<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" >

	<channel>
		<title>Government Bytes</title>
		<description>The Official Weblog of NTU/NTUF</description>
		<link>http://blog.ntu.org/</link>
		<language>en-us</language>

		<item>
			<title>Health Care Whip Count</title><description><![CDATA[The Hill has updated its whip count of Democrats for this weekend's health care bill vote.  See where your Representative is and then let them know how you feel about the bill.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:34:53 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4956</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert</title><description><![CDATA[NTU urges all Representatives to vote “NO” on H.R. 3962, the “Affordable” Health Care for America Act. This 1,990-page, $1 trillion bill is NOT health care reform, but rather a political ploy to deceive taxpayers and forever distort the relationship between government and the people it serves. While there are innumerable provisions in this legislation that we oppose, we have chosen to highlight those that we believe are most detrimental to taxpayers.

H.R. 3962 will hurt, if not destroy, small businesses. Small business owners making $500,000 or more will be hit with a 5.4 percent surtax to fund part of this supposed “reform.” That, coupled with the pending expiration of the Bush tax cuts, will increase the marginal tax rate from 35 to 45 percent, resulting in the loss of approximately 5.5 million jobs nationwide. Additionally, businesses will be slapped with a mandate requiring them to offer “approved” health insurance to their employees. Businesses could be taxed as high as 8 percent because of this mandate, leading many to lay off workers if they cannot afford the extra costs.  

H.R. 3962 contains 100 authorizations and appropriations that inflate the role and size of the federal government at unprecedented, not to mention unsustainable, levels. The dollar figures in H.R. 3962 total in excess of $100 billion, as well as 32 additional authorizations “for such sums as may be necessary.” Looking at the larger picture, the Congressional Budget Office estimates this bill will cost $1.055 trillion; however, that does not include the additional $34 billion states will pay for Medicaid expansion or the $245 billion for Medicare reimbursements for doctors. Nor does it include the authorized discretionary spending for grants, public programs, changes and funding for a variety of agencies forced into implementing H.R. 3962.

Unbridled spending, tax hikes, and a more powerful, less accountable government are not the way to lower costs and improve our health system. It is our hope that you will put party politics aside, vote NO on H.R. 3962, and work toward passage of a common-sense, more fiscally responsible health care bill that empowers patients, not Washington bureaucrats. 

	Roll call votes on H.R. 3962 will be among only a handful in the last decade to receive the highest weight of 100 in our annual Rating of Congress.

If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Federal Government Affairs Manager Jordan Forbes at (703) 683-5700
*************************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:24:08 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4955</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU's Pictures from the November 5th House Call Event</title><description><![CDATA[NTU joined conservatives and libertarians on Capitol Hill yesterday to protest Pelosi's health care bill.  The event had tens of thousands of participants from all across our nation.  Pretty phenomenal turn out, especially when the entire event was planned in only four days!

Go to our Flickr page to view NTU's pictures from the event. ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:09:19 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4954</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>America's Public Option for Mail Continues Slip into Fiscal Quagmire</title><description><![CDATA[The Government Accountability Office reports  that the U.S. Postal Service's recent efforts to cut costs and increase revenues have been a $7 billion bust, the third consecutive year of losses and the largest in decades. And in keeping in the spirit of  Bailout Nation, Congress shipped $4 billion to the Postal Service to help it make its mandatory payment to prefund employee retirement benefits. 

The generous contracts that union employees have in the USPS is a large part of the system's fiscal problems. Despite improvements in technology and automation, compensation and benefits have comprised a steady 80 percent of the USPS's costs over the years. 

With the GAO forecasting that the mail service will lost $7 billion in 2010 and 2011, the USPS will have to quicken efforts to cut costs and generate revenue. But if they raise the price of postage, they risk losing out on more business to electronic delivery. The USPS is looking for ways to generate revenue outside of its regular purview. It has asked Congress for permission to offer non-postal products such as insurance and banking. The GAO warns such a venture could very well lose more money for the USPS, and it also opens up "fair competition issues."

Our public option for mortgages has already gone belly up, and our public option for mail is on life support. Why would a public option for health insurance not meet a similar fiscal fate?]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:57:24 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4953</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>US unemployment rate rises to 26 year high of 10.2%. How many jobs has Obama "created or saved now"?</title><description><![CDATA[Not much needs to be added to the somber statistic except to wonder how it will effect waivering Democratic votes on the House health care "reform" bill, given that all but the most far-left of the Dems must understand that the measure will be extremely destructive to American employment.

Canadian unemployment made a similiar unexpectedly high jump during October.

I've written in the past, about the so-called "stimulus" plan, that it was never intended to stimulate the economy at the time it was passed.  Instead, the Administration has been keeping its powder dry so that it could pump hundreds of billions of dollars of your money into temporary, mostly-union, jobs in  the middle of 2010 in order to minimize Democratic election losses next November.  I stand by that prediction of their intent.

However, just as nobody but the far left puts any credibility in the "jobs created or saved" statistics put out by the Administration, these make-work jobs -- most often in places which already have relatively low unemployment and on projects which are not the most necessary -- will not work into beneficial economic news for Obama.  (If employment begins to rise noticeably in the next 6 months, it will be in spite of, not because of, his economic policies.  And most of the nation knows it.)

Speaking of "jobs created or saved", did you see this story about a community organization which reported more jobs created or saved than they have in total employees at the place?  When even the AP is shredding Obama's numbers, you know they must be unbelievably blatant lies.

With the persistent uncertainty about what productive sector of society the Democrats will target for tax increases, regulation, or just threats, and the upcoming barrage of tax hikes, anywhere from fairly large to a tsunami of economic destruction (if the tax hikes in the House health care "reform" bill were to pass), very few businesses will be looking to expand.  I see no reason for any substantial improvement in unemployment until these issues are resolved in a way that's better than anything the Democrats are currently proposing.  If anything were to lower the  unemployment rate, it would probably be discouraged would-be workers simply giving up on finding a job.

Nothing says "vote out the party in power" like high unemployment.  If I were a Democrat in a conservative or even moderate district, I'd be extremely nervous for my political future right now.  All the more so with the GOP domination in Wednesday's most important elections.  Again, I wonder if today's news will make it more difficult for Nancy Pelosi to come up with 218 votes for her takeover of 1/6th of our economy.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:49:32 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4952</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>House Health Care Vote This Saturday</title><description><![CDATA[From AP:
 The second-ranking House Democrat predicted that historic health care legislation will be passed Saturday, extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured and banning the industry from turning people away.

Rep. Steny Hoyer told reporters House leaders would have the 218 votes needed to pass the sweeping bill that President Barack Obama has made the defining social goal of his young administration — presuming a couple of final issues are resolved. Hoyer acknowledged that the vote could be tight.Time is running out!  If you have not expressed your opposition to your Members of Congress, now is the time to do so. 
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:38:03 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4951</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>A "Tax Horror Show"</title><description><![CDATA[This morning, I had the privilege of a one-on-one interview with Congressman John Fleming (LA-4) to discuss his thoughts surrounding the prevailing health care debate. It was interesting to get his take on an issue that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now saying could very well carry over to next year. While it is good news that a final bill may not be signed into law until the next session of Congress, we must continue to focus on House Representatives as they prepare to cast their votes this Friday or Saturday.  

The Republicans have offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to Nancy Pelosi’s H.R. 3962, the “Affordable” Health Care for America Act. Among several other key differences between the two pieces of legislation, Congressman Fleming said that the amendment would “not add one dime to the deficit,” include tort reform to save taxpayers $30 billion, contain no federal mandates on states, and allow small businesses to aggregate for health care coverage.

Since we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Democratic majority about their proposed health care reform plan, I asked Congressman Fleming to break down the specific tax implications in H.R. 3962 that he found most problematic. He started out by saying that this bill is a “tax horror show.” He went on to elaborate that the Democratic bill will ultimately hurt small businesses the most because a majority of their profits do not go into owners’ pockets, but instead are invested back into their respective businesses. Taxing these companies, many of them LLCs, at a greater rate through H.R. 3962 is particularly harmful. The Congressman also explained that H.R. 3962 would increase the marginal tax rate from 35% to 45% and result in the loss of approximately 5.5 million jobs nationwide. This 10% increase comes from the inevitable expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the excise tax of 5.4% found in H.R. 3962. And, don’t forget about the individual and employer mandates – a 2% tax on individuals if they do not purchase “approved” health insurance and 8% tax on businesses if they do not offer coverage to their employees. Neither mandate is contained within the Republican alternative. 

I really appreciate the Congressman taking the time to speak to us this morning, as it is always helpful to get an inside perspective – and from a doctor to boot! He is particularly in tune to problems surrounding the health care industry, and how we can most successfully implement true reform that does not dramatically hurt taxpayers. 

Stay tuned for health care updates throughout the week. Again, a House vote will likely take place this FRIDAY or SATURDAY, so please call your Representative and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 3962.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:33:55 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4950</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Ad Campaign</title><description><![CDATA[In a continued effort to speak out against government-run health care, NTU has launched an aggressive campaign in key Democratic districts across the nation. We will sponsor radio ads and phone banks opposing the $1 trillion health care bill, and the following Members of Congress will be targeted:

Travis Childers, MS-01
Mike McIntyre, NC-07
Heath Shuler, NC-11
Dina Titus, NV-03
Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ-01
Glenn Nye, VA-02
Harry Teague, NM-02
Tom Perriello, VA-05
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD-AL
Joe Donnelly, IN-02
Brad Ellsworth, IN-08
Charlie Wilson, OH-06
Christopher Carney, PA-10
Mike Ross, AR-4
Vic Snyder, AR-2
Mark Schauer, MI-7
Marion Berry, AR-1
Rick Boucher, VA-9
Dennis Moore, KS-3
Frank Kratovil, MD-1
Kathy Dahlkemper, PA-3
Bart Gordon, TN-6
Martin Heinrich, NM-1
Betsy Markey, CO-4
John Salazar, CO-3
Ben Chandler, KY-6
Allen Boyd, FL-2
Scott Murphy, NY-2
Earl Pomeroy, ND (At Large)

The fight is far from over. We hear that Speaker Pelosi will bring H.R. 3962 to the floor as soon as she obtains 218 votes, which could occur THIS WEEK. We have put a tremendous amount of resources into this campaign because we believe it could have a significant impact on fence-sitting lawmakers. It is our hope that these ads will energize taxpayers to call their Representatives and demand that their voice be heard.

Here is an example of one of the ads:

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:56:31 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4949</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>House Call on Washington</title><description><![CDATA[The House of Representatives may vote on health care legislation THIS WEEK, and we need your help to try to stop them. Right now, we are hearing that Speaker Pelosi does not have the votes, but will bring the bill to the floor as soon as she reaches the magic number of 218. WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN!

The $1 trillion bill, complete with its massive tax hikes, government-forced insurance, new regulations and bureaucracies – all leading to a much larger and more powerful federal government – will be one of the most important votes you will ever witness. For the sake of your future, for the sake of your children’s future, please speak out! House conservatives will lead a “House Call” protest rally on the Capitol steps this Thursday, November 5, at noon. I encourage you to join us in this effort as we tell Congress, one more time, that we do not want the government taking over one-fifth of our economy through passage of this horrific health care legislation. If you cannot make it out to Capitol Hill, please call your Representative  around the same time and tell them to vote NO on H.R. 3962, the “Affordable” Health Care for America Act.  
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:35:42 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4948</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Defeat in hand; Obama administration claims victory</title><description><![CDATA[Everyone remembers the famous (infamous?) shot of President Bush on the aircraft carrier with the mission accomplished banner waving, in my head I substitute in Obama and pretend the war was against the economy.  Instead of acknowledging that their stimulus has clearly NOT worked (unemployment heading over 10%) they're simply claiming victory.  

On Friday (as reported in the Huffington Post), Jared Bernstein, white house economic advisor, declared that Obama’s stimulus package has “saved or created about 650,000 jobs”.  The problem is, that statistic, according to Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw, is an “immeasurable metric” (i.e. complete fiction).  We cannot possibly calculate jobs saved and the evidence seems to point to gross overstatement of jobs created.  There is simply no way to find out.  In the phrase ‘jobs saved or created’ the spin gurus have worked a masterpiece.  They found a ‘macroeconomic estimation’ of the impact spending could have on employment and they’ve ran with it.

If there is any silver lining here, the inverse statistic is easily measured: jobs NOT saved.  Since Obama’s stimulus passed in February the American economy lost nearly 3.7 million jobs, not even counting October.  So if Obama’s plan saved/created 650,000 jobs (dubious), but we still lost 3.7 million, by their best guess the plan was not even 15% effective at stemming the tide of job losses.  It seems they pushed a plan to spend 787 billion dollars of tax payer money on a stimulus that hasn’t actually stimulated anything... definitely a 'mission accomplished'.
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:05:13 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4947</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Election Night Primer</title><description><![CDATA[I'm blogging today from the State Policy Network Annual Meeting in gorgeous Asheville, NC. It's a phenomenal conference for anyone with an interest in state fiscal and economic issues, as it brings together the leaders of free market think tanks across the country for policy discussions, training seminars, and networking. This year's event could not come at a better time, as Election Night falls smack dab in the middle of the four-day conference. Thus, I'll be following returns on several ballot initiatives and two gubernatorial races with free market thinkers and activists representing key states in this "off-year" election.

NTU's 2009 Ballot Guide gives a succinct look at key measures that will expand or contract state government. In this post I'll flesh out the details of the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia and a few key measures in other states.

Governor's Races


New Jersey. Incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) faces a tough test tomorrow, running for re-election against former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie (R) and former EPA administrator Chris Daggett (I). Corzine's record as governor is abysmal. He has raised taxes on income, property, cigarettes, alcohol, and lottery winnings just this year. New Jersey's tax climate is among the nation's most onerous, and residents are leaving the state in droves - over 462,000 left between 1998 and 2007, according to ALEC. Corzine was one of the first governors to vocally support President Obama's federal bailout of state governments, which propped up New Jersey's budget temporarily but will leave a gaping deficit the next time around. Corzine promised spending transparency in New Jersey (see NTU's letter to the Governor) but ultimately has not delivered. 

Christie, on the other hand, has offered a vague plan to cut taxes. He blames Corzine for the state's fiscal woes, but offers few details on how he would restore fiscal sanity in Trenton. His campaign has focused more on corruption and law-and-order; these are important issues, but it is the tax-and-spend culture in the Garden State that should be the true winning issue. Middling poll numbers (Christie +1.2 according to RealClearPolitics) suggest that he has not convinced voters that he has a clear-cut plan for restoring government to its proper size and scope. 

Unfortunately for Christie, Independent candidate Chris Daggett stands to receive 11.6 percent of the vote per RCP. Many of his supporters are likely anti-Corzine voters who find little to like about the Republican alternative. Daggett's tax plan is heavy on details - he would cut property taxes and raise sales taxes, while eliminating a variety of tax rebates and credits. There is debate as to whether his plan represents a net increase in taxes.

For what it's worth, the New Jersey Taxpayers Alliance, a friend of NTU, has endorsed Christie. Taxpayers really can't fare much worse than they have under Jon Corzine, and in this too-close-to-call race it will be interesting to see if they trust Christie's anti-Corzine meme or if Daggett siphons enough votes to ensure four more years of high taxes, exploding debt, and rampant overspending - with no semblance of transparency to boot.

Virginia. This is an open race, as Virginia has a one term limit for Governor. Virginia is a former red state that has been purpling; its last two governors have been Democrats, and both U.S. Senate seats are Democrats. This race pits Attorney General Bob McDonnell (R) against State Sen. Creigh Deeds. It is a rematch of the extremely close AG race in 2005, when McDonnell beat Deeds by less than 1,000 votes. 

As in Virginia, this race features a Republican somewhat vague on the tax-and-spend issue, though much less so than Chris Christie. McDonnell has hit Deeds on his willingness to hike taxes to pay for transportation upgrades. Deeds has stammered, hemmed and hawed when asked about his predilection to tax increases, and attempted to make the race about McDonnell's views on social issues. McDonnell has refused to engage, instead portraying himself as a "jobs candidate." I have yet to meet an anti-jobs candidate, but that's another story.

Polling dictates that McDonnell (along with the rest of the statewide Republican ticket) will cruise tomorrow. The Republican leads by an RCP average of 14 percent. We aren't too sure how Governor McDonnell will treat taxpayers, but we are heartened by his criticism of Deed's position on tax increases.

Ballot Initiatives


Maine Question 4. Mainers will vote on a Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) tomorrow that will cap the annual growth of government spending at the rates of inflation plus population growth, allow voters to decide on any tax increases, and refund a portion of surplus revenues to taxpayers via broad-based tax cuts. Colorado is currently the only state with such a strong set of taxpayer protections, and Maine's TABOR actually improves on the Colorado manifestation. 

To put it succinctly: Government continues to grow at an unsustainable rate in Maine, leading to perpetual deficits and tax increases. After a similar version of TABOR narrowly failed in Maine in 2006, lawmakers promised to reign in spending and taxes. Since then, they have increased taxes by $300 million. Over the past decade, Maine has lost 13,000 private sector job while adding 3,400 employees to the government payroll.

Because politicians insist on saying one thing and doing another, TABOR is necessary to control the growth of government and give citizens a voice. Polling is mixed on this issue, as labor unions and those who profit from government (like the hedge fund manager who received a $200 million taxpayer-funded bailout) continue to pour millions of dollars into efforts to defeat the measure. If Question 4 passes (along with Washington Initiative-1033), other states may feel emboldened to replicate the success of Colorado's TABOR amendment, relieving taxpayers across the country from the burdens of big government.

For more information on Question 4, visit NTU's http://maine4taxpayers.com and the YES on 4 campaign's http://www.tabornow.com. Follow Maine for Taxpayers on Twitter: @ME4Taxpayers.

Washington Initiative-1033. Washington State voters will decide tomorrow on a measure similar to Maine Question 4. Rather than spending, I-1033 will cap government revenues at the rates of inflation plus population growth. Taxpayers will be able to vote on any proposed tax increases or revenue increases above the cap, and surplus revenues will be refunded to them via property tax cuts. 

The case for I-1033 is similar to that of Question 4. The state recently grappled with the largest deficit in its history, a $9 billion budget hole created by a 31 percent explosion in spending during Gov. Gregoire's first term. Government was allowed to grow rapidly during periods of economic expansion, only to face drastic budget cuts and the threat of tax increases during the current slowdown. I-1033 would impose predictability in the budgeting process, rather than the boom-and-bust status quo. It is also important to note that government would not shrink under I-1033, and no cuts would be made as a direct result. Government continues to grow, only at a responsible rate.

Like Question 4, poll numbers are fluid and subject to millions of dollars of lobbying from out-of-state union bosses. I-1033 would be revolutionary for Washington's economy, allowing the private sector to flourish while helping to restore government to its proper role.

For my take on these spending cap measures, see today's Stateline story. Also check out NTU's Taxpayers for 1033 at http://taxpayersfor1033.com. Follow on Twitter: @1033Taxpayers.

There are a number of other important state and local ballot initiatives across the country rated in NTU's Ballot Guide. Proposition 11 in Texas would protect against eminent domain abuses. Voters in Palm Springs will be faced with a measure to increase the telephone tax. Numerous localities in multiple states will vote on measures to increase debt. 

Most importantly, get to the polls tomorrow. You can impact the way government treats you today, while giving momentum to further reform efforts in the near future.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:58:05 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4946</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Christmas Party You Paid For</title><description><![CDATA[Thanks to our friends at the Idaho Freedom Foundation for this story.  We’re approaching the holiday season and already the Christmas commercials are playing and the malls are displaying their holiday merchandise.  So as you begin thinking about planning your Christmas party, you may be interested to hear about the party that you paid for last year.  Oh yeah, did I mention that you weren’t even invited?

The city of McCall threw its employees a $5,490 Christmas party at taxpayer expense.  City records show that the party was held at the McCall Golf Club and included $2,783 for dinner and $2,707 for gifts and gift certificates.  Hope the prime rib was delicious!

The bigger question here is why McCall is spending so much for a holiday party during a recession that’s hurting the tourism industry the city depends on.  Employees are already getting a great deal from the taxpayers!  They have full-time jobs that aren’t dependent on the weather like the rest of us have to live with.  They have paid vacation and paid sick leave that most of the business people in McCall cannot offer to their employees.  Many businesses are asking their employees to take a pay cut.  To make matters worse, they hosted the party at the same time the city raised property taxes.  They raised taxes by 3%.  When everybody else is cutting back, is it too much to ask that they refrain from giving increases?
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:09:07 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4945</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Authorizations and Appropriations in the Affordable Health Care for America Act</title><description><![CDATA[Here is a link to a Google Docs spreadsheet I put together of all the authorizations and appropriations available in H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

The dollar figures in the bill total in excess of $100 billion, plus there are 32 additional authorizations for "such sums as may be necessary."


]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:07:27 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4943</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Amtrak Understates Losses</title><description><![CDATA[Note: This article is posted on behalf of NTU Foundation Research Analyst Eric Sundheim.

A recent study by Subsidyscope (a project of Pew Charitable Trusts "to raise public awareness about the role of federal subsidies in the economy") estimates that Amtrak loses $32 per passenger- four times the $8 figure Amtrak reported.  The discrepancy is the result of contrasting accounting methods:  Subsidyscope's calculation includes depreciation on capital and overhead costs (wearing down of trains, HR costs, etc.) while Amtrak's does not.  Given that depreciation and overhead are included in virtually every other accounting department, I asked Steve Klum, Director of Amtrak media relations to explain this exception.  He responded:Farebox recovery [excluding depreciation] … is the accepted measure of financial performance in the passenger rail industry.Seeing as Amtrak is the ONLY intercity passenger railroad in the continental United States, Klum is basically saying "because that's how we do it."  In 2005 the Government Accountability Office suggested  that Amtrak change their policy.  Amtrak ignored the suggestion because they don't want to admit how much money they lose.

The question is:  Why do taxpayers cover $462 of the $750 train ride from LA to New Orleans?  The American Public Transportation Association says we should do it because we create "green jobs."  They cite a study by the Economic Development Research Group which claims that increased train ridership reduces automobile emissions.  Yet this study also claims that Amtrak investment directly and indirectly increased spending on manufacturing and construction which, last I checked, were not green sectors of the economy.  If we want to help the environment, there are better uses for the $1.5 billion a year we currently spend on train ticket subsidies.

The next time you hear a headline stating that Amtrak ridership increased by 1,000 passengers last month you should be thinking, "great- taxpayers just lost 32 grand."]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:51:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4942</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The fiscal disaster of Pelosicare</title><description><![CDATA[Just like the Baucus bill, the health care "reform" bill which is being pushed by Nancy Pelosi (and which she might or might not have the votes to get through the House) is nothing more than financial smoke and mirrors, a massive tax and spend program which will cost far more than Pelosi or her useful idiots at the CBO want you to believe.

Please see my full discussion of the subject in my article at HumanEvents.com today:
See "Pelosicare’s Costly Formula", Ross Kaminsky, Human Events, 11/2/09]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:21:49 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4941</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Best Line of the Week</title><description><![CDATA[Holman W. Jenkins Jr writing in yesterday's Wall Street Journal:  "It's no exaggeration to say the Senate health-care bill taking shape is the equivalent of climbing aboard a train about to plunge into a canyon and deciding what it really needs is a bomb on board."

Now, that is a well-turned phrase.
 ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:32:42 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4939</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>A Matter of Simple Fairness</title><description><![CDATA[Today, Ken Blackwell, former Ohio Secretary of State and member of our Board of Directors, has a fantastic op-ed in The Examiner. The piece, entitled “Hiking the death tax is an insult to Jack Kemp’s legacy,” discusses the need for a permanent repeal of the death tax – a core goal of NTU.  

Mr. Blackwell eloquently captures Jack Kemp’s history of protecting the rights of minorities. Whether through the Civil Rights Movement, enterprise zones, or protecting the rights of the unborn, Jack Kemp always stood up for the voiceless and those who struggled to get a fair shake. 

The group most heavily impacted by the death tax is no exception. While they may be a minority, their rights should still be fought for, especially considering it is a tax on top of earned money that has already been taxed. While there is a strong case for repealing the death tax on these individuals, there are broader economic implications as well. A permanent elimination could produce as many as 1.5 million jobs and powerfully stimulate small business capital accumulation. 

Let’s hope Congress takes action on behalf of all taxpayers and works to repeal this unjust burden on society. In the words of Jack Kemp on another minority issue, it is “a matter of simple fairness.”

Check out Mr. Blackwell’s op-ed here.  
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:09:47 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4938</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Righting a Federal Wrong: Compensation for Bone Marrow Donations</title><description><![CDATA[The Institute for Justice, a civil liberties law firm, filed suit against the U.S. Attorney General on Monday “to put an end to a ban on offering compensation to bone marrow donors.” Currently, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 incorrectly treats bone marrow as a nonrenewable solid organ, like a kidney. Apart from the skewed, narrow-view world Congress lives in, bone marrow is renewable, comparable to blood. 

Under the act receiving compensation for bone marrow donation is punishable by up to five years in prison. Such a match is rare, especially for minority patients who have only a 25% chance of finding a donor in the current national registry. The law results in around 1,000 Americans losing their lives from lack of a registered marrow match.

When the law is overturned, MoreMarrowDonors.org, a California nonprofit, plans to offer marrow donors a fixed $3,000 scholarship, used for housing allowance or as a gift to a charity of the donor’s choice. It is specifically designed to help more people register in the bone marrow network. 

One might question the path we might go down if bone marrow would have a dollar value attached to it but Americans are already paid for donating blood plasma and you don’t have a plasma black market. There is no reason to assume bone marrow, a much more difficult fluid to match to a patient, would result in anything resembling a kidney market. This change in the law would save lives and encourage more people to register as donors.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:01:37 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4937</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>When even the AP suggests the stimulus isn't working...</title><description><![CDATA[When even the liberal Associated Press suggests the stimulus isn't working as we're told, you know the bloom is coming off the Obama rose, and Americans are slowly but surely learning the destructive fiscal folly of his economic policies.

In an article reprinted in the Denver Post yesterday entitled "Stimulus jobs overcounted nationwide", two AP reporters lay out details of companies that substantially overstated the number of jobs they claimed to have "saved or created" with stimulus money.

The AP's early conclusion is that at least 1 out of 6 of the so-called 30,000 jobs "saved or created" so far is a fiction.

Let me put my big surprise face on.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:09:17 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4936</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Democrats dead-on with comparisons.</title><description><![CDATA[On Thursday, house democrats decided to hold a press conference (supporters-only rally?) outside the capitol to celebrate the grand unveiling of an $894 billion dollar health package.

House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi  was quoted saying It is with great pride and with great humility that we come before you to follow in the footsteps of those who gave our country Social Security and then Medicare — and now universal, quality, affordable health care for all Americans 
While these claims (quality, affordable… humility) are obviously rubbish, I believe her comparison to ‘reforms’ of the past is perfect.  Social Security and Medicare are currently in the process of doing exactly  what universal health care will do: go bankrupt.

According to the  Washington Post (not quite a bastion of conservatism) as recently as May of this year, the Office of the Chief Actuary warned of the insolvency and coming collapse of both Social Security and Medicare.  In less than 7 years (2016) the Social Security program will begin spending more money than it takes in, by 2037 the fund is completely depleted.  As if that’s not bad enough, Medicare is actually even MORE pressing.  Medicare’s fund is depleted in less than 8 years (2017) and that doesn’t even count the parts that cover doctor’s visits and prescription drugs!

Now despite the fact that both these programs are already marching off the cliff, Speaker Pelosi wants to add on another lemming “following in the footsteps”… an 894 billion dollar lemming.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:49:14 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4935</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Speaker Pelosi's Health Care Press Conference</title><description><![CDATA[Earlier today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled the newest House health care bill at a press conference on the West Front of the Capitol. The Democratic bill is nearly 2,000 pages in length – twice as long as the original, but “essentially the same.” How is that even possible?

I attended the press conference, but was unable to get in because there was a list at the door. I have been around the Hill for several years now and can assure you that was the first time I have seen a “list” at an outside press conference. I even watched people as they walked in, hoping to see some individuals who may be on the other side of the health care debate, but sadly no. The only people to receive invites were supporters of the Democratic bill, many of them House staff. 

I stood, outside the barricades, with friends from other organizations who wanted to hear the Speaker and what the new bill contained. We were constantly reminded by Capitol police officers that we would be “forcibly removed” if we congregated in groups of 20 or more. It seems they are instituting a lot of firsts in the House of Representatives these days.  

Much like the talk of Internet town halls (see blog post below), this is another attempt by House Democrats to stiffen the voice of taxpayers and the people they serve.

I encourage you to take a look at the new health care bill and contact your Members of Congress with any and all questions and concerns.

Click  here  for a summary of H.R. 3962. Click  here  for the full text.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:06:23 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4934</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Town Hall Meetings in Cyberspace</title><description><![CDATA[How would you like less interaction with your Member of Congress at the expense of real scientific research that could potentially cure our world’s most debilitating illnesses? 

A new study released by the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) reveals that Internet “town hall” meetings supposedly increase constituent trust and perception in their lawmakers. To that end, CMF is hosting a briefing tomorrow to discuss these findings and how Members can replace direct contact with cyber dialogue. Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to like meeting those who represent me face-to-face. And, besides, isn’t that the whole point of a town hall – to bring individuals into one large room together? It seems to me that the August town halls got to Members more than they lead on, as they desperately seek to dodge tough questions to which they may not have an answer.  Everyone knows it is significantly easier to communicate online than in-person, but it is not our jobs to lighten the loads of our leaders. Our job is to hold them accountable to the people they serve.  

If all of this was not already unnerving, here comes another whopper: all of this research was funded with taxpayer dollars from the National Science Foundation (NSF). This means that instead of researching potential breakthroughs in cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s, the NSF is publically funding research to discover the cure for Congress’ low approval rating. Talk about misplaced priorities.

The CMF briefing will be held tomorrow, October 30, from 2:30-3:30pm in the House Vistors Center, room 201 A & B. I encourage all of you to go, ask questions, and expose this incredible waste of taxpayer dollars.
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:17:36 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4932</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>My Letter to MoveOn.org</title><description><![CDATA[Today, I wrote a letter to our good friends at MoveOn.org.  In a recent television ad starring actress Heather Graham, they state, "Competition is as American as applie pie."  Check it out.  It's a very well done, slick advertisement.  It's really amazing that they were able to put this together with a budget only ten times as large as we corporate fat-cats.



Of course, their method of providing "competition" is by creating a government-run insurance company, rather than allowing hundreds of existing companies to compete with one another across state lines.

But why stop short of a "public option" in health care alone if it would do such a killer job of whipping the health insurance industry into shape?  Why not a public option in everything?  Let's have a government-run soda company!  Let's have a government-run food company!  Let's have a government-run clothing company!  Think of the competition we can provide with a company as big as the federal government!  Exclamation points!!!1one!11

I implored MoveOn to support a public option in everything for consistency's sake.  Let's see if they take me up on my offer.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:38:53 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4931</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Highlighting Washington Initiative 1033</title><description><![CDATA[In a previous post, I blogged about NTU’s release of the 2009 General Election Ballot guide.  Included in the guide is information on Washington Initiative 1033.  The National Taxpayers Union organized a coalition of taxpayers and policy advocates to launch taxpayersfor1033.com, which contains a variety of information about the measure.  

Initiative 1033 would institute modest limits on government revenue growth, allowing spending to increase at a responsible rate and staving off the future deficits that lead to tax increases and draconian budget cuts.  I-1033 would ensure that Washington voters get the final say on the imposition of new taxes or tax increases.  It also requires any revenue increase about the limit to be approved by Washingtonians, not politicians.  I-1033 would place a limit on the growth of state revenue, equal to a combined annual rate of inflation plus population growth.  It ensures that state government is protected against sudden and severe budget deficits.  Lastly, excess revenues would be returned to Washington families via property tax cuts.  

Click here if you’d like more information about Washington Initiative 1033; here if you’d like insights and updated information from the taxpayersfor1033 blog; here if you would like to see what news sources are saying about I-1033.  
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:29:45 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4930</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Hang out with Nancy Pelosi!</title><description><![CDATA[In a manner of speaking.

Tomorrow, Nancy Pelosi will hold a big fancy press conference to discuss health care at the West Front of the United States Capitol Building (where we helped to organize hundreds of thousands of conservatives for the 9/12 March on Washington).  Being good civic-minded individuals, we wanted to do our level best to ensure that citizens attend en masse to upload some consumer feedback to their Speaker of the House.

Should you want to commit that feedback to a poster, flyer, or t-shirt, it would probably make it easier for Madam Speaker to see.  After all, we want to make sure that her press conference is a big success.  So tell your neighbors, bring the kids, wake up Grandpa!  Tell them to come hang out with Nancy!

Who: Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
What: Press conference on health care
When: Thursday, October 29, 10:00am
Where: West Front, United States Capitol Building
Why: Because it's fun!

So, be there or be square!  And by square, I mean not in attendance.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:14:49 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4929</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Info on Maine Question 4</title><description><![CDATA[Earlier this week, I blogged about NTU’s release of the 2009 General Election Ballot guide.  Included in the guide is information on Maine Question 4, the Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR).  The National Taxpayers Union organized a coalition of taxpayers and policy advocates to launch maine4taxpayers.com, which contains a variety of information about the measure.  

Maine’s government is spending at an unsustainable rate, leading to big government, high taxes, budget deficits and a poor climate for business and economic growth.  TABOR would help fix that.  Maine voters would get a final say on the imposition of any new taxes or tax increases.  TABOR would limit the growth of state spending, equal to the combined annual rate of inflation plus population growth.  Lastly, TABOR would ensure that excess revenues would be returned to Maine families via tax cuts.

Click here if you’d like more information about Question 4; here if you’d like insights and updated information from the ME4Taxpayers blog; and here if you would like to see what news sources are saying about Question 4.  
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:53:47 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4928</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU's Pete Sepp on Fox News</title><description><![CDATA[Pete Sepp was recently on Fox News discussing the NEH grants that my colleague Dan Barrett just blogged about:

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:45:08 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4927</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Nickel-and-diming the taxpayer</title><description><![CDATA[Fox News reported on the National Endowment for the Humanities’ projects, detailing some of the more surprising and, arguably, selfish grants handed out to educators around the country. While the National Taxpayers Union’s own Pete Sepp concluded the program’s aims were admirable to the advancement of the academics’ careers, the national interest was not being served and the projects should be a private venture, with success or failures without a “too educational to fail” safety net. It makes sense. If ventures, especially ones as subjectively important as a computer model of an ancient Pakistani city ($50,000) or a month long trip studying Bach’s life ($147,000), are not funded by private industry or university trustees, why would it be alright to use tax dollars ? 

Andrew Hazlett blogged about how the Fox coverage does not take into account the societal implications of ignoring such historical studies and exchanges. He goes on to regard advocates for limited government as “inventing causes for outrage.” With respect to the former NEH employee, he rightly defends the program as rigorous in its selection and operation but that does not liberate the NEH from its feeble principles. Government was never intended to promote such studies and especially not by using citizens’ money. That money is counted with every dollar and cent spent, no matter how many zeros listed on the check. A thousand dollars is as important to protect as a trillion. To think otherwise is ludicrous.

If “we should be paring down and stripping away wasteful public spending,” how about starting with a simple deduction from the deficit with the NEH? Then the universities and media companies who have not stepped up to fund these “worthwhile” projects might actually do so.
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:40:14 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4926</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Rappin' 'Bout Economic Principles and EFCA</title><description><![CDATA[Greg Mankiw's blog links to this rap, "Rhythm, Rhymes, Results" about 10 economic principles.

And Remy, the genius behind the "Arlington Rap," lays down some new rhymes on the Orwellian legislation known as the "Employee Free Choice Act":

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:47:27 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4924</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Opt-Out Cop Out</title><description><![CDATA[Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced a new health care plan that included a revival of sorts for the so-called "public option," or government-run insurance plan.  Supposedly as a nod to moderates from states that are not supportive of the government plan, his bill will have a provision allowing states to opt out by 2014.  Sounds OK, right?  If a state doesn't like the government plan, they can opt out and choose not to participate.

But here's the fine print: "Those taxes and others required to fund the...public option would be collected from all states, including those that opt out of the plan."Read that one more time.  The massive tax increases associated with this bill, on the order of a half-trillion dollars, will apply to EVERYONE regardless of whether or not their state has opted out.  There is no comfort in the opt out provision, no shelter from the tentacles of government reaching inexorably into our health care decisions.  Why opt out if you'll have to pay all the taxes but get none of the services (inefficient though they may be)?

Don't let Harry Reid and friends play you.  Don't be placated by a phony provision that would do nothing to lessen the blow of this awful bill.  Call your Senator today and tell them to oppose this plan.  The "opt out" provision is merely to provide political cover for Senators who don't want to take a tough vote.  It will only work if you let them.

Call your Senator! 202-224-3121.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:53:49 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4923</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>General Election Ballot Guide 2009</title><description><![CDATA[While this is an “off-year” for most statewide elections, many citizens will have the chance to vote on important tax and spending questions through the initiative and referendum process.  We have put together a Ballot Guide (PDF format) that covers more than 40 initiative and referendum measures in 12 states.  

There are two measures in particular that taxpayers may be most interested in: Maine’s Question 4 would establish a “Taxpayer Bill of Rights” that would limit state expenditures and require voter approval for tax increases; and Washington State’s Initiative 1033 would establish a limit on revenues raised by government and any surplus would lead to property tax relief.  Click here for more information about these and other ballot initiatives.  

The guide contains information on some of the most significant ballot measures affecting taxpayers that will be decided this fall.  It serves as an informational resource to start your research on ballot issues in your state.  (It is not intended to provide endorsements or recommendations to voters but as a tool to assist in your research.)

Election Day is November 3, 2009. Remember to vote!

]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:27:15 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4922</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>O Stimulus, Where Art Thou? </title><description><![CDATA[I thought the stimulus was supposed to be timely and targeted? But according to the Associated General Contractors of America, construction employment declined in 49 states and D.C. in September compared to last year. Only Louisiana gained construction jobs. The contractors say "the industry awaits stimulus, recovery."]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:58:46 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4921</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TABOR and Education</title><description><![CDATA[Note: This piece was first posted on the Maine 4 Taxpayers blog. For more information on Maine Question 4 (TABOR), which would limit the annual growth of government spending and allow citizens to vote on any tax increase, visit maine4taxpayers.com. -JC


Question 4 opponents' favorite strategy is to play on voter fears about public education. They claim that by limiting the growth of government spending (without forcing any budget cuts, I might add), schools will be devastated and children will suffer. This is a clear example of the Washington Monument Strategy, in which politicians and bureaucrats seek to convince the public that the only possible outcome of limited spending is the elimination of the most popular government programs.

The TABOR NOW campaign hosted Dr. William Moloney, Colorado Commissioner of Education from 1997-2007, at press conferences in Augusta and Bangor yesterday where he debunked claims that Colorado's TABOR devastated education in the state. According to the Bangor Daily News, Dr. Moloney said:
“Education is something that benefits more from a strong economy than anything else,” he said, adding that TABOR was a big part of creating that strong economy. As for the discussion of privatizing the state’s public university system, Moloney said that’s not a serious proposition, merely “a good sound bite.”
In a study co-authored with the Maine Heritage Policy Center's Stephen Bowen, Dr. Moloney shows that while per-pupil spending in Colorado is far lower than in Maine, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are identical in the two states. More importantly, since the passage of Colorado's TABOR in 1992, Colorado students have improved at at a much better rate than their counterparts in Maine at every grade level in every academic discipline:
Colorado 4th graders made a 28 percentage point gain on the NAEP test for math between 1992 and 2009, while Maine students made only an 18 point gain. Colorado 8th graders gained 23 percentage points in math between 1990 and 2007, while Maine students gained only 10 points. While reading scores improved by 5 percentage points for Colorado 8th graders between 1998 and 2007, scores for Maine students dropped by 4 points over the same period. In short, Colorado students were once behind Maine students in all three academic fields at both the 4th and 8th grade levels, but are today, even with the passage of TABOR, equal to Maine students in their levels of proficiency.
The fact that Colorado has achieved such marked gains in educational outcomes while keeping per-pupil spending low is one to be celebrated. TABOR opponents equate net dollars with success. In reality, Mainers should look past this simple cash metric and evaluate education properly. The goal is to teach children effectively. In Colorado moreso than in Maine, that has been the increasingly successful outcome in public education since the implementation of TABOR. ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:57:44 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4920</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>"Stimulus" Used to Buy $196K of Frisbees, Sunglasses, and Beach Balls?</title><description><![CDATA[I found a contract award of so-called "stimulus" funds in the amount of $196,472 for the purchase of frisbees, floating key chains, crayons, insulated can holders, sunglasses, sunglass holder straps, pens, beach balls, and 20 oz. bike bottles. The funds were awarded though the Army Corps of Engineers to Leonardo Technologies "to be used to educate the pubic [sic] on water safety." In years past I've attended an event on the National Mall known as Public Service Recognition Week where federal workers staff booths in an air conditioned tent to dispense similar tchotchkes emblazoned with the logos of federal entities (see some pictures here) to weekend tourists. I've always wondered how much the agencies spent on these trinkets, but I didn't think they would cost as much as the Corps spent on this nonsense.

The odd thing is that I was not able to find this example of stimulus waste on the government's website which was designed to bring transparency to the sordid process of divvying up the Recovery Act's deficit-inducing dollars. I used Google's site search function (eg., site:www.recovery.gov) and found the frisbee contract on Google's cached version of the recovery.gov page as it appeared on Oct 3, 2009. When I clicked on the link that Google provides back to the original page, a completely different award is listed: $612K for a hot water distro system for the Department of Defense in Florida. I tried several searches for the frisbee contract on Recovery.gov using the term "frisbee," then "Leonardo," then the award number, "W9123708C0010," but I couldn't find it anywhere, hence the question mark in the title of this post.

Odder still, the frisbee and water items actually came up in a Google search for [site:www.recovery.gov "bike"]. I just repeated that search and the frisbee contract no longer shows up in Google's search results. There are now 7 items instead of 8. Very peculiar.

Does anyone know why?


Update: 
I found this press release from the Corps of Engineers about this program. The "stimulus" also paid for the costume of Bobber, the Water Safety mascot. But, one of the rangers insists we need not be concerned about this spending:... [A]ccording to [Green River Park Manager George] Williams, taxpayers can take comfort in knowing that the Corps' oversight of stimulus spending is extensive.

"There is a regulation that recently came out that provides guidance on the execution of economic stimulus or ARRA monies," he said. "Actually, the whole spending process contains numerous checks and balances to ensure the money is spent properly and for the purpose intended."]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:08:52 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4919</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Reverse Robin Hood on Social Security</title><description><![CDATA[In case you haven’t heard, because the federal government’s cost of living indicators are showing slight deflation, there will be no cost of living increase for Social Security recipients next year. Of course, seniors vote in large numbers and are a politically-powerful voting bloc, so as soon as word came down that there would be no COLA, spineless members of Congress and President Obama started looking for ways to give seniors money anyway.

It appears that they have settled on $250 payments to the more than 50 million seniors on Social Security for no good reason. On top of all the other deficits including those we already face for Social Security, this is a $12.5 billion in debt that will be placed on the backs of America’s children and grandchildren.

The dirty little secret here is that, as NTU analyst Mark Schmidt wrote years ago, senior citizens as a group actually are the wealthiest segment of society. Back in 2002, Indeed, the average net worth of seniors age 65-74 was $146,000, while the average net worth of Americans under age 35 was a mere $9,900. With the addition of the prescription drug benefit under President Bush, this disparity has only grown.

Seniors and the rest of Americans should unite in opposing this $250 transfer from the poor to the rich. Full article  available here. ]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:42:10 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4918</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>FCC Net Neutrality Decision</title><description><![CDATA[As I mentioned on a blog post earlier this week, the FCC was set to vote today on a proposed set of "net neutrality" rules. The proposal passed unanimously and will immediately put into motion a series of new regulatory procedures.

While this undeniably indicates the onset of yet another government takeover, it is not too late to take action. The final rule will not be voted on until early next year.

Visit the FCC's new website and let your voice be heard.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:43:46 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4917</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Amtrak Received More Money from Taxpayers Than from Ticket Sales</title><description><![CDATA[[This blog article is posted on behalf of NTU Foundation's Research Analyst, Eric Sundheim]


Amtrak received $2.37 billion in 2009, yet only $1.6 billion of that revenue came from ticket sales: the remainder came courtesy of the American taxpayer. This deficit was conveniently ignored in Amtrak's recent press release in which the government-owned corporation celebrated its second-highest record ridership (the all-time record was set the previous year).  While Amtrak's writers do their best to make the enterprise sound like a private company achieving real milestones, they cannot deny the fact that the government-run corporation cannot cover its costs.

Amtrak will never become financially viable because most of its lines are simply unable to compete with today's airlines and interstate highways.  This writer once thought it would be fun to take a train from Salem, Oregon to San Francisco for "the experience of it."  Experience is said to make us wiser, and this one certainly did- for I will never ride Amtrak again.  While I could have taken a two hour plane ride from Portland, I instead found myself trapped on a 21-hour trip of terror fraught with delays, expensive food, and sleep deprivation.  You would have to pay me to ride Amtrak, and unfortunately you do - exactly $1.5 billion in government subsidies for Fiscal Year 2009, plus an additional $270 million for FY 2009 and $780 million in FY 2010 from the so-called stimulus bill. 

In its press release Amtrak blames its loss in ridership on the recession, yet Greyhound, a private inter-city bus line, actually saw an increase in ridership during this same period.  The real reason riders are leaving Amtrak is that more Americans are realizing that even $1.77 billion (or $2.55 billion adding in the 2010 "stimulus" funding) is not enough to sweeten the bitter taste of the government experience.  Taxpayers cannot afford the whimsical luxury of subsidizing Amtrak and should demand the government return their hard-earned money.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:20:34 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4916</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>DC School Choice Film Released</title><description><![CDATA[On Tuesday, I had the distinct pleasure to attend the premier of Let Me Rise, a 30-minute film on the fundamental need for the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. Established in 2004, the voucher program has proven to be a success in one of the most challenging school environments in the country. The Washington DC public school system ranks last in the nation with an estimated 2,300 students dropping out in the 2008 school year. Though there are many causes why the District’s situation has become so dire, the Scholarship Program has been a beacon of hope for many low-income families. Unfortunately, the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 cut the program’s funding, rescinding more than 200 recently awarded scholarships. After these children were given a chance, the government coldly took it away. Is this the hope we must come to expect?

The film featured politicians praising the impact, policy experts justifying the existence, and families crying out for the program, but this was no ordinary event in the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Auditorium. I looked around the audience and saw the real people this program affects. This was no policy brief detailing events half a world away or technical discussions over abstract philosophies but a testament of what parents are willing to do to ensure their children have a chance for a brighter future. The stories were true; the emotions were raw, and the tears were real. 

Let Me Rise not only shows us the heartbreak of a government ignoring the needs a desires of the people but the fact that the program saves tax dollars (i.e. your money). Each child receives a $7,500 scholarship – a $7,800 savings when contrasted with the FY 2004 $15,315 per pupil price tag going into DC’s failing public school system. Opponents declare vouchers take money away from government schools but is education about institutional funding or results? Although academic test scores have been at level or better than traditional public schools and the spending is significantly less, neither point is more important than helping children out of the dire situations they would encounter if sent back to the dangerous schools of the District. 

The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program is one of the few effective government programs and should be fully funded. Carlos, Nico, Nia, Ronald, Richard, Domonique, Rashawn, Rhunette, Shakeyta, Camile, Michelle, Jordan, Fransior and countless other aspiring students deserve better than politics intruding on their futures. They have the right and freedom to succeed, to rise. Let us let them do so.

]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:25 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4915</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Health Care Video Message Project</title><description><![CDATA[As many of you may know, NTU recently launched a campaign where we asked taxpayers from across the nation to submit videos to NTU about their thoughts on the health care debate and what they would like to see their elected officials do. 

After receiving a host of responses, NTU staff converted these messages into DVDs and delivered them to Congressional offices on Capitol Hill. To view a sampling of these videos, visit NTU’s YouTube channel, NatlTaxpayersUnion. Within this project, NTU focused a great deal of our efforts on Virginia. In these final weeks of a heated gubernatorial race and with two Senators who remain on the fence in the health care debate, NTU thought it very important for Congress to hear what Virginians had to say.  

Here are a few great examples of the videos we received:








Thanks for your participation in this effort! We are confident that this project has allowed constituent voices to be heard in a way that emails and faxes could never approximate.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:16:17 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4914</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Hidden Fees are Still Taxes</title><description><![CDATA[Our Friends at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation reported this nugget of opaque government- changes to the form drivers send in to pay their license fees.

Drivers in Washington must like their state parks, right?  So the State Parks Department would like you to believe.  Washington State collected $1.4 million in September from a new $5 “opt out” fee on vehicle license registrations.  The State Parks Commission had been considering closing up to 40 parks to cut a potential $22.9 million from the Parks Operating Budget.  But Rep. Lynn Kessler successfully lobbied her fellow legislators to change state law so those who renew their vehicle registrations have a new $5 fee put into a special fund for parks.  There was already a law in place allowing residents to “opt in” to pay $5, but the law was changed so that those who didn’t want to pay would have to specifically “opt out.”  The old fee structure only brought in $635,000 all year- less than half of what the state collected in one month under the new law.  “Whoo hoo!” Kessler said, “People love their parks.  That much is evident.  I can’t wait to track this money as the months progress.”   Click here to see monthly financial updates.  

Since this hidden tax worked so well in Washington, Montana is implementing similar measures.  The vehicle registration renewal cards already have fees not really related to your vehicle.  You pay $5 to help out the Montana Highway Patrol.  This is not an optional fee.  Then there are the $1 fees for the Organ Donor Awareness and Brain Injury Education.  These are “opt in” fees so you have to make a special effort to make sure you pay them.  Lastly, Montanans have the $4 park fee.  Out-of-state visitors are required to pay the fee on-site but it is an “opt out” fee for residents.  Any resident who does not wish to pay the fee, can complete a form available at the county treasurer’s office and the fee will be deduced from the vehicle registration.  Right now, roughly 10 percent of Montanans opt-out of the fee, and more might if they knew about it because the current system is, in a word, sneaky.
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:04:07 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4913</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Quarter-Trillion Dollar Sneak Attack</title><description><![CDATA[Today, NTU released a coalition letter that we circulated that was signed by 20 state and national groups in opposition to an attempt to deceive the American public about the true costs of health care reform.  Tomorrow evening, the U.S. Senate will vote on S. 1776, the so-called "Medicare Physicians Fairness Act."  This legislation, worth $247 billion (all racked up on the deficit, of course, as it contains no spending reductions elsewhere) is, plain and simple, an attempt to reduce the apparent costs of the comprehensive health care reform bills before Congress.

Here's how they plan to do it.  Remember the Baucus bill, which received a CBO score of $829 billion in cost over ten years?  The CBO said that legislation would actually reduce the deficit by a small amount.  I'm sure that was music to President Obama's ears, as he has stated time and again he wouldn't sign a bill that increased the deficit.

But S. 1776 would immediately reverse a portion of the Baucus bill that was included specifically to reduce its apparent cost for analyses like what the CBO did.  It would increase reimbursements to physicians through Medicare by a whopping $247 billion over the next ten years, reversing cuts to those reimbursement rates the Baucus bill used to artificially deflate its score.

So, by splitting this provision off into a different piece of legislation, leaders in Congress are trying to have their cake and eat it too.  If they were to pass the Baucus bill, the President would sign it and rightly claim that it didn't increase the deficit (because they raised taxes slightly more massively than they raised spending).  But at the same time, S. 1776 would pass into law and ring up another quarter trillion dollars in deficit spending on the side, outside the context of the "comprehensive" health care bill.

Put it this way, when the Washington Post agrees with NTU on something like this, you know something's awry.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:41:10 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4912</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Net Neutrality Rears Its Ugly Head</title><description><![CDATA[The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will vote Thursday on a proposal that would impose federal government regulations on network managers. The so-called “net neutrality” rules would add to existing guidelines adopted in 2005 on Internet network operations.  While the proposal is expected to pass with full support from FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and the Obama administration, we encourage you to speak out and let your voice be heard, as the final rule will not be voted on until the spring.  

“Net neutrality” rules prevent private Internet providers from managing broadband traffic to guarantee maximum user experience. While supporters argue that these rules on service providers create a more "open" and "equal" Internet, the truth is that they will lead to slower access due to unmitigated bandwidth-hungry applications that have less appeal to customers anyway. Additionally, there would be little relief for consumers thanks to regulatory roadblocks for new companies seeking to build and operate broadband networks. Even those in the House majority remain wary of such regulations, as made clear by the 72 Democrats who sent a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressing their concerns about the proposal and its potential detriment to network investment. 

NTU believes the best way to ensure openness and equality is through a vibrant and competitive free market. Rather than steering the affairs of private business – and thereby steering away potential new companies – the government should place its focus on reducing existing tax and regulatory burdens.

The FCC has launched a new website where you can stay connected to the issue and share your thoughts and ideas. Take advantage of this opportunity to tell the FCC and President Obama that consumers do not want imposed rigid government control over the Internet’s traditionally free-flowing management. 
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:46:37 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4911</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cartoon Blogging</title><description><![CDATA[

HT:  Tim Wise
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:36:35 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4910</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Reid Suggests Health Care Reform to Cost $2 Trillion</title><description><![CDATA[

Senator Reid implies that implementing tort reform isn't worth trying, since it will only lessen the budget deficit by $54 billion (he actually says that it would "save" that amount but the figure is a net of $41 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings, and $13 billion in increased tax revenues):But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It's a very small percent.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:58:15 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4909</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Taxing your Tailgate Party</title><description><![CDATA[Tailgating is one of our favorite pastimes: we tailgate before the Packer’s games, we tailgate before the Brewer’s games, we tailgate before pretty much any sporting event.  C’mon, who doesn’t enjoy sipping some of Wisconsin’s finest before the game?  Yet now, our legislators have found yet another way to cash in on our leisure time.  

The Wisconsin State Assembly Committee on Public Safety held its first public hearing yesterday on a bill to raise Wisconsin’s beer tax.  The bill, sponsored by state Representative Terese Berceau, and state Senator Fred Risser, proposes to increase Wisconsin’s beer tax for the first time since 1969. AB 287 would raise the tax on beer by two and a half cents per bottle.  

These legislators may have good intentions, using the extra revenue to fund alcohol abuse prevention and treatment programs and combat drunk driving.  “A few pennies on a bottle of beer will help us begin to solve the problems we all experience from the abuse of alcohol in Wisconsin,” Berceau said.  But let’s look at the unintended consequences of the tax. 

Beer is a luxury and is already one of the most taxed and regulated products in the country.  Raising taxes on it will lead to less income for Wisconsinites since it will essentially shut down many small businesses and put hundreds of people out of work.  These "sin taxes" do not generate the anticipated revenue and therefore doesn’t meet the goals our legislators set out to accomplish.  

Representative Bob Ziegelbauer sees this tax for what it is, “I am unalterably opposed to increasing the tax on beer.  Regressive proposals like this disproportionately increase the burden on wage earners; the money won't effectively be segregated, we all know that; and by adding to the tax burden on yet another Wisconsin industry it would further weaken the already severely damaged business climate in our state, hurting innocent employees.  The focus of this Legislature ought to be: expanding jobs, not taxing them; rolling back cumbersome regulations, not expanding them; and letting people keep their own hard earned money when they can, not coming up with new excuses for taking more of it.”  Enough said.  
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:52:39 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4908</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Disgusted Taxpayers</title><description><![CDATA[All it takes is one person to get a movement started. Michael Hirsch knew he paid high municipal taxes but never realized why:That is, until he opened The Journal News one April morning and saw that the top 50 wage earners in Clarkstown were police officers. Three of them made more than $300,000 and an overwhelming majority made more than $100,000 in 2008, making Clarkstown police among the highest-paid public officials in the state.

"It just got me crazy," said Hirsch, who thought about older Clarkstown residents who were being forced to move out because they couldn't pay their taxes on fixed incomes. "I couldn't not do anything about it. I couldn't just ignore it."He formed the Disgusted Taxpayers of Clarkstown  to take action to reduce spending and lower taxes.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:03:00 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4907</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Hidden Taxes in the Baucus Bill</title><description><![CDATA[Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Douglas Holtz-Eakin echoes our concerns that the Baucus bill raises taxes.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:44:58 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4906</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Here a Job, There a Job</title><description><![CDATA[White House numbers on jobs created by the stimulus package might not add up.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:25:52 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4905</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>An alternative to ObamaCare from the states</title><description><![CDATA[Earlier today Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty explained to BigGovernment.com readers how the Baucus health care plan is a prescription for higher taxes and higher premiums.

In keeping with the theme that good perspectives and ideas often come from the states, 33 state-based think tanks came together this morning to announce a health care reform alternative to ObamaCare.

President Obama and other supporters of government-run health care like to proclaim that there’s no alternative to their plans. This patient-centered reform package offers a clear alternative that puts patients, not bureaucrats, first.  It protects the doctor-patient relationship, offers viable solutions for the uninsured, and keeps medical care affordable for all Americans.

Patient-centered health care reform:Leverages Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). HSAs empower individuals to monitor their health care costs and create incentives for individuals to use only those services that are necessary;
Allows interstate purchasing of insurance. Policies in some states are more affordable because they include fewer bells and whistles, and consumers should be empowered to decide which benefits they need and what prices they are willing to pay;
Reduces the number of mandated benefits insurers are required to cover. Empowering consumers to choose which benefits they need is only effective if insurers are able to fill these needs;
Reallocates the majority of Medicaid spending into simple vouchers for low-income individuals to purchase their own insurance. An income-based sliding scale voucher program would eliminate much of the massive bureaucracy that is needed to implement today’s complex and burdensome Medicaid system and produce considerable cost savings;
Eliminates unnecessary scope-of-practice laws and allow non-physician health care professionals practice to the extent of their education and training. Retail clinics have shown that increasing the provider pool safely increases competition and access to care and empowers the patient to decide from whom they receive their care;
Reforms tort liability laws. Defensive medicine needlessly drives up medical costs and creates an adversarial relationship between doctors and patients.Read the whole plan at www.PatientCenteredReform.com.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:35:40 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4904</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Virginians: Watch Out for Hidden Taxes</title><description><![CDATA[Over the long weekend, Virginia had an energy efficient sales tax holiday (Oct 9-12).  During the holiday, certain appliances bearing the EPA’s Energy Star label were exempt from the state’s sales tax.  This sounds like a good idea: retailers boost sales, shoppers save money, environmentalists like greater efficiency and so on.  So why should Virginians be concerned?

Unfortunately, sales tax holidays can’t deliver on their promises because the increase in sales during a tax holiday is largely a timing shift as people move purchases into the holiday period that they would have made anyway.  Plus, there is opportunity for Virginia retailers to absorb a large part of the benefit from sales tax holidays by increasing prices or giving less generous discounts.  

While a tax holiday is a reduction in taxes paid, Virginians should be concerned with how a tax cut will be financed.  The lost revenue must be made up in higher taxes elsewhere, canceling out any benefit from the tax holiday.  The burden has simply been shifted from one group to another.  In fact, it is quite possible that the taxes that are used to recoup the lost revenue could be longer lasting and more damaging than the sales tax itself. 
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:20:17 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4903</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>
</channel>
</rss>