Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
February
(37)
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat./Sun. February, 27/28, 2010
- No "Employer Provided" Pensions
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, February 26, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 25, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 24, 2010
- Well... Cross Romney Off The List...
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, February 23, 2010
- Hey Folks... If You Happen to See Ads Let Me Know
- When Even "The Good Guys" Are Full Of...
- Even if I Weren't Already in a Bad Mood I'd Still ...
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 22, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, February 19, 2010
- Peggy Noonan Makes Me Sick
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, February 18, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 17, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, February 16, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, February 15, 2010
- Happy Presidents Day!
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, Feb. 12, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, Feb. 11, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, Feb. 8, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites (Weekend Edition): Feb. 6 & 7, ...
- So... I'm reading Frank Luntz's new book...
- Could Pat Buchanan Be Right...??? Be Afraid... Be ...
- American Justice - Or Lack Thereof
- You've GOT to Read This Book...!!!
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, 2/5/10
- Does This Make ANY Sense To ANYONE...???
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, 2/4/10
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday 2/3/10
- My Advice to Prospective Republican Members of Con...
- Stupid Republicans? Here's a List of 22
- A New Feature: "Barker's Newsbites"
- One of my Sisters-in-Law Once Asked Me...
- Happy February!
-
▼
February
(37)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
10 comments:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703427704575051750293329596.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
[By Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan]
President Obama declared in his budget message last month that "it's time to live within our means" and to stop "borrowing against our children's future."
Unfortunately, his budget would move us away from that goal by adding trillions of dollars to our national debt over the next decade.
The administration's projected $18.5 trillion debt in 2020 would be more than double the size of the debt when Mr. Obama took office. The annual interest on that debt would exceed $800 billion...
Mr. Obama complains about the problems he "inherited." But the key to shrinking the nearer term deficits is to avoid his costly new initiatives. The most expensive of these is the tax cuts and income transfers to low- and middle-income households that would cost some $3.1 trillion over the next decade.
The proposed tax cuts include the Making Work Pay plan, a refundable tax credit targeted at individuals earning less than $13,000 a year. Since many of those individuals owe no tax, this "tax cut" just becomes a new government transfer.
Also hidden in the vast budget document is a repeat of the president's plan to spend a trillion dollars over the next decade to expand Medicaid and provide subsidies for health insurance.
* ANYWAY, FOLKS, I URGE YOU TO READ THE FULL OP-ED IN ORDER TO GET THE FULL PICTURE. IT'S BAD. OBAMA AND THE DEMS ARE SHOUTING FULL SPEED AHEAD AS THE SHIP OF STATE HEADS TOWARDS A REEF...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315004575073612836382730.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
A couple of trillion dollars in new deficit spending later, President Obama yesterday signed an executive order creating a Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Yes, that's really what he called it. And you wonder why Americans are cynical about politics?
Having proposed peacetime records for spending as a share of the economy—more than 25% of GDP this year and next—Mr. Obama now promises to make "the tough choices necessary to solve our fiscal problems." And what might those choices be? "Everything's on the table. That's how this thing's going to work," Mr. Obama said.
By "everything," Mr. Obama means in particular tax increases.
The President vowed in 2008 that he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year, but that's looking to be as forlorn a hope as peace in Palestine.
[T]he President and Democrats are desperately seeking political, and especially Republican, cover to go where the big money is by taxing the middle class. The commission is a bid for that cover.
His choices as co-chairmen are a pair of old Beltway hands who are likely to oblige. Erskine Bowles is a long-time investment banker who was Bill Clinton's White House chief of staff and sat on the board of GM from 2005 until it slid into bankruptcy last year. At least he has experience with rotten balance sheets.
Alan Simpson is a former Republican Senator from Wyoming who was among the bigger GOP skeptics of tax cutting.
The rest of the 18 commission members will be named by the four House and Senate leaders from both parties (three each) and four more by Mr. Obama. This means Democrats are likely to outnumber Republicans 10-8, which further tilts the commission toward those who want to take federal taxes from the modern average of about 18.5% of GDP to 25% or more.
The real name for this exercise should be the VAT Commission, as in the value-added tax it is likely to propose.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983004575073922400491814.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
[W]e assume the Fed noticed yesterday's report of a 1.4% increase in producer prices in January. Wholesale prices are up 4.6% over a year ago and an annual rate of 9.8% in the past six months. Most of this increase came from energy, which the Fed will want to dismiss because it is not part of its "core" price index.
Consumers at the gas pump or paying their monthly electric bills may feel differently.
Even core prices, which exclude food and energy, are up at a 3.2% annual rate in the last three months.
* HMM... AREN'T THERE TWELVE (12) MONTHS IN A YEAR...???
* HMM... AND THOSE OF YOU WHO SHARE MY FONDNESS FOR... UMM... FOOD... NO DOUBT SHARE MY DIM VIEW OF "EXCLUDING" FOOD FROM THE INFLATION BASKET.
* GOD HELP THIS ONCE GREAT NATION...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100219/D9DV7SS00.html
LAS VEGAS (AP) - President Barack Obama is unveiling $1.5 billion in housing help, a boost timed to his appearance in the city with the worst foreclosure crisis in the nation.
* HOUSING "HELP," HUH? WITH OUR MONEY! WITH MONEY TAXED FROM US AND BORROWED FROM CHINA - AT INTEREST! I DON'T WANT TO "HELP" THESE PEOPLE. I HAVE MY OWN BILLS, MY OWN RESPONSIBILITIES. WHY MUST I - WHY MUST YOU - PAY OUR OWN RENTS/MORTGAGES AND ALSO SUBSIDIZE THE MORTGAGES OF OTHERS? IF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THEIR MORTGAGES LET THEM SELL THEIR HOMES AND EITHER RENT OR BUY LESS EXPENSIVE HOMES.
The money for the new rescue effort will come from the $700 billion financial industry bailout program, according to a senior administration official who spoke anonymously Thursday night because the formal announcement had not been made.
* UNLESS I MISS MY GUESS THE ARTICLE IS REFERRING TO TARP. THIS MONEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR ONE PURPOSE - TEMPORARY LOANS/GUARANTEES SUPPOSEDLY NECESSARY TO AVERT A WALL STREET/BANKING MELTDOWN. THIS MISUSE OF TARP IS DOWNRIGHT ILLEGAL ON ITS FACE.
http://www.gettyimages.co.nz/detail/96834730/AFP
* THE AGE OF OBAMA.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/opposing-view-tackle-costs-first.html
[By Steve Poizner, California's insurance commissioner and a Republican candidate for governor]
Any reform of America's health care system must begin with a bold effort to reduce costs. Unfortunately, despite candidate Obama's promises, President Obama - and the Democrats in Congress - favor health care legislation that does little to address costs.
In fact, [their] bills would only increase the cost of health care for American consumers.
The Obama administration itself recently conceded that reform legislation would increase national health care spending by at least $222 billion over the next 10 years. How, exactly, would costs rise?
First, the Democrats want to expand coverage by growing the Medicaid program. But this expansion would be paid for, in part, through reduced reimbursements to hospitals and doctors. Providers would then offset these cuts by raising prices on everyone else.
The bills also include new taxes on insurers and the makers of drugs and medical devices that will be passed on to consumers as higher premiums and increased costs. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says pending legislation would raise premiums for non-group insurance by 10% to 13%.
Increased premiums would cause more of the young and healthy to forgo insurance, leaving high-risk populations in the insurance pool. That would further increase premiums, spurring a vicious cycle.
To reform the system and reduce costs, we should put quality, private coverage within reach for more Americans by increasing competition and consumer choice. For example, consumers should be allowed to purchase health insurance across state lines.
Congress should also end the tax bias against individually purchased health insurance.
States can also play an important role in lowering costs. They should reduce the mandates on health insurance plans, which increase the costs of basic coverage anywhere from 20% to 50%, and encourage the expanded use of innovations such as...Health Savings Accounts.
* Part 1 of 2
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521540
[By Congressman Tom Price, R-GA]
Current economic and fiscal challenges demand a critical review of all federal programs with an eye toward positive, responsible reform. The Federal Housing Administration is one such program crying out for oversight and assessment. By every accounting measure, those used by private industry as well as government auditors, the FHA is bankrupt.
If the FHA were treated like a bank, it would be labeled as "critically undercapitalized" and folded up. By law, the agency is required to hold a 2% capital reserve. Yet according to its most recent actuarial review, it currently holds just a quarter of that, 0.53%.
The FHA, however, is not a bank, and we all know the White House would never allow it to fail. This is because the FHA is a key cog in today's government-monopolized housing industry, serving as one of the primary tools wielded by the administration in its mortgage modification efforts.
It's clear that the White House has not learned much from the mortgage meltdown, because rather than working to tamp down risky borrowing and mortgage practices, it is using the FHA to place them under the growing umbrella of federal backstops.
The FHA serves as a federally backed mortgage insurance program. It does not originate loans, but instead guarantees 100% of loan principal for borrowers and lenders. It insures loans up to a whopping $729,750...
* YOU KNOW, FOLKS... JUST YOU AVERAGE MIDDLE CLASS HOME... (*SMIRK*) IN OTHER WORDS, THE FHA SUBSIDIZES - AND OFTEN BAILS OUT - THE RICH.
...and requires a mortgage insurance premium, but only asks for a 3.5% down payment. If a borrower fails to pay his mortgage, the FHA steps in and pays the lender for the loss on the property.
In recent years, as the deterioration of the housing market became evident, private lenders began requiring higher down payments from borrowers and implemented more stringent underwriting standards. This could have been a helpful cleansing of bad practices. Instead, borrowers flocked to the FHA with its 3.5% down payment and 100% federal guarantee.
In a response, which one could only deem a "day late and a dollar short," last month FHA Director David Stevens announced measures to strengthen the FHA's capital reserves. Borrowers with FICO scores under 580 — below subprime — will now be required to have a 10% down payment, an embarrassingly timid response.
It raises the question, after all that's happened, should the government really be in the business of guaranteeing mortgages at subprime and below?
* THE ANSWER IS "NO!"
* To be continued...
* Continuing... (Part 2 of 2)
At the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the FHA guaranteed $685 billion and now insures an enormous 30% of all new home loan originations and 20% of refinanced loans. Plus, given the current conditions in the housing market, an unbelievable 80% of new borrowers with FHA guaranteed loans are first-time homebuyers.
And with FHA dabbling in the riskiest of loans and heavily leveraged, we sadly expect the FHA's troubles to get worse...
Astoundingly, as heard recently in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, the agency has not accurately calculated borrowers who are already behind on mortgage payments into FHA's loss projections.
But the really devastating inevitability is that taxpayers are in store for another open-ended bailout. As currently structured, excess premiums taken in by FHA are returned to the U.S. Treasury. But if the FHA's loan guarantee losses exceed its premiums, then the Treasury covers the difference.
FHA's recent actuarial report notes that there is likely to be a continued decline in its portfolio through 2011. According to testimony before the House Financial Services Committee, the bailout of the FHA could reach $54 billion or more. So taxpayers who are already enraged by the era of stimulus and bailouts need look no further than this agency for the next episode of federal intervention.
Put simply, it is time for a change in how the FHA operates. ... Congress must do its part to ensure that the FHA does not put the taxpayer at unnecessary and avoidable risk. This includes appropriately increasing the FHA down payment requirement to be more aligned with the risk its borrowers pose to the taxpayer. Most importantly, lenders should no longer be given a free, government-guaranteed ride with a 100% loss guarantee. As the FHA has rightly recognized, a 100% government guarantee with no lender "skin in the game" has eroded the solvency of FHA's balance sheet.
Moving forward, in addition to an increase in down payment by borrowers, lenders must be subject to more stringent and regular oversight, and losses must first be taken by the lender before the government guarantee begins.
Americans are calling for an end to the era of stimulus and bailouts. It's time for Washington to get tough with the FHA and straighten out its balance sheet. Failure to do so will only prolong the economic difficulties facing the housing sector and our great nation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/02/marco-rubios-cpac-speech-the-t.html
* THE LINK PROVIDED WILL TAKE YOU TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPEECH MARCO RUBIO GAVE YESTERDAY AT CPAC. IT'S WORTH READING; IT'LL CHEER YOU UP. THAT'S WHY I'M PROVIDING THE LINK.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/19/news/economy/health_care_assumption.fortune/index.htm
Both the House and Senate [health insurance reform] measures lay out the subsidies that the federal government is obligated to grant lower-income and middle-class health-care consumers when the plans would go into effect in 2014. It's a big contractual entitlement, but it's likely cost is vastly understated.
Let's examine the size of the subsidies. The House and Senate bills both set caps on the percentage of income Americans pay for premiums. They also subsidize the out-of-pocket costs of deductibles and co-pays.
Since the plans are quite similar, we'll use the one in the House legislation. For a family of four, the bill puts a limit of between 3% and 12% of income from $20,500 to $82,000 a year on a sliding scale. The lower a family's income, the higher the share paid by the taxpayer.
For a household in the middle of America's income spectrum, earning $61,500, the CBO reckons that the average yearly premiums and out-of-pocket costs for a family policy will reach $20,500 by 2016. When the plans are fully implemented, the family is obligated to cover $10,500, and the government pays the balance of $10,000. For a family making around $40,000 the government contributes even more -- around $19,000.
The CBO projects that these subsidies will cost $93 billion in 2016. But that assumes that just 29 million Americans collect them, and that the number of people covered by their employers actually increases. And that number is likely to decrease sharply.
Why? Here's where the fatal flaw comes in. Companies that drop their plans face relatively minor penalties under the provision that's won the most Congressional support, an annual fine of $750 per worker.
Most big industrial companies are already paying around $15,000 per family in health-care costs. Hence, they could shoulder the fine and reduce their costs by 95%, simply by dumping their workers into the subsidy pools the plans mandate.
Using the CBO numbers, the government's subsidy per person comes to $3,200 in 2016. Say just half of all employers cancel their plans, throwing 80 million Americans into the pools. That would cost an extra $256 billion.
But those workers would presumably get raises, since in a free labor market employers are likely to put what they now pay for health care into paychecks. The government would collect extra income and payroll taxes, as well as the yearly fine of $750. All told, the extra revenue from taxes and the penalty would harvest around $100 billion to partly offset the additional subsidies -- but only partly. So the net extra cost would be $156 billion ($256 billion minus $100 billion).
Meanwhile the total spending on subsidies would soar from the projected $93 billion to almost $250 billion, an increase of 170%. That's the $93 billion the CBO is already predicting, plus the additional $156 billion from the tens of millions of employees who would lose their corporate plans and receive subsidies instead.
The $250 billion represents a permanent, structural spending increase of 1% of GDP, and it's headed higher from there. Message to taxpayers: The House and Senate bills rest on a fatal assumption. Believe it at your peril.
Post a Comment