<?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>Earmark Lists</title><description><![CDATA[Excel spreadsheets were made available today of earmarks included in three House bills:

House Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, H.R. 2996 (as passed by the House on June 26, 2009)

House Homeland Security Appropriations Act, H.R. 2892 (as Passed by the House on June 24, 2009)

House Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Act, H.R. 2847 (as Passed by the House on June 18, 2009)]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:22:27 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4744</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>National Taxpayer Advocate's Mid-Year Report</title><description><![CDATA[The Office of the IRS's Taxpayer Advocate released a report laying out its objectives for the next year (available as a pdf). One section that caught my eye was how the number of refundable credits created by the "stimulus" bill will present challenges to the IRS:...[T]he report notes that refundable credits may present an increased risk of fraud and that the IRS therefore will need to balance fraud prevention with the timely delivery of refunds. "Refundable credits require the IRS to perform a delicate balancing act," Olson said. "On the one hand, if the IRS does not do enough to detect and prevent fraud, it may pay out billions of dollars as a result of false and fraudulent claims. On the other hand, if the IRS clamps down too tightly, hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of predominantly low income taxpayers will not receive timely refunds."]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:45:28 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4743</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Power of Coffee</title><description><![CDATA[This morning, while sipping my coffee, I read this article recounting yesterday’s mishap.   New York State Senator Frank Padavan walked through the Senate chamber in search of a cup of coffee.  It just so happened that it was at the exact moment when 31 Democrats were convening a regular session.  They argue that Padavan’s presence provided the 32 members needed for a quorum to conduct business.  They passed 125 bills unanimously in three hours with Republicans absent.  Padavan insists that he did not intend to establish a quorum; Governor David Paterson said he would veto the bills.  So Senators, beware what that cup of joe may cost you!   ]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:45:43 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4742</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>ObamaCare Losing Steam</title><description><![CDATA[Well, it seems that the gig is finally up on ObamaCare as more and more Americans begin to voice their concerns about a move towards socialized medicine.  Along with questions about how a government-run health care system would preserve patient satisfaction and quality of treatment, there is a growing consensus that public provision of insurance would lead employers to drop employee health care plans and drive private insurers out of the market, thereby further limiting competition and patient choice. 

We need the 89% of Americans who say they are satisfied with their health coverage (and the 70% of the uninsured who also report receiving satisfactory medical care) to step up the fight against Obama’s unnecessary system overhaul. Please continue your grassroots efforts against this bill and let President Obama know that America does not need more change for the sake of change. We need results.

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:13:15 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4741</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Fiscal Advice from Jack Handey</title><description><![CDATA[With billions and billions for bailouts and stimulus spending, Congress seems to have taken fiscal advice from that renowned financial expert Jack Handey:  "I hope that when I die, people say about me, 'Boy, that guy sure owed me a lot of money.'"
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:14:34 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4740</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>No Matter How you Spin it- A Tax Hike is a Tax Hike</title><description><![CDATA[Governor Deval Patrick said Friday that he will sign more than $1 billion in tax increases for Massachusetts residents.  The House and Senate approved the tax increases last week- increasing the sales tax for the first time in a generation.  The new tax rate, which goes into effect August 1, will increase from 5 percent to 6.25 percent.  While Patrick is stressing that the increased taxes will offset the need for program cuts and will balance the budget, we recognize that this comes at a time when many residents are losing jobs and homes.  Massachusetts still has one of the lowest sales tax rates in the country, however at this rate, it won’t be lower for much longer.  Massachusetts businesses are sure to see the effects of this new tax hike.  ]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:26:54 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4739</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>What Was in the Cap and Trade Bill?</title><description><![CDATA[Last Friday, House Minority Leader John Boehner took a "couple" of minutes to question some of items in the manager's amendment -- the 300+ page amendment to the 1,200 page bill.  I will buy an ice cream for the first person who can answer all of Boehner's questions.

Watch below or read the transcript here.

]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:36:45 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4738</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cap-and-trade passes House narrowly</title><description><![CDATA[The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that we've been lobbying so hard against just narrowly passed the House, by a 219-212 margin.

Attention now turns towards the Senate, where the intensity will only ratchet up.  In particular, the two Senators Nelson (Democrats of Nebraska and Florida), Martinez (R-FL), Landrieu (D-LA), both Senators from Arkansas Lincoln and Pryor (both Democrats), and Senator Specter (D-PA) will likely be the biggest targets.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:18:06 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4737</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Highlights from the States</title><description><![CDATA[#1: California's budget crisis continues.

#2: Metro crash may facilitate federal funding.

#3: New Jersey legislators passed a budget that will hike taxes by almost $1 billion.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:27:10 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4736</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Mark my words: cap-and-trade undecideds will get MILLIONS in earmarks.</title><description><![CDATA[I just posted a list of the remaining undecided votes on Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, a.k.a. a $2 trillion energy tax.

I just want to put something on record, right here, right now.  If the Democrat leadership is successful in forcing 8 out of the 12 undecideds to vote for the bill, it will be because they promised MILLIONS in earmarks to the Members.  

Democrat leaders are on the floor right this minute, as I type this, trying to buy votes.  They're working deals and making promises for appropriations season.  For anybody who claims that earmarks are not a problem because they aren't that much spending, THIS is a perfect example of why they matter very much.  If this bill passes, it will be because earmarks bought the votes of several undecided members.

Remember these names, and we'll revisit them when appropriations season is over.  Let's see if we notice any trends in money received.

Arcuri - NY
Boccieri - OH
Brown - FL
Carney - PA
Dicks - WA
Donnelly - IN
Green, Al - TX
Kind - WI
Kirk - IL (Republican)
Kirkpatrick - AZ
Petri - WI (Republican)
Space - OH
Teague - NM
Tonko - NY

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:51:53 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4735</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Down to the wire!</title><description><![CDATA[The cap-and-trade debate is really coming down to the wire.  My sources have the current count at 210 FOR, 210 AGAINST, with 14 remaining undecided (12 of which are Democrats).

The undecideds are...

Arcuri - NY
Boccieri - OH
Brown - FL
Carney - PA
Dicks - WA
Donnelly - IN
Green, Al - TX
Kind - WI
Kirk - IL (Republican)
Kirkpatrick - AZ
Petri - WI (Republican)
Space - OH
Teague - NM
Tonko - NY

Email them here, or text your full zip code (including +4 numbers) to us at 54608 and we'll give you all their phone numbers, INCLUDING district offices!]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:06:50 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4734</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Understand What Is at Stake</title><description><![CDATA[Lest anyone forget, here is Obama in his own words on his cap-and-trade plan: "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."



And now we have a 1,500 page bill that few have read, to create a system where the federal government gets to pick winners and losers.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:06:04 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4733</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>More good news! 1,200 page bill is now 1,500 pages.</title><description><![CDATA[The Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill that NTU has been hammering away on all week is now miraculously 300 pages longer than before.  The new language was added to the bill at about 3:00am this morning, and the House is expected to vote TODAY!

There is very little time left to make your voice heard on this.  Take a minute, click the link above, and send them an email pronto!  Better yet, call their offices!  Or text us at 54608 and we'll help put you in touch.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:31:23 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4732</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Senate Approps for Commerce/Justice/Science Up 12 Percent</title><description><![CDATA[The Senate Appropriations Committee is working on the FY 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies funding bill. The legislation calls for $64.9 billion, $200 million above the President's request. This is also an increase of 12 percent over the amount enacted last year.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:05:45 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4731</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Congress Intent on Ignoring the $1.8 Trillion Deficit</title><description><![CDATA[According to White House budget figures, federal departments and agencies will be responsible for directing $267 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act over 2009-2010. This bill included a lot of programs that members of Congress had been trying to enact in previous legislation to no avail, but earlier this year they just had to argue the funding would "stimulate the economy," and voila, now they're law. Well that's not entirely true: they didn't even have to argue the stimulative merits of the spending.

But the massive porkulus bill has done nothing to whet Washington's appetite for more spending. The FY 2010 appropriations bills are now rolling through Congress and so far, little is being done to control their growth.

The Senate's FY 2010  homeland security appropriations bill is currently marked up at $42.926 billion, seven percent higher than the amount enacted in 2009.

And the Senate's interior and environmental appropriations bill would spend $32.1 billion in FY 2010, an increase of 16 percent over last year's enacted levels.

How high will the deficits have to go before politicians can control themselves with the public purse at the public trough?]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:32:29 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4730</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>An Image from Today's Health Care for America Now Rally</title><description><![CDATA[Notice how the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) made "UNTAXED" the largest word on these t-shirts. The logo was also printed on the hats these attendees were wearing.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:27:21 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4729</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert: Vote "NO" on Waxman-Markey!</title><description><![CDATA[NTU sent the following vote alert to the entire House of Representatives today:

*****************************************************************************************

NTU urges all Representatives to vote "NO" on H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey "American Clean Energy and Security Act." This "cap-and-trade" legislation constitutes a mammoth $2 trillion energy tax hike on top of existing burdens and would crush our already-ailing economy.

By placing a cap on carbon dioxide output, cap-and-trade would raise prices on gasoline, utilities, and virtually every consumer product Americans purchase. H.R. 2454 would cost the average family upwards of $3,000 per year. Estimates also predict the loss of 1.1 million jobs per year should the bill pass.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of cap-and-trade is the impact it would have on low-income families, who spend 26 percent of their income paying for energy, compared to just 4 percent for the median family. There is simply no justification for sticking these Americans with huge additional burdens in the midst of a very difficult economy.

Roll call votes on H.R. 2454 will be among the most heavily weighted votes of the year in our annual Rating of Congress, and we urge all Members to vote "NO."

If you have any questions, please contact NTU Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:19:58 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4728</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Obsolete, outdated, wasteful? Let's keep it!</title><description><![CDATA[In all the frenzied action over big-ticket items like a $2 trillion energy tax and government-run health care, the appropriations process seems to have disappeared from the media map.  That's unfortunate because the appropriations process is how we fund our government.  In that process, there are dozens and dozens of opportunities to cut wasteful spending, most of which are glossed over or ignored completely.

Well, yesterday, freshman Representative Pete Olson (R-TX) tried to bring one opportunity to the forefront.  I'm sure you'll be shocked, SHOCKED, to hear that his effort wasn't ruled in order.  Here, in his own words, is Representative Olson's attempt to eliminate $36 million worth of funding for an ancient and outdated Coast Guard navigation system...In an attempt to redirect wasteful spending, I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act which will be would have decreased funding in the Coast Guard Operating Expenses account in the amount of $36 million dollars to eliminate the funding for the ground based navigational system, LORAN-C.  The amendment was not made in order by the Rules Committee and as such wasn’t debated or considered when the legislation was on the floor yesterday.  

I’ve talked to many families in my district who are taking a long, hard look at the family budget and as such are reevaluating their spending priorities.  We in the United States Congress should do no less.  We must constantly look at the federal budget to cut out those expenditures that are wasteful, unnecessary and duplicative. 

My amendment would have eliminated funding in the Coast Guard budget for LORAN-C, an antiquated, expensive, World War II-era radio location technology that will cost $36 million to maintain next year alone.  It’s particularly galling that the federal government spends so much to maintain this dead-end technology, when most cell phone users already have access to its replacement:  the Global Positioning System.

Elimination of LORAN-C will result in savings of $36 million in 2010 and $190 million over five years - more than covering the cost of transition to GPS.  The US is behind the curve regarding the safety of maritime vessels, and the Coast Guard’s ability to track them.

Bottom line, LORAN-C is not cost effective, and is extremely outdated.  There is no reason why the US should be inferior to other countries regarding the safety and efficiency of the Coast Guard and maritime vessels.  Admiral Thad Allen has called the transition from LORAN-C to GPS, “challenging, but necessary.”  He remarked that “Every dog has it day and LORAN-C has had its day.” 

LORAN-C has served its purpose adequately, but in our constant efforts to ensure that the American taxpayer is getting the best value for their dollar, it is time to stop throwing increasing amounts of money at an obsolete system and redirect funding to a better and cheaper alternative.  

Even the Obama Administration gets this - it zeroed out funding for this program in their budget request.   This type of program in my opinion deserves to be defunded, but I also believe that its merits and existence deserve to be debated on the House floor.  Sadly neither of those actions took place.

-Rep. Pete Olson represents the 22nd District of Texas.  He is a member of the House Republican’s Sunset Caucus.Olson, as a member of the heroic Republican Study Committee and their new Sunset Caucus, apparently had the crazy idea that wasteful programs should be debated on the floor and eliminated.  In this day and age, that's a special kind of crazy...one that I wish EVERY Member had.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:53:33 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4727</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Robert Reich's "public option" deceptions</title><description><![CDATA[Although this note may seem similar in content and intent to my note yesterday about Barack Obama's outrageous news conference, Robert Reich's Wednesday WSJ plea for government-run health care deserves an equal smack-down.

Reich's entire article is filled with misleading statements -- not quite lies, but with the same effect.  Let's go through his opinion in some detail:

Reich starts off by saying that the public wants health-care reforms and that nearly 3/4 of respondents in a WSJ/NBC poll say they want a "public option" for health insurance. However, Reich ignores another result from the very same poll: "But when told the arguments for and against the plan, a smaller portion, 47%, agreed with arguments in support of the plan, with 42% agreeing with the arguments against it."  And that's before the public learns about the plan's likely costs.

An ABC/Washington Post poll shows that strong support for "a universal health insurance program" drops dramatically if it means any limitations on choice of doctors or rationing of medical care, both of which would undoubtedly happen under ObamaCare.

Furthermore, "Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

So, Reich is simply selecting the poll numbers which make it appear that the public agrees with him whereas the truth is quite different.

Next, Reich says that CBO estimates for a public plan likely overstate the plan's costs. It's a very important point -- and Reich is very wrong for two main reasons.  First, every government health care program (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP) has busted every budget estimate ever made for them.  People like Reich like to argue that Medicare's administrative costs are lower than those of private insurers. But those statistics are also incredibly misleading for several reasons:

*  Medicare is rife with fraud at a scale which would never be tolerated, or even possible, under private plans

*  Private companies' profits are counted as administrative costs

*  Some of Medicare's operating costs, such as raising money, are borne by other parts of government (i.e. the Treasury department). It's still a cost to taxpayers, of course, but is misleadingly left out of calculations of Medicare's cost of operations.

After these and a couple other reasonable adjustments, Medicare's cost advantage disappears.

Reich also makes the incredible statement that companies in the health care industry "have little or no incentive to supply high-quality care at a lower cost than they do now."  I had to read it twice to make sure he really said that.  First of all, to the extent that there is competition among health insurers, they obviously have that incentive.  Second, to the degree that Reich thinks that the health care industry isn't competitive, why does he not suggest the most obvious fix to what ails it: Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, as we can with car insurance.

Reich states that "no one has to choose" the public option, so it doesn't represent a "government takeover of all of health insurance."  But that's simply ridiculous.  Studies show massive "crowd out" of private insurance for governments' SCHIP programs, as people leave their private insurance for their free lunch.  Another example of crowd-out, outside of health care but just as an example of what happens when government gets involved, is in Texas' coastal property insurance market, as described in THIS comment to my blog note of yesterday.

Reich says that the government will negotiate better prices than private companies will.  But where in history has that ever been demonstrated to be true?  And in Medicare Part D, it is the truly private competition within the plan that has kept its costs down -- and it was that competition which led many Democrats to oppose it.

Reich makes a strange comparison between non-profit health plans and for-profit health plans, missing the important points that non-profit plans still must operate efficiently and that just because a company is "non-profit" does not mean it does not earn a profit!  For example, the non-profit Kaiser Permanente had a net profit of $794 million in 2008, or about $92 per "member".  Comparing to two of the biggest for-profit health insurers, this is a higher per-member profit than  WellPoint, at around $71/member, and just barely below the $102 per insuree profit of United HealthCare.

Reich tries to argue that the public plan won't be subsidized by the government.  Does anybody actually believe that?  Isn't that what Barney Frank said about Fannie Mae shortly before handing it tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money (which it is now burning through.) Of course the plan will be subsidized by the government, either directly or indirectly.  It may (and will likely be) so inefficient that it will require direct cash infusions.  But it will be indirectly subsidized by, as I mentioned before, handing off parts of its operations to other branches of government to hide the apparent cost.

Essentially every argument Reich makes for the public plan is a misleading use of often-erroneous data or simply his naive hope that government will manage a national health care system differently than it manages anything else, including existing government health care systems.

There's one thing I'm tempted to agree with Reich about.  Obama probably should "come out swinging for the public option" because that increases the chances that no health care legislation will be passed.  And passing nothing is certainly better than passing any of the current Democratic plans and probably better than most of the Republican ones.

[I would also suggest that anyone who thinks the Democrats are not out to destroy private health insurance watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dT4mV3R7vu4]]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:52:32 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4726</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Delaware Taxpayers: Tell Your Representatives to Hold the Line Against Tax Hikes!</title><description><![CDATA[Last week, politicians in Dover attempted to sneak $50 million in tax hikes through the Legislature. Thankfully, Republicans in the House sniffed out these regressive, job-killing “sin” taxes and held the line in opposition. However, it looks like the tax hike bills are back on the table, and you need to urge your lawmakers to continue to say NO to any tax increases!

House Bills 210, 211, and 212 would increase taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and increase the cost of doing business for restaurants, bars and liquor stores. In the middle of the worst recession in a generation, these businesses are already struggling to stay afloat, and low-income Delaware families are struggling to make ends meet. A $50 million tax hike will hit job providers and the poor the hardest. Period.

House Republicans should be commended for their principled stand last week, but the fight is not yet over. Contact these Representatives, thank them for their anti-tax stand, and urge them to stay the course during any and all future votes! 

Thank these lawmakers for their NO vote on HB 210, HB 211 and HB 212, and ask them to continue to oppose these tax hikes:

donald.blakey@state.de.us

Joseph.Booth@state.de.us

Richard.Cathcart@state.de.us

Gerald.Hocker@state.de.us

Deborah.Hudson@state.de.us

thomas.kovach@state.de.us

Greg.Lavelle@state.de.us

biff.lee@state.de.us

Nick.T.Manolakos@state.de.us

joseph.miro@state.de.us

William.Oberle@state.de.us

bobby.outten@state.de.us

Michael.Ramone@state.de.us

Daniel.Short@state.de.us 

pam.thornburg@state.de.us

David.L.Wilson@state.de.us


A tax is a tax, and during this recession, any increase is unacceptable!
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:34:55 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4725</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>ObamaCare: Far worse than economically ignorant</title><description><![CDATA[In a news conference yesterday, Barack Obama demonstrated a remarkable ignorance of and antipathy for free markets and free enterprise when speaking about the possibility of a “public option” as part of “health care reform.”

It’s not easy for Obama to surprise me but the vacuousness of his statements combined with their casual disregard for the power of government when “competing” with private companies was truly shocking.

According to an AP article about the news conference, Obama said that “A government-run health insurance option is needed ‘to discipline insurance companies.’”  Let’s get this straight: 1300 insurance companies aren’t enough to have competition?  We need 1301 to suddenly make it all OK?

Obama complains that insurance companies care about profits…implying that a government-run program won’t.  And that raises at least two huge problems:  First, if the government plan won’t care about operating efficiently, then Obama’s clearly lying when he says that private health insurance companies “should be able to compete.”  And second, if the government plan won’t care about a profit, that means it will run at a loss and become a permanent leech, sucking taxpayer dollars year after year, adding to the collection of such leeches on a body politic that President Obama believes is a never-ending supply for his essentially fascist economic plans (though to be clear, his vision for health care is more socialist than fascist.).

The following paragraph from the AP article emphasizes Obama’s economic idiocy:

"Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he said of the proposed public option. If private insurers "tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."

Does President Obama really think that a government-run plan will in any sense be on an equal footing with private plans?  Does he not think that people will rationally switch from private plans to a “free lunch” even if it’s not the tastiest lunch, just as is already happening in states’ SCHIP (children’s health insurance) programs where somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3 of new enrollees drop private coverage to get on the government plan?  (There is a higher level of “crowd out”, i.e. people dropping private coverage, as states increase the income levels of families which are eligible for the programs.)  And does he really think that the fact that government “can’t run anything” will keep government from putting private companies out of business?

I’ve always thought that Obama didn’t understand economics very well.  But I underestimated how ignorant he is. Indeed, he’s closer to delusional than ignorant based on his words yesterday.  

As is typical for a liberal, he thinks people are stupid as he downplayed the fact that “up to 80 percent of people ‘are satisfied with the health insurance that they currently have.’”  

The solution to rising health care costs is much simpler than a massive government take-over of our medical system.  It is to allow competition into the system, to let people buy policies across state lines and let states compete in terms of the mandates which they’ll require for policies sold by insurers in their states.  So someone from California could buy a policy in Idaho at half the cost because it doesn’t have mandatory coverage for in vitro fertilization and hair plugs.  Also, allowing people to get together in groups for purposes of buying insurance would be a good step.

While I oppose Medicare Part D, the prescription drug benefit, there is nevertheless an important lesson in that program’s relative success.  In an excellent article, Mort Kondracke notes that the private competition created in Part D has the program coming in dramatically under cost estimates, where no other part of Medicare is doing anything but busting every budget estimate ever made.  Even a government program can, if allowed to, prove that competition works.

But Obama’s conception is, despite all his flowery rhetoric, NOT about real competition.  It’s about putting private health insurers out of business and turning our health care system into something like England’s or Canada’s, where people can’t get state of the art medicine or treatments, where surgery has waiting lists of months or years, and where anyone who can afford to comes here for any life-and-death procedure, or any quality of life procedure which can be done here in weeks rather than waiting months or years at home.

It would also help costs if legislation to curtail frivolous lawsuits and outrageous judgments were passed, but the Democrats are so in debt to the trial lawyers that they won't engage in any serious tort reform.  Indeed, Barack Obama said that to the AMA just last week.

Finally, a point I’ve made before and will keep making:  The game here is not just about a socialist vision of taking over health care.  It’s about relieving unions of much or all of their financial responsibility for their members’ and retirees’ health care.  After all, if the UAW were suddenly not to need to spend the $20 billion they’re getting from GM on health care, imagine how many Democrats they could get elected with that money suddenly turning into the world’s largest political slush fund.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:16:42 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4724</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Taxpayer March on DC!</title><description><![CDATA[The National Taxpayers Union, along with coalition partners fighting for smaller, more transparent government, will be expanding the "Tea Party" movement and participating in a march on the capital (perhaps the Capitol?).

So mark your calendar - beginning the 10th of September, come join NTU, our fellow taxpayer advocacy groups, myriad speakers and fiscally-responsible congressmen in Washington, D.C. for an event like none other.

Check out the National Taxpayer Protest website for more information.

We hope to see you there!
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:52:38 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4723</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Good news! 1,200 page bill with $2 trillion tax hike being jammed through Congress.</title><description><![CDATA[Stop me if you've heard this story before...

Nancy Pelosi and other folks in House Leadership are attempting to jam a 1,200 page bill through Congress in a surprise move.  This beauty contains a $2 trillion tax increase.  That's two trillion, with a T, or more than $6,600 for every man, woman, and child alive in America today.

We've been warning of the damage this cap-and-trade legislation would do for a long time now.  In the most difficult economy we've seen in years, the geniuses in Congress apparently think that the best course of action is to enact the largest tax hike in American history; a plan which would raise prices for the energy you use every day, destroy millions of jobs, and take an even bigger bite out of family budgets.

If I've said this once, I've said it a million times: the only way to kill legislation like this is to flood Congress with phone calls and emails in opposition.  Text "FIGHT" to 54608 to sign up for our text alerts and we'll help you do exactly that.

Check back here for updates soon.

UPDATE: Here's another chance to yell at your Representatives about this.  I'm generally not prone to using all caps, but I'm going to do it, so here's your warning...CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES NOW, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!  This bill is going to be finished in the House by this weekend, at this rate.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:30:59 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4722</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Survey Shows Deep Concern Over Obama's Deficits</title><description><![CDATA[In a recent L.A. Times survey of 1,001 Americans, 90 percent of respondents "are worried to some degree about the exploding federal spending deficit, a galactic number certain to gain politicians' attention on both sides."

And this is before health care reform.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:24:38 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4721</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>That's the Unions for You</title><description><![CDATA[In many states, the unemployment rate is reaching or exceeding 10 percent. People who want to work, can't find a way to earn a paycheck. But in NYC, around 700 teachers get paid for nothing. They get to pass the workday playing scrabble, or if it their prerogative, simply staring at a wall. According to AP, many of these teachers are in trouble for various offenses including insubordination and sexual misconduct. But, thanks to the power of unions, it is impossible to fire these clowns (sure, there are probably a few people in there who shouldn't be, but there has to be a better way of solving this problem). Instead they get to spend the day in a rubber room costing NY taxpayers $65 million a year.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:50:42 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4720</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>A Little Good News</title><description><![CDATA[A little change of pace from our regular fare.  NebraskaStatePaper.com has the story of Robert "Lindy" Lenhart, age 90, who recently received his World War II medals, including a Bronze Star for combat service, a combat infantry badge, and campaign victory medals.  The reporter closes the story with this paragraph:
The importance of the medals have not diminished for Lenhart, despite more than 60 years of time. When asked if the wait was worth it, Lenhart 's eyes teared up and he shook his head, unable to speak.
Congratulations Mr. Lenhart and a belated thanks for your service.
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:29:17 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4719</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Helps Roll Out Sunset Caucus</title><description><![CDATA[

NTU staffers pose at Sunset Caucus rally.

On Wednesday June 17, 2009, several NTU staffers helped roll out the Republican Study Committee's brand new "Sunset Caucus" on the grounds of the Capitol.  The Sunset Caucus has been established with the novel idea of eliminating wasteful and duplicative spending programs and to return fiscal responsibility to Washington.  RSC Chairman (and Taxpayers' Friend Award winner) Tom Price (R-GA), Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and other members of the RSC spoke at the event.  Nearly 100 people were in attendance, including dozens of activists displaying posters in support of the caucus and its cause.

NTU is a big fan of the RSC, and the Sunset Caucus is just the latest reason. They are one of the single greatest forces for fiscal conservatism in the country.   The Sunset Caucus is needed now more than ever in the House, and let us hope it accomplishes its goal sooner rather than later.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:14:30 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4718</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Man Made Drought in California</title><description><![CDATA[

Sean Hannity recently aired an investigation piece on Fox News which reported on the drought in California that is causing farmers to lose their crops and several thousand people to lose their jobs.  This drought is man made, not due to lack of rain.  Courts ruled to shut down pumps which fill the canals, providing the farmers with the water they use on their crops.  The reason they shut them down: a two inch long fish named a smelt.  As an avid angler I do love fish, but it is absurd to cause 60,000 people to lose their jobs and to make farmers lose their crop over a fish.  The decision should be a simple one, especially in these tough times: save the crops and the jobs, and let the fish fend for themselves.

Representative Devin Nunes (R-CA) has been a vocal opponent of this insanity, and finally a news agency has gotten the story right.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:46:09 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4717</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Updates from the States</title><description><![CDATA[#1: Californians consider a flat tax.  

#2: State government revenues from personal income taxes fall by $28.8 billion.

#3: Texans lower business taxes.]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:24:37 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4716</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Stop a Sneaky Tax Hike in Delaware</title><description><![CDATA[Click here to take action!

The federal government is committed to showering the state of Delaware with hundreds of millions of dollars in "stimulus," bailing out politicians intent on perpetual and unsustainable spending growth. Yet those same politicians in Dover insist that the only way to dig the state out of recession is to increase taxes, ignoring decades of evidence to the contrary.

The Delaware House is currently considering a series of bills that will increase taxes on working citizens to the tune of a projected $50 million over two years. Unfortunately, these "sin" taxes tend to bring in revenues well short of expectations. This, coupled with the well of one-time federal stimulus dollars running dry, means Delaware is very likely to experience more budget deficits in the near future.

HB 210 would increase "fees" assessed to restaurants, bars, and liquor stores, many of whom are already struggling to keep their doors open. Government increases in the cost of doing business is never helpful; under the current economic conditions they are considerably more damaging.

HB 211 would hike the cigarette tax by 45 cents per pack. Government officials hope to raise $37 million over the next two years by doing so. Recent evidence shows that this is not likely to happen. Between 2003 and 2007, state excise taxes on cigarettes were increased 57 times. In only 16 of those instances did revenues fall in line with expectations. The reason for this is simple. When government artificially increases the price of a good, people use less of it (by either ceasing consumption altogether or buying the product where it is less expensive). Tax hikes equate to price increases, and smokers will either quit or buy their cigarettes in other states, on the Internet, or from smugglers.

HB 211 also represents a tax increase on both the poor and the small business community. Low-income citizens are more likely to smoke, and in some parts of Delaware, household income can fall below $15,000. With the passage of HB 211, the government burden on cigarette smoking would account for 7.9 percent of income for those households, as compared to 1.2 percent for households earning $100,000 annually. Small businesses would be negatively impacted as well. Cigarettes are the number-one product sold by convenience stores, making up roughly one-third of all sales nationwide. Delaware's push to increase the price of cigarettes will devastate retailers already experiencing declining sales.

HB 212, which would boost taxes on beer, wine, and spirits, is problematic for many of the same reasons as the cigarette tax hike. It's regressive on the poor and burdensome on business. Until now the spirits trade has sparked economic growth in Delaware, having grown at an average annual rate of 4.3 percent (compared with 2.3 percent in the rest of the country) since 1996, owing to a significant tax cut in 1997. That advantage will disappear if state government is successful in making products more expensive. It's certainly not as if government isn't taking too much from the industry already -- 52 percent of the cost of a typical bottle of spirits purchased in Delaware goes directly to the government.

The bottom line is simple: tax increases in the midst of a recession are profoundly destructive to economic growth. Don't let lawmakers fool you into embracing "sin taxes." A tax is a tax, no matter its target. Contact your representatives in Dover and urge them to refuse any tax increases! 

To take action, click here now!]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:59:59 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4715</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Taxing the Top</title><description><![CDATA[Our friend, Curtis Dubay, over at the Heritage Foundation recently published a paper on the potential economic consequences of this Administration’s tax policies.  His paper, entitled “Income Tax Will Become More Progressive Under Obama Tax Plan,” highlights President Obama’s 2010 budget and how it will significantly increase the tax burden on upper-income taxpayers and millions of small business owners over the next decade.  Additionally, Dubay points out that we would see the capital gains tax rise to 20% for individuals earning over $250,000 annually.

It is important to remember that no one is immune to this crippling economy – that includes those in the upper tax bracket.  Progressive taxation discourages hard work, savings and investment, and provides little incentive for entrepreneurs to undertake new business risks as the profits needed to fund new ventures are quickly taxed away. This discourages small business growth and expansion that could lead to innovative energy solutions and more jobs.  Our government should continually strive for lower tax rates on all individuals if it is serious about stimulating our economy and getting us back on track.

Click here to read Dubay's latest paper for the Heritage Foundation.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:54:23 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4714</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Fair and Balanced?</title><description><![CDATA[It looks like President Obama will get even more prime-time to promote his political agenda on network television. It has been reported that ABC will turn its programming over to the President on the night of June 24 for a special - 'Prescription for America' - that will center on the Administration's controversial health care plan. The one-hour telecast will be set up as a town-hall discussion, with a question and answer portion of the program; however, ABC will dictate who asks the questions and groups with opposing voices on the issue will be excluded altogether.

Additionally, ABCNews anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the White House Blue Room just prior to 'Prescription for America.'

Considering taxpayers will bear the burden of the $1 trillion health care proposal, shouldn't there be fair and open dialogue concerning the details and potential consequences of the underlying legislation? We think so - apparently, ABC does not. ]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:41:42 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4713</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Now IRS Wants to Repeal Cellphone Tax</title><description><![CDATA[According to the Wall Street Journal:
IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman on Tuesday asked Congress to repeal the 20-year-old law to ensure that neither companies nor workers will be subject to taxes for employees' personal use of work cellphones.

The request is a turnabout from last week, when the IRS proposed measures to improve enforcement of the law, which is now widely ignored by employers and employees. One option proposed by the IRS would have counted 25% of employee cellphone use as personal, and thus subject to tax as income.

"The passage of time, advances in technology and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete," Mr. Shulman said.Wow, first it was the Spanish War-era telephone excise tax and now this.  Who know?  Maybe we will eventually have a modern, simple, pro-growth tax code for the 21st century by the 24th century.

]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:24:39 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4712</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Google Quotation of the Day</title><description><![CDATA[I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.  - Thomas Jefferson]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:17:10 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4711</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Trouble at AmeriCorps</title><description><![CDATA[By any rational standard of acceptable roles of government, AmeriCorps, the federal "paid volunteer" program, is itself a huge waste of money. But AmeriCorps' own inspector general, Gerald Walpin, found examples of abuse within the program that even meet the federal government's definition of waste. Feathers were ruffled on the board that oversees AmeriCorps. Then last week, Mr. Walpin got a call from  the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform,'"Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it's time to move on." ..."You can either resign, or I'll tell you that we'll have to terminate you."

Was this a politically motivated push out? Byron York has the disturbing details in the Washington Examiner.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:09:13 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4710</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>More "Monuments to Me"</title><description><![CDATA[Andy Roth at the Club for Growth blogged about an effort to ban "monuments to me" in appropriations bills this year. These are earmarks for programs named for politicians, such as the Maxine Waters Employment Preparation Center.

NTU Foundation frequently comes across proposals to create or fund such monuments in our review of legislation for BillTally. We've kept a list (viewable as a Google Spreadsheet) of those we've found in the course of our research over the past year. Where available, we've added funding information or cost estimates and links.

Of course, this list is by no means comprehensive. If any reader has info on any others, please let us know at blog @ ntu.org and we will add the updates!]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:10:18 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4708</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Novel Idea</title><description><![CDATA[Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska, a first-termer who has shown real promise thus far into his tenure, is introducing the Free Enterprise Act.  It contains a simple (and terrific) idea: requiring Congressional approval for release of TARP funds that would end up with government owning shares of a business.  Too bad Congress didn't think of that when drafting TARP, huh?

Johanns, BTW, wasn't around when that abomination was passed, and he's been one of the foremost advocates for taxpayers during subsequent fights over TARP and stimulus.  Here's his announcement of the Free Enterprise Act...Why America Needs the Free Enterprise Act
By Senator Mike Johanns, U.S. Senator for Nebraska

The announcement that the government would provide $30 billion dollars more in TARP funds to General Motors in exchange for a 60 percent ownership interest in the company is unprecedented and almost unbelievable.   

Who ever imagined the taxpayers would wake up Monday morning and find out a deal was cut behind closed doors to make them majority owners of General Motors?  If you add all of the government aid GM has or will receive, the taxpayers, with zero input, have invested $50 billion dollars in a high risk bankrupt company. That’s almost one-million dollars per job retained by GM.

Sadly, there is no longer a dividing line between these private companies and the government. 
The government is now running or deeply involved in major industrial sectors of the economy: housing, banking, insurance, and automobiles. This is extremely troublesome and marks a fundamental shift in the way business is conducted in America.

I believe this is the wrong approach and I am adamantly opposed to it. Some of my colleagues disagree with me.  They believe the government should bailout the autos.  Right now, none of us – whether for it or against it – has any say in whether the action goes forward.  The legislative branch has effectively given the executive branch a free pass to do as it wishes with seven hundred billion dollars. 

TARP has become a license for government to experiment with private business.  How do you think the original TARP vote would have gone back in September if members knew then what they know now?  Remember, TARP was first presented as a toxic asset purchasing program to revive financial markets and to get credit flowing to consumers.  That is what Congress approved.  That’s all Congress approved.  Then it became a blank check for failing banks; and the struggling insurance giant AIG; and the floundering housing market.  

Despite a December vote by Congress that rejected a bailout of the auto industry, TARP is now being used to bankroll the auto industry.  How could anyone have predicted that an original plan to buy up toxic assets would be warped and twisted into the revolving slush fund it is today?  People would have looked at me in disbelief if I had said - just a few months ago - that TARP funds would be used to buy General Motors.  All this is happening without Congressional approval. 

The Free Enterprise Act would fix that.  It’s simple and straightforward.  It says any release of TARP funds that results in the government owning common or preferred stock will be allowed only if there is prior Congressional approval. 

Congress must reclaim its voice and duty to provide proper oversight of TARP.  Let me be frank. I was not in the Senate when the first TARP vote occurred nor was I in office yet for the vote against providing emergency funds to the automobile industry. I was present in January and voted to disapprove President Bush’s request to release the second tranche of TARP.  I did not agree with the way the first half of TARP was used, and I did not have faith that the second half would be spent in a more responsible manner, or that taxpayers would be fully protected. 
It passed anyway and now the Administration has a blank check – actually a stack of blank checks – to use TARP as a revolving fund for risky experiments in nationalizing private enterprise.

As of right now, there are no checks and balances planned before we dole out $30 billion more to GM.  My bill would ensure that Congress provides the oversight we were elected to deliver.  It asks only for a simple majority, applying the regular rules of the Senate. But, it makes a very significant statement that Congress has not fallen asleep at the switch.
 
We must fulfill our duty to provide checks and balances to the executive branch - as our Constitution demands.  Whether my fellow senators support or oppose funds for private industry, they should support this bill to reclaim Congress’ role in the operations of our government.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:44:30 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4707</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Misery in New Jersey</title><description><![CDATA[From the New Jersey Taxpayers Alliance:
According to a new index unveiled Tuesday by the New Jersey Taxpayers Association (NJTA) New Jersey is the most miserable of states as it pertains to a rapidly growing tax burden and debt, runaway spending and soaring unemployment. 

The group's new metric - the Misery Index - reveals New Jersey's misery has grown by nearly 25 percent since 2005, the year before Governor Corzine took office, while nearly doubling since 2001 - the year before Democrats took control of state government.
This should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog. The Corzine economy has been an abysmal failure, as the Governor has embraced tax hike after crippling tax hike. The release goes on to say the Misery Index has nearly doubled over the past decade.
One of the culprits? As noted - taxes, taxes, and more taxes! The Democrat-controlled Legislature has increased each of the big 3 revenue sources - Income, Sales and Corporation Business Taxes - at least once during its tenure and they aren't finished yet. The Income Tax is proposed to increase to 10.25% for those earning more than $500,000; The Sales Tax was increased from 6 to 7% in 2006 - that was their so-called Property Tax Relief and Reform Plan, and the 4% surcharge on the Corporation Business Tax (CBT) that was scheduled to sunset this year will be extended.
Gov. Corzine is the steward of arguably the nation's most pathetic economy, and he's one of two Governors up for re-election this November. The results of his policies paint a very clear picture: More spending, more debt, and more taxes lead to less jobs, less prosperity, and more "misery."
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:27:31 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4706</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>IRS Considering Cell Phone Tax</title><description><![CDATA[The Wall Street Journal reports that "The IRS is weighing a proposal to deem one-quarter of employees' use of work cellphones as personal use and therefore subject to tax as a fringe benefit."  Give it a read, and then make sure the next that you call home that you use a landline.

]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:22:27 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4705</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Nationalized Medicine Threatens Women's Health</title><description><![CDATA[The fact that the current health care system in America leaves some people uninsured is an accepted one. No one is denying that each year the inability to access medical care results in missed diagnoses and preventable deaths. But nationalizing health care in order to cover all US citizens, á la the plans  of the current administration, would only necessitate the rationing of treatment, further reducing the number of patients receiving adequate attention and deteriorating the health status of all Americans, and of women in particular.

The Washington Examiner’s Mark Tapscott called attention yesterday to the troubling correlation between nationalized health care systems and higher rates of both breast cancer cases and deaths. Quoting Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, Tapscott writes that:“women with breast cancer have a 14 percent higher survival rate in the United States than in Europe,’ due primarily to the much lower rate of early detection among European cancer patients.The only effects of nationalizing health care, it seems, would be to raise the age of a woman’s first mammogram, reduce the number of routine screenings she receives throughout her life, and delay the detection of breast cancer beyond the point of easy treatment. How do you justify jeopardizing the health of over 50 percent of the population to expand coverage to the 9 million or so that, according to The Spectator, are those truly uninsured for the long haul? Apparently women’s health doesn’t fall under the category of “universal coverage”.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:18:21 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4704</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>C-SPAN Blogging</title><description><![CDATA[Just caught a few minutes of Illinois Senator Dick Durbin speaking about health care reform on the Senate floor.  You have to give Durbin credit.  He can weave together a straw man with the best of them.  This morning he was challenging Republicans who are opposed to the health care bill to come to the floor and defend the insurance companies because Republicans want "no change" in the current system.  (On a tangent, I wonder who is more popular -- insurance companies or Congress?)  So, if you don't like the Kennedy bill or the President's position, you love insurance companies and want millions of Americans to go without health insurance.  Actually, it's possible that you might want a more consumer-friendly, patient-driven system that doesn't create a new federal entitlement -- but, that's an inconvenient reality for the straw man to deal with.

Durbin also dared Republicans to come to the floor and speak out against that perfectly run government health care program called Medicare.  Durbin calls Medicare a "proven success" and says "It's worked."  Perhaps the inconvenient question to ask is succeeded at what cost.  When Medicare was first passed in 1965, it was expected to cost $26 billion in 2003. In reality, it cost $245 billion. In 2003, Congress added a prescription drug plan to the program, which was supposed to cost $400 billion over the next ten years. In a not so surprising -- but still unfortunate -- turn of events for taxpayers, Medicare's Chief Actuary would just months later announce that the program would exceed the $400 billion mark, costing somewhere between $500 billion and $600 billion.  Medicare is succeeding so well, that according to the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report:
The financial outlook for the Medicare program continues to raise serious concerns. Total Medicare expenditures were $468 billion in 2008 and are expected to increase in future years at a faster pace than either workers' earnings or the economy overall. As a percentage of GDP, expenditures are projected to increase from 3.2 percent in 2008 to 11.4 percent by 2083 (based on our intermediate set of assumptions). Growth of this magnitude, if realized, would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal Budget.
The minority staff on the House Budget Committee have put together an excellent page on America's looming entitlement crisis -- a crisis that doesn't include a new health care entitlement -- I mean, "option".

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:30:03 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4703</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>TARP - A Big (Really, Really Big) Mistake</title><description><![CDATA[An appropriately titled column ("The $787 Billion Mistake") on TARP at Forbes.com.

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:45:58 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4702</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Representative Pitts Presented with Taxpayers' Friend Award</title><description><![CDATA[Monday, Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan and Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp presented Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA) with NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award for his consistent support of lower taxes and limited government. This is Rep. Pitts’ eighth award.

Congratulations.


]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:31:00 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4701</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Representative Westmoreland Presented with Taxpayers' Friend Award</title><description><![CDATA[Tuesday, Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan and Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp presented Congressman Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) with NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award for his consistent support of lower taxes and limited government. This is Rep. Westmoreland’s fourth award.

Congratulations.


]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:26:03 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4700</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Oh Canada</title><description><![CDATA[Dr. David Gratzer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has a troubling piece on the Canadian health care system in today's Wall Street Journal.  Earlier this morning New York Senator Chuck Schumer was on on the floor of the Senate saying that a "public option" in health care reform legislation was to be a check on private insurance companies because no one trusts private insurance companies.  After reading Dr. Gratzer's piece does anyone trust government-provided health care?  As P.J. O'Rourke once said, "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."
  ]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:09:43 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4699</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Transparency Has Arrived in Colorado</title><description><![CDATA[Last Thursday CO Gov. Bill Ritter signed HB 1288, which will implement an online searchable database of all state government revenues and expenditures. Taxpayers in Colorado will now have easy access to detailed information about how their money is being spent. The Governor should be commended for embracing the bill and abandoning his previous proposal, a considerably weaker Executive Order. 

In March I testified in favor of HB 1288 on behalf of NTU's 7,325 Colorado members. NTU will continue to fight for transparency and accountability at all levels of government.

]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:36:34 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4698</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>"Bailout" for Transportation Agencies?</title><description><![CDATA[CQ.com is reporting the following:  "Passenger rail and bus advocates are pressing conferees on the war supplemental bill to include a Senate-passed provision that would allow public transit agencies to spend some of their stimulus dollars on operating expenses, instead of capital improvements."  According to the article, transit agencies received $8.4 billion in stimulus funds.

Does this not sound like a bailout in the making:  "Many transit agencies are facing budget deficits that leave them unable to keep up with dramatic increases in ridership. As a result, service and personnel cuts are being proposed in cities across the country."  

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:02:29 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4697</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Representative Price Presented with Taxpayers' Friend Award</title><description><![CDATA[Thursday, Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan and Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp presented Congressman Tom Price (R-GA) with NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award for his consistent support of lower taxes and limited government. This is Rep. Price's third award.

Congratulations.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:19:03 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4696</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Representative Culberson Presented with Taxpayers' Friend Award</title><description><![CDATA[Thursday, Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan and Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp presented Congressman John Culberson (R-TX) with NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award for his consistent support of lower taxes and limited government. This is Rep. Culberson's s second award.

Congratulations. 

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:13:24 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4695</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Representative Foxx Presented with Taxpayers' Friend Award</title><description><![CDATA[Thursday, Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan and Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp presented Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) with NTU's Taxpayers' Friend Award for her consistent support of lower taxes and limited government. This is Rep. Foxx's third award.

Congratulations.

]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:45:10 MDT</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=4694</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>
</channel>
</rss>