Friday, March 19, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 19, 2010


Know what's going on, folks... follow the newsbites...
Posted by at

22 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall

Democrats are planning to introduce legislation later this spring that would permanently repeal annual Medicare cuts to doctors, but are warning lawmakers not to talk about it for fear that it will complicate their push to pass comprehensive health reform.

The plans undercut the party's message that reform lowers the deficit, according to a memo obtained by POLITICO.

Democrats removed the so-called doc fix from the reform legislation last year because its $371-billion price tag would have made it impossible for Democrats to claim that their bill reduces the deficit. Republicans have argued for months that by stripping the doc fix from the bill, Democrats were playing a shell game.

* AND AS THE LEAKED INTERNAL DEMOCRATIC MEMO REFERENCED ABOVE PROVES, LIKE 'EM OR NOT, THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN TELLING THE TRUTH AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE INDEED BEEN KNOWINGLY ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE CONCERNING THE COSTS OF THEIR "REFORM" PLAN.

* THE POLITICO STORY PROVIDES A LINK TO THE ACTUAL MEMO.

The memo helps explains why the American Medical Association has supported reform even though their top legislative priority, the doc fix, was left out. The group is working behind the scenes with Democratic leadership and the White House to fix the cuts later this year.

* "...BEHIND THE SCENES..." (*SNORT*) FOLKS, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN LYING TO YOU. THEY'VE BEEN DELIBERATELY LYING TO YOU.

The memo also repeatedly advises Democrats not to discuss the details of the CBO score.

“We cannot emphasize this enough: do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative.

March 19, 2010 at 2:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/03/caterpillar-health-care-bill-would-cost-it-100m.html

Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."

Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.

* FOLKS... I'M NOT BIG ON CONSPIRACY THEORIES... BUT IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO ME THAT A SEGMENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS TRYING TO COLLAPSE OUR CAPITALISTIC ECONOMIC SYSTEM. WHETHER IT'S DELIBERATE OR NOT... THAT'S THE DIRECTION THINGS ARE HEADING IF DEMOCRATS GET THEIR WAY.

March 19, 2010 at 3:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/87697-republicans-assail-irs-provision-in-health-care-bill-

House Ways and Means Republicans on Thursday assailed a provision in the proposed health care reform bill under consideration this week.

Subcommittee on Oversight ranking member Charles Boustany (R-La.) said the IRS provision in the bill "dangerously expands, in an ominous way the tentacles of the IRS and it's reach into every American family," he said today during a press conference.

"This is a vast expanse of power," he said.

Boustany said the bill would allow the IRS to confiscate refunds if there are penalties for not buying health care.

Taxpayers could be required to buy insurance under President Barack Obama’s reform proposal by 2014 or face penalties of roughly $325 per individual that the IRS would collect.

Assuming it becomes law, the Congressional Budget Office expects the IRS will need roughly $10 billion over the next 10 years and nearly 17,000 new employees to meet its new responsibilities under health reform.

* PEOPLE...! THIS IS CRAZY...! WE WANT TO BE FIRING 17,000 OLD GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - NOT INCREASING THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE EVEN FURTHER BY ANOTHER 17,000 NEW IRS EMPLOYEES...!!!

March 19, 2010 at 3:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2rzjENZQV5k

The Federal Reserve Board must disclose documents identifying financial firms that [they claim] might have collapsed without the largest U.S. government bailout ever, a federal appeals court said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled today that the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched primarily after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. The ruling upholds a decision of a lower-court judge, who in August ordered that the information be released.

The Fed had argued that disclosure of the documents threatens to stigmatize borrowers and cause them “severe and irreparable competitive injury,” discouraging banks in distress from seeking help. A three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected that argument in a unanimous decision.

The U.S. Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, “sets forth no basis for the exemption the Board asks us to read into it,” U.S. Circuit Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote in the opinion. “If the Board believes such an exemption would better serve the national interest, it should ask Congress to amend the statute.”

Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, said the decision was a “major victory” for U.S. taxpayers.

“This money does not belong to the Federal Reserve,” Sanders said in a statement. “It belongs to the American people, and the American people have a right to know where more than $2 trillion of their money has gone.”

* HEY... EVEN A BROKEN CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY! (*GRIN*)

Bloomberg, majority-owned by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued after the Fed refused to name the firms it lent to or disclose loan amounts or assets used as collateral under its lending programs. Most of the loans were made in response to the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Lawyers for Bloomberg argued in court that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money. Bloomberg, majority-owned by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, sued after the Fed refused to name the firms it lent to or disclose loan amounts or assets used as collateral under its lending programs. Most of the loans were made in response to the deepest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Lawyers for Bloomberg argued in court that the public has the right to know basic information about the “unprecedented and highly controversial use” of public money.

March 19, 2010 at 4:04 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/obama-endorses-immigration-blueprint/

President Obama gave a thumbs up Thursday to the outline of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future..

* AGAIN... IF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ALLIES AREN'T ATTEMPTING TO DELIBERATELY HARM AMERICA... THEN WHAT THE HECK ARE THEY TRYING TO DO...???

* DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE BLACK (OUR FELLOW CITIZENS!) UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS...?!?!

In their broad blueprint, Sens. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, call for illegal immigrants to be put on a path to citizenship...

* NEVER! THESE PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER BE OFFERED CITIZENSHIP EVEN IF THEY ARE ALLOWED A "PATHWAY TO REMAINING IN THE U.S." CITIZENSHIP IS THE ULTIMATE RIGHT OF THOSE LEGALLY BORN HERE AND THE ULTIMATE PRIVILEGE FOR THOSE WHO ENTER OUR COUNTRY LEGALLY AND SEEK TO JOIN OUR SOCIETY.

The senators also proposed to turn all Social Security cards into tamper-proof IDs to be checked by employers when they are about to hire a worker. The cards would include biometric information designed to prevent counterfeiting -- but the senators said the information would not be stored in a government database.

* FIRST - UNLIKE SOME OF YOU - I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH A NATIONAL ID CARD. THAT ASIDE... HOW COULD ONE "CHECK" A NATIONAL ID CARD THAT'S NOT IN A NATIONAL DATABASE...???

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said flatly that [the Schumer/Grahan/Obama plan] can't pass.

"The bill doesn't have a prayer, because the American people oppose rewarding lawbreakers, which then encourages illegal immigration," he said. "Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to stay and take jobs away from citizens is like giving a burglar a key to the house. Illegal immigrants should return home and play by the rules like millions of legal immigrants."

Still, Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, said backers have now checked off the first several steps on their to-do list: The senators have published their outline, Mr. Obama endorsed it, and earlier this week Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, said he was looking forward to moving a bill through his committee.

* "...LEAHY..." (*SMIRK*)

March 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100319/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_patrols

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in Arizona has launched a two-day, countywide crime and immigration sweep that authorities say will focus on drop houses, drug violators and human smuggling vehicles.

Four hundred deputies and volunteer posse members are taking part in the patrols. The sweep, which began Thursday, is Sheriff Joe Arpaio's 14th since early 2008.

During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city...to seek out traffic violators and arrest other alleged lawbreakers.

The sheriff says deputies approach people only when they have probable cause to believe people have committed crimes.

* GOD BLESS SHERIFF JOE...!!!

March 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703734504575125682375306488.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Suppose we agree that we would like our society to have widespread home ownership and a property-owning citizenry. Does it take government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with implied taxpayer guarantees, tax advantages for the interest paid on home mortgages, and government pressure for "creative" mortgage lending to achieve this?

The Canadian experience shows that it doesn't.

Canada makes a useful comparison for the U.S. Both countries are rich, advanced, stable, have sophisticated financial systems and pioneer histories, and stretch from Atlantic to Pacific. But Canada has no housing GSEs. Mortgage interest is not tax deductible. It does not have 30-year fixed rate, freely prepayable mortgage loans. Mortgage lending is more conservative and much more creditor-friendly.

Canadian mortgage lenders have full recourse to the mortgage borrower's other assets and income, in addition to having the house as collateral. This means there is little incentive for borrowers to "walk away" from their mortgage.

The absence of a tax deduction for mortgage interest...increases the incentive to pay down debt.

Most Canadian mortgage payments are made through automatic debit of the borrower's checking account - a technical but important point.

Canadian fixed-rate mortgages typically have prepayment penalties to protect the lender and the interest rate on the loan is fixed for only up to five years.

This relative creditor conservatism has meant that Canada and Canadian banks have so far come through the international financial crisis in much better shape than their U.S. counterparts. Canada didn't avoid the recession, but mortgage delinquencies have so far remained much lower than in the U.S., with the percentage of loans delinquent 90 days or more at approximately one-tenth of the U.S. level.

What about the home ownership rate—the percentage of all households owning their own home? Isn't there a home ownership price to pay for this Canadian credit conservatism? No.

Here's the home ownership rate in Canada: 68%. In the U.S. it's 67%.

March 19, 2010 at 5:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704207504575129560620280910.html

Yesterday, [Pelosi's House] Democrats defeated 222 to 203 a GOP resolution that would have required them to vote up-or-down on the text of the Senate's Christmas Eve bill.

* FOLKS... PLEASE... RE-READ THE ABOVE LINE TWO OR THREE TIMES. ABSORB IT.

Members are so embarrassed by its kickbacks that Democrats are resorting to the procedural trick of "deeming" it passed instead. Speaker Nancy Pelosi actually told reporters this week that "nobody wants to vote for the Senate bill," but she'll do what it takes to impose it anyway.

* FOLKS... COM'ON... THIS IS INSANE! THE VERY IDEA IS UNCONSTITIONAL ON ITS FACE...!!! BILLS - LAWS - HAVE TO BE PASSED BY BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE... THE SAME EXACT BILL... THE YEAS AND NAYS RECORDED; THERE'S JUST NO DEBATE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES...!!!

March 19, 2010 at 5:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO PARTER (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575092141898417002.html

Without the policies followed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - and the destructive changes in housing and mortgage policies, like authorizing subprime and Alt-A mortgages for impecunious borrowers - the [economic] crisis [of 2008] would not have happened.

Has the government learned from its mistakes by closing Fannie and Freddie and agreeing to put any housing subsidy on the budget? Do you hear the president, the Treasury, or the Federal Reserve insisting on an end to too big to fail?

Quite the opposite. The new financial regulations, spearheaded by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), only bring back too big to fail by authorizing a Systemic Risk Council headed by the Treasury secretary.

Secretaries Timothy Geithner and Hank Paulson told Congress at the AIG hearing earlier this month that they faced a choice [in 2008]: a bailout or another Great Depression.

This is not true. [This was not true! This was never true! It was a lie all along!]

Classic central banking offered a better alternative. Let AIG fail and lend to the market on good collateral. The Fed, acting as lender of last resort, should protect the market - not the failing firm. That policy worked well in the 19th and early 20th century by inducing banks and counterparties to hold collateral acceptable to the Fed following failures.

(*NOD)

The market is not perfect. It is run by humans who make mistakes. But the same humans run government where they make different, often more costly, mistakes for which the public pays.

* BINGO...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

At the moment, we see the government spending excessively and making promises to spend that cannot be kept. This is already a major problem in states like California and countries like Greece, but the federal government will soon join them. At all levels of government, promises to pay state and local pensions and to provide health care far outstrip its capacity to pay. The Congressional Budget Office and many others have been warning for years about the $50 or $60 trillion of unfunded liability. Washington's answer on health care? Offer an expensive drug benefit followed by a more expensive "reform" that increases the unfunded Medicare-Medicaid liability. Dissemble about the real costs.

* MANY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SHOULD BE DRAGGED FROM THEIR OFFICES AND TARRED AND FEATHERED. I SAW THIS IN ALL SERIOUSNESS. THESE PEOPLE ARE LITERALLY BANKRUPTING OUR COUNTRY!

Regulators talk a lot about systemic risk. They do not - and probably cannot - give a tight operational definition of what this means. So setting up an agency to prevent systemic risk, as Mr. Dodd has just proposed, is just another way to pick the public's purse. Systemic risk will forever remain in the eye of the beholder. Instead of shifting losses onto those that caused them, systemic risk regulation will continue to transfer cost to the taxpayers. The regulators protect the bankers. They continue to lose sight of their responsibility to protect the public.

The Senate Banking Committee has considered putting the Treasury secretary in charge of systemic risk management. But Treasury secretaries are the officials who authorized all or most of the bailouts since bailouts began, beginning with the mistaken policy of saving First Pennsylvania in the 1970s.

This is not financial reform. Real financial reform requires that bankers - not regulators - monitor the risk on their balance sheet and accept the losses from mistakes. We will not get sound banking until the CEOs of the large banks and their shareholders are forced to pay for their mistakes.

For the first 150 years of this republic, the federal government ran a budget surplus in most peacetime years. Wartime deficits were followed by surpluses that reduced outstanding debt. President Truman paid for most of the Korean War, President Eisenhower ran a budget surplus except during the deep 1957-58 recession. Except for the Clinton years, deficits have been the rule since the 1960s. When Vice President Dick Cheney told Paul O'Neill that deficits didn't matter, he neglected to add "if the Chinese or Japanese buy the debt."

Gold standard rules and a strong belief in a balanced budget protected us from fiscal imprudence for the U.S.'s [first] 150 years.

Both rules are gone.

March 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527778

By presenting the CBO with incomplete, inaccurate and misleading data, the Democrats in Congress were finally able to come up with a cost score they like: $940 billion.

That's the estimate the CBO arrived at.

Like a used car dealer pricing a car at $9,999 instead of $10,000, the hucksters in Congress were anxious to get the official cost below the scary $1 trillion level at which things suddenly sound very unaffordable.

The $940 billion figure the CBO came up with is almost wholly bogus. So is the laughable estimate that deficits will be cut by $138 billion over a decade. And the Democrats know it. That's why they're trying to pass this bill using questionable parliamentary maneuvers and outright trickery.

Those who agree to this backroom scheme are part of a massive fraud perpetrated on the American people.

We can't blame the CBO. It can only produce a score, or cost estimate, at the behest of Congress based on the data it is given. As the saying goes in the tech world: Garbage in, garbage out. In this case, they were given 10 years of revenues, but only six years of costs. So of course the "cost" looks reasonable.

And even the CBO, in releasing what it made clear was an unofficial estimate, warned: "This estimate is ... preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal ..." In short, they want no part of this farce.

In fact, the real cost of this health care takeover is more like $2.5 trillion over 10 years - not $940 billion. That's off by, oh, 166%.

As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has noted, Congress' estimates carefully exclude the majority of the costs from the health care plan. Indeed, he notes, "the on-budget costs of the legislation probably account for only 40% of the total costs."

[D]espite promises by President Obama of "cuts," total health care spending will still be $210 billion higher in 10 years, CBO says.

The CBO's own estimates say the legislation would still leave 24 million Americans without insurance after 10 years. Worse, the CBO analysis ignores the well-established impact that higher taxes have on the economy and personal behavior. When factored in, according to Heritage Foundation policy analyst Kathryn Nix, "These provisions would decrease investment in the economy, resulting in lower wages and growing the debt."

Heritage estimates health reform will add $755 billion to our debt over 10 years, push annual interest payments up $20 billion, add $76 billion on average to the deficit and kill 690,000 jobs a year.

March 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527771

Americans resoundingly reject ObamaCare. What, then, accounts for the Democrats' determination?

Democrats believe health care is a right. Start with that premise and everything else makes complete sense. Rights — whether the right to vote or freely assemble or avoid self-incrimination — exist independent of popular feeling, poll numbers or even, in the case of health care, the Constitution.

Democrats don't care how much ObamaCare costs. When President Obama addressed Republicans, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., carefully outlined the costs of this "reform." He explained why costs figure to go up, not down.

To someone truly interested in a cost-benefit analysis, these points warrant a rebuttal. But as MSNBC host Ed Schultz said, when it comes to health care reform and money, "I don't care how much it costs." ... To Democrats, "economic justice" knows no price tag.

Massachusetts' RomneyCare, which is similar to ObamaCare, has failed to reduce costs. The three big entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — are all in deep financial trouble. At inception, the programs' cost estimates were wildly underestimated. None of this provides cautionary lessons [to the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Democrats].

Democrats bask in an Obama-loving liberal traditional media. The media cheerlead for health "reform" and desperately want to give the president a "victory" - while accepting preposterous claims at face value.

ObamaCare promises to extend health insurance to 30 million people; promises financial assistance to those unable to afford insurance; requires all employers to offer health insurance or pay fines; requires everyone to get insurance or pay a fine; and promises to attack "unwarranted" insurance premium increases while requiring insurers to enroll those with pre-existing illness without dropping anyone's coverage.

And it would lawfully achieve all of this without increasing the deficit!

(*SNORT*) (*HEADACHE*)

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... NONE OF YOU BELIEVE THIS. HECK... I CAN'T IMAGINE EVEN SUPPORTERS GENUINELY BELIEVE THIS CRAP!

Democrats ultimately want a Canadian-style single-payer system. ObamaCare will result in cost overruns, caregivers driven out of business, declining quality, rationing, reduced innovation and bureaucrats determining who gets what, how and when.

When the complaints grow loud enough, they'll be ready to "reform" the "reform."

* THAT IS THE PLAN, FOLKS. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IS THE PLAN. DEMOCRATS SUCH AS BARNEY FRANK HAVE SAID SO DIRECTLY.

March 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=527775

The water spigots are back on, at least temporarily, in California's Central Valley. Turned off to protect a tiny fish, they happen to be in the districts of two congressmen "undecided" on health care reform.

(*SMIRK*)

The 2-inch-long delta smelt, a fish destined for the Endangered Species list, plugs the drains releasing water to the farmlands. So to protect it, environmentalists filed lawsuits and the decision was made to restrict the water flow and safeguard the smelt, even if that meant turning some of America's best farmland into the functional equivalent of Death Valley.

On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior announced it was increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California... According to the Interior announcement, "Typically (the Bureau of) Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators (Diane) Feinstein and (Barbara) Boxer, and Congressmen (Jim) Costa and (Dennis) Cardoza."

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

Blue Dog Democrats Costa, who represents California's 20th Congressional District (Fresno), and Cardoza, who represents the 18th (Stockton to Modesto), are both listed as "undecided" in the upcoming vote on health care reform, whether it be on the Senate bill itself or the "deem and pass" resolution known as the Slaughter rule, after Rules Committee Chairman Louise Slaughter. ... Interior's announcement gives Costa and Cardoza something to assuage the wrath of angry constituents just in time for any vote. ... This isn't the first time. To get them out of the "undecided" column in last December's House vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership promised $500 million for a new University of California-Merced Medical School. Costa and Cardoza then voted "aye." During the 109th Congress, Cardoza was co-chairman of the Blue Dog Coalition, a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who allegedly had the Constitution, limited government and their constituents' best interests at heart. Lately, many have just rolled over and played dead. Cardoza and Costa were among 28 Blue Dog Democrats who voted for the first House bill.

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS, THIS ISN'T "POLITICS AS USUAL." NO. THIS IS A TOXIC HEDGEPODGE OF IDEOLOGICAL EXTREMISM AND OUTRIGHT BRIBERY.

* To be continued...

March 19, 2010 at 6:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)

Last September, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of faraway South Carolina tried to help San Joaquin Valley farmers by offering an amendment to a $32 billion Interior Department funding bill. His amendment would have overturned the decision by Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and temporarily restored valley irrigation deliveries.

The amendment was defeated by a near-straight party-line vote of 61-36, with both Boxer and Feinstein voting against restoring the Central Valley water supply.

* BUT SURPRISE, SURPRISE... NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN BOXER AND FEINSTEIN APPROVE OF TURNING THE WATER BACK ON!

(*SMIRK*)

The 400-mile San Joaquin Valley is a fertile strip of farmland that produces more fruits and vegetables per square foot than any comparable land in the nation — when it has water. Now it's a place where farmers no longer farm but instead line up at food banks to feed the families of those who once fed the rest of the country and a good chunk of the world.

In affected areas, the jobless rate has hit 14%, with farming towns like Mendota experiencing jobless rates nearing 40%. Agricultural losses could eventually total in the billions. All to protect a minnow, while politicians use the San Joaquin Valley as a bargaining chip in what some might consider a political bribe.

Once we had a Congress and congressmen who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for our freedom and liberty. Now we are stuck with the likes of these.

* AGAIN... TELL ME HOW "CRAZY" I AM TO WANT TO SEE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS LIKE THESE TARRED AND FEATHERED. GOD HELP THIS ONCE HEALTHY REPUBLIC.

March 19, 2010 at 6:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Economists_Letter_to_Obama_and_Congress_March.pdf

[T]he health care bill contains a number of provisions that will eliminate jobs, reduce hours and wages, and limit future job creation.

New Taxes: The bill raises taxes by almost $500 billion over ten years. A significant portion of these tax increases will fall on small business owners, reducing capital and limiting economic growth and hiring.

New and Increased Medicare Taxes: An increase in the Medicare payroll tax included in the bill will affect small businesses employing millions of Americans. Over time, higher payroll taxes will decrease wages for these employees. And a new Medicare tax on investment income such as interest, dividends, and capital gains proposed by President Obama and likely included in the bill will threaten jobs and decrease economic growth.

Employer Mandate: The bill will impose a tax of $2,000 per employee on employers with more than 50 employees that do not provide health insurance. The bill will also tax employers that offer health coverage deemed “unaffordable” by the government. These new taxes on employers will reduce employment or be passed on to workers in the form of lower wages or reduced hours.

In addition to constricting economic growth and reducing employment, the health care bill will increase spending on health care and will increase the cost of health coverage.

The new and higher taxes on America’s small businesses and workers included in the bill are detrimental to job creation and economic growth, especially now given the fragile state of the economy.

March 19, 2010 at 11:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704059004575128002799146506.html#mod=todays_us_marketplace

Health insurers are fighting demands by hospitals for sharply higher reimbursement rates by threatening to drop the hospitals from their health-plan networks, and blaming them for higher insurance premiums.

"We've never seen the kind of increases we're seeing right now" from hospitals, says Aetna Inc. President Mark Bertolini. Five years ago, a typical rate increase was about 5%, but this year Aetna granted 50 "must have" rate increases of more than 20%, Mr. Bertolini says.

Hospitals argue that low Medicare rates and cuts to Medicaid mean that hospitals have to get money from elsewhere, and increasingly that is private insurers. Rising ranks of uninsured Americans have led to more uncompensated care and have swelled the rolls of Medicaid, exacerbating the problem.

But insurers contend that in recent years big hospital systems have been buying up smaller medical centers and using their dominance in a region to demand big rate increases. America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade organization, points to data showing hospital markets are 47% more concentrated than they were 13 years ago.

The dispute goes to the heart of insurers' objections to the health overhaul legislation that is expected to come before the House as soon as this weekend. They say it unfairly targets their industry without doing enough to control health-care spending from other parts of the medical system.

Hospitals aren't taking the heat lightly. They contend that the percentages don't matter because reimbursements to many hospitals have been very low for years. American Hospital Association President Richard Umbdenstock sent a letter to WellPoint Chief Executive Angela Braly last week, taking her to task for blaming hospitals. "You cite a 10% upward trend in hospital costs, but the overall premium increase was as high as 39% in some markets," he wrote.

He added that recent national data suggest that "rising utilization and cost increases in labor, medical technologies and other supplies are driving up hospital costs, not consolidation. The recent decline in hospital margins - down to 2.6% in 2008 - indicates that rate increases are not keeping pace with these cost increases, further evidence that consolidation is not the issue."

March 19, 2010 at 11:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://article.nationalreview.com/428569/obamacares-imaginary-savings/the-editors?p=1

According to CBO, Obamacare’s new subsidies for health insurance would cost $216 billion by 2019 — an expense that would increase another 8 percent every year thereafter. In addition, the plan includes $130 billion in other entitlement spending, plus another $70 billion for the bureaucracy needed to implement it. All totaled, the bill would cost at least $1.2 trillion through 2019, not the $940 billion advertised by the White House.

And even that $1.2 trillion is a low-ball estimate, because the Democratic plan would do almost nothing of real consequence until 2014. But when the program’s spending measures did finally kick in, costs would soar. Over the first ten years of full implementation, the bill’s cost would grow to at least $2.5 trillion, and perhaps much more. Today, Medicare and Medicaid spend far more money - about ten times as much - as the original government estimates predicted.

Most of the offsets the Democrats are pushing to “pay for” the bill are smoke and mirrors - cuts that won’t be made, taxes that won’t be collected. But there are some measures that, if enacted, promise to inflict real damage on the American economy and on America’s seniors. Among the plan’s $560 billion in tax hikes over the next ten years is a new Medicare tax on non-wage income, a penalty on investment that would undermine business growth and job creation. And there’s the Medicare Advantage cut, more than $200 billion over ten years. This reduction would force millions of Medicare beneficiaries out of their health-insurance plans, in direct contradiction of Obama’s promise. In total, the Medicare cuts in the president’s plan now exceed $520 billion over ten years.

The president wants us to believe we can count on a massive revenue surge from the “Cadillac tax” after 2020, but the unions hate the tax, and the fact that the president’s plan puts off collecting it until he is safely in retirement suggests that Democrats are not serious about enforcing the measure when the time comes.

The Democrats’ plan assumes permanent, across-the-board cuts in Medicare hospital and nursing-home payments - cuts that that would go so deep that the chief actuary of the program expects that one in five facilities would have to stop taking Medicare patients to avoid insolvency. Which means those cuts probably aren’t going to happen. We have seen this before: Even as Democrats claim these new Medicare savings can be taken to the bank, they are working to undo a similarly clumsy and ill-advised cut in Medicare physicians’ fees - at a cost of $371 billion over ten years, another massive pile of money not accounted for in the Democrats’ “savings” projections.

While much of the spending isn’t counted, a big piece of the revenue is double-counted: The Democrats’ numbers show premiums from the new long-term care insurance program, along with Social Security and Medicare surpluses, being used both to pay for the insurance subsidies and to strengthen the ailing entitlement programs. But you can’t spend the same dollar in two different places. Which means that the Democrats are trying to finance another expensive entitlement program with funds that are needed to pay for entitlement programs already on the books.

When that double-counting is omitted and the real cost of physicians’ fees is included, all of the claimed deficit-reduction from the health bill vanishes.

March 19, 2010 at 11:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11376/RyanLtrhr4872.pdf

The Combined Budgetary Impact of Enacting the Reconciliation Proposal, H.R. 3590, and H.R. 3961:

You asked about the total budgetary impact of enacting the reconciliation proposal (the amendment to H.R. 4872), the Senate-passed health bill (H.R. 3590), and the Medicare Physicians Payment Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 3961). CBO estimates that enacting all three pieces of legislation would add $59 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period.

Under current law, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services will be reduced by about 21% in April 2010 and by an average of about 2% per year for the rest of the decade. H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2% in 2010 and would restructure the sustainable growth rate mechanism beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost about $208 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

The Budgetary Impact of Enacting the Reconciliation Proposal and H.R. 3590 with Some Provisions Altered:

A detailed year-by-year projection, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful over a longer horizon because the uncertainties involved are simply too great.

March 19, 2010 at 11:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/19/the-aftermath-of-obamacare-what-america-will-look-like-if-the-white-house-gets-its-way/

The Aftermath of Obamacare: What America Will Look Like If The White House Gets Its Way --

Here’re ten things you can expect:

A Massively Engorged Government, to the tune of $2.5 trillion in new entitlement spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), new entitlement spending in the plan would cost $216 billion by 2019, then increase by 8 percent every year thereafter.

A Cornhusker Kickback for All. No, special deals aren’t removed from Obamacare this time around. Instead, the House bill extends new federal funding for Medicaid to all states. Incidentally, you’re paying for it.

A Freight train of taxes, slamming the American people in 2018. You’ve heard of the “Cadillac” tax on high-cost insurance plans? It will be pushed back to 2018, and given the way “high-cost” plans will be defined, a large segment of the middle class would get hit with the tax over time.

Beware the shape-shifting tax monster. New taxes will take many forms, including taxes on prescription drugs, medical devices (like wheel chairs), and health insurance.

Unconstitutional mandates, courtesy of Congress. Don’t want to buy health insurance? Congress will penalize you if you don’t, regardless of income.

Lock your back door. Higher health care costs will be sneaking in. The plan gives subsidies to low-to-moderate wage families, but the subsidies will increase at a lower rate than the rate at which premiums increase. In other words, those families will pay more every year.

Lights out for small businesses? Companies that hire certain low-income Americans will have to pay $3,000 per employee, per year, even if the company offers insurance.Oh, and if a company employs 50 or more workers, they’ll face higher tax penalties to the tune of $2,000 per full-time employee.

Abortions. You will pay for them, like it or not. The House bill includes major funding for community health centers with no restrictions on federal taxpayer funding of abortions.

Want to play the stock market? Maybe not, after you hear this. The House bill slaps a 3.8% tax on investment income.

It’s not a federal system, after all. States will have less power. They’ll no longer have authority to regulate health care premiums. Instead, the federal government will take on the job. States and local governments won’t be able to control their own employee health plans; they’ll have to abide by new federal regulations.

March 19, 2010 at 11:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/nyregion/19nemazee.html?ref=politics

A once-wealthy businessman and prominent donor to Democratic candidates pleaded guilty on Thursday to stealing hundreds of millions of dollars to buy property in Westchester County, donate to charity and give money to political campaigns.

In September, federal prosecutors charged Mr. Nemazee, who had raised money for Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama, with running a Ponzi scheme from 1998 to 2009 that obtained $292 million in fraudulent loans from Bank of America, Citibank and HSBC.

Mr. Nemazee obtained huge loans, falsely claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in securities as collateral. Prosecutors said he used subterfuge and forgery to support his claims of wealth, sending banks bogus letters and account statements. Nemazee also set up what prosecutors called a “virtual office” with a phone number that he pretended belonged to the financial institutions that he said had custody of the nonexistent securities.

As part of his plea, he agreed to forfeit assets totaling $292 million, including bank accounts; his interest in properties on Park Avenue and in Katonah, N.Y., Rome and TriBeCa; and a 2008 Maserati. The agreement included a sentencing guideline of 15 years and 8 months to 19 years and 7 months in prison.

A spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan declined to identify the political action committees or campaigns that received money from Mr. Nemazee’s schemes.

(*SMIRK*)

March 19, 2010 at 11:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/mediscare-our-government-administered-insurance-looks-into-the-abyss

Each year, the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. The most recent report outlined the worrisome state of Social Security. It also showed that Medicare's financial status is much worse, in particular Medicare’s Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund. HI helps pay for hospital, home health, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice care for the aged and disabled, and is, in the words of the trustees, “not adequately financed.”

(*SNORT*)

Medicare is funded by two general trust funds: the Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund (SMI), which pays for physician and outpatient services as well as for the Prescription Drug Benefit, and the HI. When SMI expenditures exceed Medicare’s revenue from monthly premiums, the U.S. Treasury covers the deficit out of our tax dollars (labeled “General Revenue Transfers” above). However, when HI expenditures exceed payroll tax revenues, current law makes no provision to finance this deficit.

Since 2008, HI has been paying out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues (premiums, state transfers, and taxes on benefits). This trend continues in 2009. For now, the difference is made up through transfers from the U.S. Treasury, and by redeeming trust fund assets accumulated over the years.

* FUNNY THING ABOUT THOSE... er... "ASSETS." THING IS... THESE "ASSETS" ARE AT THE SAME TIME LIABILITIES TO THE TREASURY SINCE IT IS THE TREASURY (MEANING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE) PAYING THEM OFF!

(*SMIRK*)

* IN ANY CASE...

In 2017, however, HI reserves will be exhausted.

(*SHRUG*)

Under current law, revenue from taxes would remain at roughly 1.5 percent of GDP, while general fund revenue contributions are projected to increase from 1.5% of GDP in 2009 to 4.7% in 2083, and beneficiary premiums would rise from 0.5% to 1.6% of GDP.

What does this mean? [R]evenue sources dedicated to Medicare will become enormously insufficient and will need an increasing share of general revenue transfers. As the General Accounting Office has warned for a long time, this mortgages the future and crowds out other national needs.

Unless Congress adopts a law to fund the HI deficit (which in the current financial environment won’t be easy), beneficiaries of HI services could see its provision interrupted.

Medicare spending is clearly out of control...

* YA THINK...???

(*SMIRK*)

March 19, 2010 at 11:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Rep-Darrel-T-Issa-The-lackluster-record-of-government-health-care-88463012.html

When all is said and done, President Obama's plan mandates dozens of new entitlement programs and creates scores of new government offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs, all of which will have to be funded, staffed and managed at taxpayer cost.

[A]n expansion of the federal bureaucracy at that rate will greatly increase the incidence of waste, fraud and abuse in health care. A recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that federal subsidy programs cost taxpayers about $100 billion every year in improper payments, with Medicare and Medicaid accounting for more than half of that. Harvard Professor Malcolm Sparrow, a specialist in health care fraud teaching at the Kennedy School of Government, has estimated that as much as 20% of the federal health program budgets – or approximately $150 billion – is eaten up by improper payments every year.

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters – and her undecided Democratic colleagues – that the bulk of the cost for the president’s plan will come from recovering wasteful spending in Medicare and Medicaid, an amount she projects will add up to $500 billion over the next several years.

Such assurances are disingenuous, however, in light of the evidence. In 2008, for instance, the Department of Justice recovered a meager $1.48 billion from Medicare and Medicaid fraud through enforcement programs that cost taxpayers $1.13 billion. Once these enforcement costs are subtracted, the government only recovered $350 million. At that rate, it would take the Justice Department more than 1,400 years to recover enough to pay for the president’s plan.

Government-run health care also runs much higher administrative costs per insured person than private insurance does. Using numbers from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the wastefulness of bureaucratically-managed health care becomes staggering.

Each year, the government spends an average of $927 in administrative costs per person for Medicaid and $509 for Medicare. Private insurance, on the other hand, costs only $453 per person in administrative costs. Until the government can demonstrate an ability to get administrative costs under control for programs that it already runs, Americans should vehemently oppose any effort to give bureaucrats in Washington any more power to control the one-sixth of the U.S. economy that affects health care.

March 19, 2010 at 11:57 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)