at about $2 trillion over the first decade, or more than double what Obama advertised.

It’s time to repeal this awful law before it totally bankrupts us!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Outrageous Policy Toward Our Military Veterans

Posted on by

Bill Gertz at the Washington Free Beacon is reporting today on changes proposed by the Obama Administration to the medical benefits of our military veterans.

The article reports:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

I have already posted articles showing the difference between government workers pay and benefits and those of the private sector. (See Congressional Budget Office chart). Needless to say, military salaries are considerably lower than both. Why in the world would the President cut military benefits and not cut civilian defense department employees’ benefits?

The article further reports:

“We shouldn’t ask our military to pay our bills when we aren’t willing to impose a similar hardship on the rest of the population,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a Republican from California, said in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “We can’t keep asking those who have given so much to give that much more.”

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

This is an outrage. Additionally the plan calls for large increases in the cost of Tricare for military families.

The article states:

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

This doesn’t sound like much, but consider the sacrifices our servicemen and their families make during their twenty or more years of life in the military. The favoring of civilian union employees over the military is obscene. These changes have to be passed by Congress–any bill proposed needs to be dead on arrival.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Definitely Not Headed In The Right Direction

Posted on by

Yesterday CNSNews reported that according to the the Budget and Economic Outlook published January 31, 2012,  by the the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the amount of taxes collected by the government will increase 30 percent between 2012 and 2014. That increase is not due to a growing economy, which automatically increases the amount of revenue flowing into the treasury, but due to an increased tax burden placed on every American.

The article reports:

The anticipated percentage increase in federal tax revenue is not only large when calculated in dollar terms but also when calculated as a share of GDP. The jump from 15.4 percent of GDP in fiscal 2011 to 20.0 percent of GDP in fiscal 2014 equals an increase of 29.8 percent. The jump from 16.3 percent in fiscal 2012 to 20.0 percent in fiscal 2014 equals an increase over two years of 22.7 percent.

Federal tax revenues have averaged “about 18 percent of GDP for the past 40 years,” according to CBO. So, in the next two years federal tax revenues will rise from a level that is below the modern historical average to a level that is above it.

A revenue increase that was due to an expanding economy would help us deal with our deficit problem (although the spending–not the revenue–is at the root of the problem). As long as the government spending is out of control, the economy will not grow. Right now our economy is the equivalent of a hamster on an exercise wheel–until the hamster gets off the wheel, he is not going anywhere.

The American economy cannot survive this kind of a tax increase. It is time for everyone to take a good look at their Senators and Representatives and examine their voting record over the past ten years. If they have consistently voted to increase government spending, they need to be voted out of office in November–this cannot wait any longer. Americans will get the government they deserve (the government they vote into office). If you would like to see America survive, you need to be part of the solution–not part of the problem.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something That Wasn’t Mentioned In The State Of The Union Speech

Posted on by

I haven’t written anything about the State of the Union speech because I thought it was a political exercise. This is the ‘silly season’ and truth is a rare commodity in political speeches right now (not that it is always there in other times). However, the Wall Street Journal posted an editorial today that makes some very good points.

This is the chart from the editorial:1buffettrule

As you can see, the federal tax rate on long-term capital gains has varied a lot over the years. The article points out the fallacy of the “Buffett Rule” that President Obama is proposing which would make wealthy Americans give more of their money to the government. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the effective income tax rate of the richest 1% is actually about 29.5%. That is the rate you come up with when you include all federal taxes–such as the distribution of corporate taxes. That is about twice the 15.1% rate paid by middle-class families.

Investment income has already been taxed once. There is no reason to tax it again unless you are trying to redistribute wealth.

The article points out:

As the nearby chart shows, the rate has never since risen above 28%, and the last time it moved that high was in 1986 as part of the Reagan-Rostenkowski tax reform that also cut the top marginal income tax rate to 28% from 50%. With income-tax rates so low, a differential was arguably less necessary—though it’s worth noting that capital gains revenues fell dramatically after that rate increase.

A decade later Bill Clinton agreed to cut the rate back to 20% as part of the balanced-budget deal with Newt Gingrich. Capital gains revenues soared, helping to balance the federal budget. Nearly every study estimates that the revenue-maximizing tax rate from the capital gains tax is between 15% and 28%. Doug Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, says that a 30% tax rate “is almost surely above the rate that maximizes tax revenues.” So it’s likely the Buffett trick would lose revenue for the government.

So if we are in a time of federal deficits, why would you change the tax code in a way that would lose revenue for the government? Unless you are using the tax code to redistribute wealth, it makes no sense.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sorting Out The Numbers In The Class Envy Promotion

Posted on by

It has already become obvious that one of the issues in the 2012 elections will be the evil rich who keep getting richer. Just in case you were wondering, I am not in any danger of entering that class. Anyway, we recently heard that as the rest of us are eating out less often and keeping our cars longer, the evil rich are prospering at a fantastic rate. Well, not so fast.

An article slated for tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal takes apart the numbers and reveals what has really happened to the rich under the Obama administration.

The article reports:

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CB0) says, “The share of income received by the top 1% grew from about 8% in 1979 to over 17% in 2007.”

I’m not positive, but I suspect either Barack Obama or Joe Biden has referenced those numbers in recent days. If not, I am sure you can find them in sound bites from other Democrat leaders. Do you wonder why the numbers stop at 2007? There is a reason.

The article further reports:

The CBO didn’t say, although its report briefly acknowledged—in a footnote—that “high income taxpayers had especially large declines in adjusted gross income between 2007 and 2009.”

No kidding. Once these two years are brought into the picture, the share of after-tax income of the top 1% by my estimate fell to 11.3% in 2009 from the 17.3% that the CBO reported for 2007.

The article explains the different types of income the rich receive and how they are taxed. It also explains the impact of changing tax rates in various areas. Please read the entire article to understand how the Obama administration is twisting the facts in order to stir up class warfare.

The article concludes:

If Congress raises top individual tax rates much above the corporate rate, many billions in business income would rapidly vanish from the individual tax returns the CBO uses to measure the income of the top 1%. Small businesses and professionals would revert to reporting most income on corporate tax returns as they did in 1979.

If Congress raises top tax rates on capital gains and dividends, the highest income earners would report less income from capital gains and dividends and hold more tax-exempt bonds. Such tax policies would reduce the share of reported income of the top earners almost as effectively as the recession the policies would likely provoke. The top 1% would then pay a much smaller portion of federal income taxes, just as they did in 1979. And the other 99% would pay more. As the CBO found, “the federal income tax was notably more progressive in 2007 than in 1979.”

We need to cut government spending. Until we get spending under control (back to below 20 percent of the GDP as it was before President Obama took office), we will never be able to raise taxes enough to pay the cost of government. Even if we confiscated all the money and property from everyone who made more than $100,000 a year, we would still not pay off our debt or be able to stop borrowing one out of every four dollars we spend. It’s the spending, stupid.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Truth Comes Out–Unfortunately It’s A Bit Late

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported today on testimony given by Doug Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office to the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Jeff Sessions reminded Mr. Elmendorf of the CBO’s projection, made around the time the stimulus bill was enacted, that the measure would have a negative long-term impact on economic growth. Elmendorf confirmed that this is still the view of the CBO.

The article at Power Line contains a video of the testimony. So let me get this straight–we spend $800 billion-plus dollars, the unemployment rate is still at 9 percent or more, and the spending will have a long-term negative impact on economic growth. Where do we go to get our money back?

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Time To Repeal Obamacare

Posted on by

Remember the words “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” Well, it hasn’t exactly worked out that way. Obamacare is not yet fully in effect, and yet it is already having a major negative impact on the average working American’s health insurance.

The Weekly Standard reported yesterday:

Now, Gallup reports that from the first quarter of 2010 (when Obama signed Obamacare into law) to the third quarter of this year, 2 percent of American adults lost their employer sponsored health insurance. In other words, about 4.5 million Americans lost their employer-sponsored insurance over a span of just 18 months. 

This is not a good thing. The article further reports:

Rather, the CBO had predicted that Obamacare would increase the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance by now.  It had predicted that, under Obamacare, 6 million more Americans would have employer-sponsored insurance in 2011 than in 2010 (see table 4, which shows the CBO’s projected increase of 3 million under (pre-Obamacare) current law and an additional 3 million under Obamacare). So the CBO’s rosy projections for Obamacare (and even these paint a frightening picture) are already proving false.  

This is one of many problems with Obamacare. I reported on September 23 (rightwinggranny) that the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act portion of Obamacare has been abandoned because its cost would spiral out of control. Unfortunately, the CLASS portion of Obamacare was the part that was supposed to make Obamacare reduce the deficit in its early years (that was done by forcing people who wanted to participate in the CLASS program to contribute to it for a number of years before actually receiving benefits). Eventually, those initial contributions would be used up and the expenses of the program would quickly spiral out of control.

How many promises does Obamacare have to break before it is repealed?

Enhanced by Zemanta