<?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>Frivolous Tax Arguments</title><description><![CDATA[In an earlier post on our blog, someone named JT commented that citizens have no legal obligation to file and pay income taxes. He should take a look at the IRS's latest list of frivolous tax arguments and the legal references that refute those arguments. Claims that there is no legal obligation to both file and pay taxes are the first two arguments the list shoots down. Failing to file taxes could get you in a lot of trouble, and employing one of these frivolous arguments could cost you an additional $5,000 fine. The IRS's list was updated in January with over 40 new cases dealt with in 2009.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:25:15 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5059</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Boom Times for the Transportation Lobby</title><description><![CDATA[The Center for Public Integrity has a new report out about the massive transportation lobby seeking federal funding. Some of their findings:As lawmakers grappled with renewal of an expiring multi-year transportation law last September, the number of cities and counties lobbying on transportation had grown by 80 percent since the last time a transport bill was about to expire, in the fall of 2003.The cities and counties who list transportation as among their priorities spent a total of more than $35 million lobbying Washington through the first three quarters of last year; if even a quarter of that spending was solely devoted to transportation, it totals more than $8 million, a hefty sum for cash-strapped local governments.Data from the third quarter of 2009 shows that, on top of the 650 cities and counties, those contracting with lobbyists include more than a dozen states, 90 mass transit agencies, 45 local development authorities, and 25 metropolitan and regional planning organizations.There is a lot of federal money to chase:Last December, Congress passed its appropriations spending for 2010, including more than $52 billion for highways and transit.The "stimulus" included $35 billion for highway and transit programs.A second so-called "stimulus" passed by the House late last year includes another $35 billion for transportation spending.And, Congress is still to consider a multi-year re-authorization of the regular federal transportation legislation.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:51:37 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5058</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Raising the Penalty for Tax Protesters/Deniers</title><description><![CDATA[Under current law, the willful failure to pay taxes is a misdemeanor. You could go to jail for up to a year and pay a maximum fine of $25K (for individuals, $100K for corporations) for each year you fail to file a return. There is a proposal in the new budget to increase the penalty for repeated failure to file a tax return:Any person who willfully fails to file tax returns in any three years within any five consecutive year period, if the aggregated tax liability for such period is at least $50,000, would be subject to a new aggravated failure to file criminal penalty. The proposal would classify such failure as a felony and, upon conviction, impose a fine of not more than $250,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation) or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.  ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 08:11:45 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5057</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Doing it again</title><description><![CDATA[In President Obama’s State of the Union address he called for a slew of new spending proposals which include taking 30 billion dollars worth of money that banks have paid back to the government and giving it to other banks to make small business loans.  I might be taking an unpopular stance on this because everyone wants to help small business these days, but this seems eerily similar to the situation that got us into this mess.

I know its been covered extensively, but I think its important to remember the falling domino which ultimately lead to the recession we’re experiencing.  The federal government, over the course of both Republican and Democratic leadership, pushed the banking industry to make loans to people who would otherwise not have qualified for them.  It was considered a noble gesture to help Americans get on the path of homeownership.  Through government coercion and incentives, the sub-prime mortgage market was created.  The government convinced banks to lend to a high risk population and surprise, they defaulted.

Once again, the federal government has stumbled on a population they’d like to “help”.  They’re going to give $30 billion (of what is rightfully taxpayer money) to banks to lend out to small businesses who would otherwise not qualify for a loan.  Einstein’s quote, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” seems particularly apt here.  Currently, with no government intervention, the small business default rate is already up to 12% and those are the enterprises that banks deem worthy enough to bet on with their own money.  We don’t have to guess what’s going to happen when they get to gamble with ours.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:46:03 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5056</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Arming Up the IRS</title><description><![CDATA[The IRS posted a request for quotes for the purchase of 60 rifles:The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.Moonshiners, beware!]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:59:17 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5055</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>When the Government Lends, Taxpayers Pay</title><description><![CDATA[The government is heavily involved in lending (through both direct loans and taxpayer-backed guarantees) via education, housing, and dozens of other programs.

The good news is that the subsidy rate for defaults is relatively low (although I would like to see how this compares to private lenders): for FY 2009 the government's total direct loan write-off and guaranteed loan termination subsidy rate is 1.3 percent.

The bad news is that this rate will rise to 1.48 percent in FY 2010 and 2.57 percent in FY 2011.

And worse, although these percentages are small, they represent a lot of money. In FY09 taxpayers ate $30.6 billion in loans and guarantees, and the new budget estimates dollar losses of $38.8 billion in FY10 and $68.9 billion in FY11.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:35:49 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5054</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Former Governor and Everest-climber to take on much tougher job reforming government</title><description><![CDATA[One of NTU’s members alerted us to an upcoming event in the DC-area featuring Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico and successful climber of Mt. Everest!.  The two-term governor of New Mexico is an entrepreneur and former owner of a New Mexican construction company.  He had a long list of taxpayer-friendly accomplishments while in office, and now he’ll be in Annandale, Virginia to discuss a task far more difficult: reforming our government through the “Our America Initiative.”  This event is an opportunity for you to hear more about the initiative, which looks to be an interesting amalgamation of fiscal conservatism and libertarianism.  If nothing else, it’ll give you an opportunity to ask him what the view was like from 29,000 feet!

Details: 

            Thursday, February 11, 2010 6:30pm
            Northern Virginia Community College - Annandale Campus
            ERNST Community Center
            833 Little River Turnpike
            Annandale, VA  22003

For more information about the event, visit: http://OurAmericaInitiative.eventbrite.com.  ]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:09:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5053</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>10 Frightening Facts on Obama's Budget</title><description><![CDATA[After President Obama released his $3,800,000,000,000 budget yesterday, analysts with our Foundation plowed through and found some things that should keep taxpayers awake at night.  They are...

- - - - - - -

1) Debts Arrive Sooner. Last year’s budget projected that Gross Federal Debt would hit 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2017. This year’s budget now predicts the mark will be reached in 2012.

2) Budget Restraint: More Like a Toothpick than a Hatchet or a Scalpel. Outlays as a percentage of GDP are estimated to reach 25.1 percent in 2011, a slight improvement from 25.4 percent in 2010. The last two years when outlays as a percentage of GDP were higher than 25 percent in two successive years were 1944 and 1945; by 1950, it had dropped to 15.6 percent. By 2015, outlays are still forecast to reach 22.9 percent.

3) Recycled Program Cuts. The budget lists cuts and reductions to 78 discretionary programs totaling $10.3 billion annually. Of these, 24 items (representing $4.5 billion in savings) were also included in last year’s list of savings and terminations, which means they’ve already been rejected by Congress. Twenty-five mandatory program changes are proposed, 15 of which were lifted straight out of last year’s budget. New cuts range from the commendable – $3.5 billion for NASA – to the paltry: $5 million by cutting grants to worsted wool manufacturers.

4) Tax Hikes Masquerading as Spending Cuts. Of the 25 mandatory program changes mentioned above, claiming a “savings” of $47.2 billion over five years, $19.2 billion of the total comes from the repeal of 12 energy-related tax credits. These are more properly classified as revenue increases. Of the remaining actual cuts to mandatory outlays, about 90 percent of the savings ($25.1 billion) are attributable to one proposal: termination of lender subsidies in the Federal Family Education Loan Program, itself a holdover item from last year’s budget.

5) Spending Hikes Masquerading as Tax Cuts. The budget shows that federal outlays will increase by $67.5 billion over 2011-2015 strictly because of proposed changes in tax policy (as opposed to foregone revenues). This includes $13.8 billion to “reform and extend Build America bonds” and $547 million to “extend COBRA health insurance premium assistance.” The rest is for “refundable” (i.e., in excess of an individual’s actual tax liability) credits. The largest share of this is $22.0 billion to extend “Making Work Pay” tax credit in 2011. The long- term costs could rise significantly if this “temporary” tax credit is extended in future years.

6) Hidden Tax Increases on Consumers and Workers. Perhaps the hardest-hit sector in Obama’s budget is oil and gas – one of the few areas of the economy with decent short-term employment and growth prospects. Between the clawback of tax credits, repeal of deductions for domestic production available to others, and punitive changes in reporting rules, taxes on U.S. oil and gas producers will rise by $40 billion – which will ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Meanwhile new fees for spectrum licenses (over and above auctions) as well as higher agricultural inspection charges could burden telecom customers and air travelers, respectively. The Administration is also planning on making a supposedly temporary 33 percent increase in the Federal Unemployment Tax permanent, making it costlier to hire new workers.

7) Rosy Revenue Projections, Especially for Corporate Filers. Between 2010 and 2012, the Administration hopes that its personal income tax increases on upper brackets, combined with cuts for lower ones, will still lead to a 42 percent increase in individual income tax revenue. Over that same period, its business tax changes, consisting primarily of punitive, uncompetitive policies on U.S. firms’ earnings abroad, are supposed to lead to a 133 percent increase in corporation income tax revenue. Such a huge jump would be unprecedented in peacetime. The last time corporate income tax revenues increased by anywhere near this amount (111 percent) in any given three-year period was between 2003 and 2005 – during the Bush tax cuts!

8) Stimulus Officially a Bust. In last year’s budget, unemployment at the end of President Obama’s first term was projected at 6.0 percent, assuming enactment of the so-called “stimulus” bill. The current budget puts the 2012 rate at 8.2 percent.

9) More Bailouts for the Politically Connected. The Obama Administration proposes a new tax on financial institutions, in part to supposedly recover Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds for taxpayers. While the White House projects a drawdown in TARP equity fund purchases, from $106 billion in 2010 to $13 billion in 2020, Uncle Sam will own huge amounts of preferred stock from Government-Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in seeming perpetuity – climbing from $102 billion in 2010 to $115 billion in 2011, and remaining at that level through 2020. State governments, which have lobbied Washington hard for more cash, would win big under Obama’s budget: $25.5 billion for a six-month extension of relief from Medicaid’s joint federal-state program payments.

10) Rhetoric vs. Reality. Despite pledges to bring troops home from overseas, defense outlays would rise by 3.4 percent next year, and even that assumes Congress will approve controversial reductions in programs such as the C-17 cargo aircraft. The Administration also recommends abandoning the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, even as the Energy Department continues to pursue a license for the plan.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:25:09 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5052</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Terminations, Reductions, and Savings in the FY 2011 Budget</title><description><![CDATA[Discretionary Cuts
The White House's Terminations, Reductions, and Savings in the FY 2011 Budget lists cuts and reductions to 78 discretionary programs totaling $10.27 billion. 24 of these items (representing $4.477 billion in savings) were also included in last year's list of savings and terminations, which means they were rejected by Congress (6 of these were also proposed in President Bush's 2009 budget). The largest of the repeat savings were for the cancellation of the C–17 Transport Aircraft Production ($2.5 billion), cancellation of the the Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine ($465 million), and reductions in health care facilities and construction funding in the Department of Health and Human Services ($338 million). Smaller cuts appearing again include: $1 million each for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation and the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation, and $3 million for Anthrax vaccine research.

New discretionary cut proposals:
Constellation Systems Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $3.466 billion
New Construction for Housing for the Elderly: $551 million
New Construction for Housing for the Disabled: $210 million
HOME Investment Partnerships Program: $175 million

Mandatory Proposals
The document listed 25 mandatory proposals claiming a "savings" of $47.177 billion over five years. 15 of these, worth $46.05 billion, are repeated from last year.

$19.187 of the total "savings" would result from the repeal of 12 energy-related tax credits - these will increase revenues to the Treasury. The remaining $27.746 billion is from changes to outlays. 90 percent of the spending cuts come from the termination of lender subsidies in the Federal Family Education Loan Program ($25.092 billion over five years), a holdover item from last year's budget.

New mandatory outlay cut proposals:
Commodity storage payments: $2 million
Grants to Manufacturers of Worsted Wool: -$5 million annually
Telecommunications Development Fund: $7 million annually
Uniform Criteria for Special Monthly Pension (Veterans Administration): -$10 million annually

Other Savings
Other savings include administrative reforms that would save $272.686 million from 2010-2014. The largest savings ($117.8 million over five years) is projected to result from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) award of an Oracle Enterprise Licensing Agreement, meaning Oracle will have an exclusive contract to supply and support all VA software and data architecture. The next largest savings ($32.484 million) would result from improved use of electric power-management of VA's 300,000 PCs. Other savings are expected to occur from cutting travel budgets in executive departments, and increased use of teleconferencing.

Program Integrity Savings
There are 3 program integrity proposals that would increase tax receipts by $14.916 billion over five years, mostly through increased enforcement efforts at the IRS, and 6 that would reduce outlays due to waste and fraud in programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance by $27.282 billion over five years.

The program integrity improvements will require additional federal resources to investigate fraud and implement reforms. The budget calls for $16.247 billion in discretionary allocation adjustments over five-years to fund these efforts.

Net 5-year outlay savings for program integrity (including the discretionary allocation adjustments): $11.035 billion

Annualized Outlay Savings (in millions)
Discretionary: $10,270
Mandatory: $5,549
Administrative:	$55
Program Integrity: $2,207
Total: $18,081 ]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:03:04 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5051</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Where do your tax dollars go?</title><description><![CDATA[Ever wondered exactly how many of your tax dollars go to which programs?  Sure, there are any number of sources that can give you a vague idea of the answer, but the USA Today has a terrific visualization today that allows you to enter your income and generate a detailed "report" right before your eyes.

For example, let's say that you earned an income of $30,000.  Among the interesting tidbits from your estimated tax burden of $4,983 is the fact that you would pay roughly twice as much toward Social Security as national defense ($1,860 and $941, respectively).  Also fascinating: that you'd pay nearly as much just for interest on the national debt as for Medicare ($401 and $435, respectively).

For someone making $60,000 per year, the total burden comes to $13,453, including $3,103 for national defense, $3,720 for Social Security, $1,321 on interest on the debt, and $870 on Medicare.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:13:33 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5050</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>How 'bout that spending freeze?</title><description><![CDATA[In typically brilliant fashion, our friend Matthias (better known as the "10,000 pennies guy") lets you visualize just exactly what President Obama's spending freeze would do to the budget in context...



While we should all be applauding President Obama for this first step towards reining in a federal budget that is wildly out of control, the overall context is nonetheless very important.

I'm glad that he showed what canceling the stimulus would do, but it would have been great to show the effect of canceling TARP to the video as well.  The savings for eliminating the Wall Street bailout fund would be roughly similar to that of ending the stimulus (upwards of $300 billion), so you could essentially add another four "frozen spending" cups to the pile, AKA money that taxpayers would NOT have taken out of their paychecks in the future.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 08:31:27 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5049</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Hypocrisy</title><description><![CDATA[	When the failing Merrill Lynch’s new CEO John Thaine remodeled his office he was publicly excoriated.  He spent 1.22 million dollars by the time he was done on such things as the famous designer Michael Smith and a 19th century credenza.  CNBC, CNN, and the blogosphere picked up the story as a classic example of corporate greed.  Even the Obama administration picked up on it as Robert Gibbs said, “The American people need to be greatly assured that their hard-earned money is not going to the bonuses or the remodeling of an office at a bank that’s in trouble".

	While I don’t condone Thaine’s spending or actions, it does seem curious that the mainstream media hasn’t picked up on another story.  Roughly six months after the Thaine story broke, the Obama administration approved 1.4 million dollars of taxpayer money to remodel a 7th floor judge’s office in Tampa, FL.  It seems spending is evil if you’re a corporate executive, but if you’re in the executive branch of government its patriotic.  If you’d care to visit these glorious judge’s chambers feel free, after all you paid for them.  The address is: 801 N. Florida Ave 7th Floor, Tampa, Florida 33602.  

	Finally, as a side note, if you’re wondering what became of the expensive designer Michael Smith, he was subsequently hired by the Obamas to spruce up the white house.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:57:01 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5048</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>State of the States Part II</title><description><![CDATA[Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri plans to revive the state’s economy through tax credits rather than tax increases and by continuing to cut government spending.  Two of his priorities include balancing the budget with less revenue and job creation.  

Utah Governor Gary Herbert called on lawmakers in his state to exercise fiscal restraint and not raise taxes (without cutting education funding).  He criticized the ever-growing involvement of the federal government in private industry.  Herbert recognized that times are tough but for the first time in three years, Utah expects an increase in revenue in the upcoming fiscal year.  

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s top priority is the state’s green energy production followed by job creation programs.  Strickland plans to take $30 million in federal stimulus funds and $10 million in state funds to invest in fuel cells and clean energy storage.  He also pressed the legislature to eliminate the state’s personal property tax on energy generation for new wind and solar facilities.  
 
Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle proposed tax creates to stimulate clean energy jobs and creating a budget stabilization fund to help protect the state’s finances.  The address was filled with specific plans to help the state recover from its worst economic downturn.  The state is struggling to close its budget shortall because its economy is so dependent on tourism.  To do so, the government will need to be downsized because it cannot continue spending at a rate that exceeds revenue.  

Alaska Governor Sean Parnell focused his address on education and called for merit scholarships to Alaska universities.  He also called for a two-year suspension of the state’s gas tax.  The state can afford to suspend the gas tax because oil taxes have given Alaska large enough budget reserves to last the next 10 years.  

Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell plans to rely on spending cuts and not on tax increases to get the state through this tough financial environment.  To create jobs and expand Virginia’s economy, he would like to increase the money for tourism and economic development.  McDonnell pledged during his campaign this fall that he would not raise taxes if elected.  The address reiterated his promise but clearly stating that if the legislature passes a bill that includes tax increases that he will veto it.  While the governor did not say where he would trim the state government, he did say that he would privatize the state-owned liquor stores saving the state an estimated $500 million.  

Stay tuned for Part III
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:59:54 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5047</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Economics Meets Pop Culture</title><description><![CDATA[Russ Roberts, Professor of Economics at George Mason University, released the first of several videos planned for EconStories.TV.  This creative video features two of the great economists of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes and F.A. Hayek,  break out in a rap – “Fear the Boom and Bust.”  While it scores high on the entertainment factor, it also brings to light why there is a “boom and bust” cycle and what it does to the economy.  





]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:20:21 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5046</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>SOTU Update: Cost Estimate for Nuclear Energy Loan Guarantees</title><description><![CDATA[In a surprising move, President Obama made a pitch for nuclear energy in his State of the Union address:"[T]o create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”In NTU Foundation's line-by-line analysis of the spending proposals in the SOTU, this issue was listed with an unknown cost. More information is available today from Bloomberg News:
For the 2011 budget, the department will add $36 billion to the $18.5 billion already approved for nuclear-power plant loan guarantees, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the budget hasn't been released.The cost to taxpayers won't be the full $36 billion for the guarantees, but for the percentage of loans that default. In 2003, S. 14 (108th Congress) contained a provision to furnish federal loan guarantees for the construction of the next generation of nuclear power plants. CBO estimated "that the net present value of amounts recovered by the government on its loan guarantee from continued plant operations following a default and the project's technical and regulatory risk would result in a subsidy cost of 30 percent ... ." Applying that subsidy rate, the President's proposal could cost $10.8 billion, $2.16 billion annually over a five year period.

This new data brings the tab for the new spending proposed by the President to $72.6 billion annually.
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:00:55 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5045</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Spending and Budget Issues in the State of the Union</title><description><![CDATA[During the State of the Union address, Presidents generally trot out a laundry list of items and bring a few issues in particular to the top of the agenda, and this year was no different. President Obama laid out an ambitious agenda for Congress to enact, including a jobs bill, final passage of a cap-and-trade bill, and increased assistance for military families. According to NTU Foundation's line-by-line analysis of the spending programs in the speech, the net annual cost of these and his other proposals are around $82 billion.

All of these new spending initiatives were juxtaposed against a call for a budget spending freeze starting in the next fiscal year. The three-year freeze will exclude entitlements, national defense, and some foreign aid, which means that it will affect about 1/8th of the federal budget. White House officials estimate this will save $10 billion to $15 billion next year and $250 billion over the next 10 years, but we should wait for future budget releases to see whether the freeze is still in place before counting savings beyond the first year. So the minumum savings of $10 billion from the freeze plus two other items in the speech which would lead to specific spending reductions bring the net cost of Obama's State of the Union proposals to $70 billion.

This cost does not include other possible increases in the new budget (to be released next week) that have been discussed in recent media reports, such as a $44 billion increase in defense spending, the largest single-year request for federal funding in education (which will include up to $4 billion to reform No Child Left Behind), an increase in NASA spending between 200-300 million, and between $7-17 billion annualized increase in transportation funding.

Given the limited area of the budget affected by the freeze, and the tab of the other items in his speech (on top of last year's spending binge), taxpayers could be forgiven for thinking Obama's new emphasis on the deficit is more of an attempt to create the appearance of doing something about Washington's spending problem. But at least the President's discussion of this topic will be sure to make the deficit a key issue inside the Beltway for the rest of the year. Outside the beltway, this was already a well-discussed topic at the Tea Party protests. The election results in Massachusetts, following those in Virginia and New Jersey late last year, have resounded the issue loudly enough that now the leaders in Washington hear it loud and clear.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:41:55 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5044</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Jobs Bill</title><description><![CDATA[There is some backwards thinking among politicians on the topic of job creation.

In the private economy, jobs are considered an input used towards the production of a good or service.  Businesses need to hire workers just as they need to purchase the raw materials used or the overhead the work is done in.  Labor is simply another factor of production.  Although there are entire disciplines of economics dedicated to studying labor markets, its classically accepted that businesses will continue hiring more workers up to the point where their value to the company (the revenue they produce) equals their wage (total cost of their labor). 

The conclusion from our model is that the only way to increase employment is to either enhance the benefit of an additional worker or decrease the cost.  It just so happens the government can influence both those things.  Instead of feeling threatened every time an idea for an alternative means of education comes up, we should nurture them.  On the topic of benefit, instead of bowing to the whims of teachers unions and dismantling effective school voucher programs we need to try new things and work hard to build the best future work force we can.  

Most importantly, our federal government can take immediate action to reduce the cost to employers who wish to hire workers.  We can lower payroll taxes and decrease medical insurance costs.  Instead wasting billions of dollars on ‘cash for clunkers’ or ‘first-time home buyer’, lets give a tax credit to businesses for each newly hired worker.  Instead of piling on a new mandatory government insurance plan paid for in new taxes, open up the system across state lines for increased competition and naturally lower prices for employers.

The president’s plan of increasing uncertainty over healthcare and pulling money out of the economy in new taxes is the opposite of what is needed.  Its not simply that the plan will not increase job growth, but that it cannot increase job growth.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 10:11:14 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5043</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Rhetoric vs. Reality</title><description><![CDATA[Did anyone else find it strange that the President fervently praised his stimulus plan at the onset of the SOTU tonight? I guess it should not have come as too much of a shock since he was desperate to get that post-speech bump that would bring him out of an approval rating in the 40s. I do not know if he achieved that goal, but I do know that he deceived the American people.

Despite package of the American "Recovery" Act, 2.5 million jobs have been lost and we hover at a 10 percent unemployment rate. Right now, more than 15 millions are unemployed and 43 states lost jobs just last month. What's worse is that the President wants to propose another federal spending bill before half of the stimulus funds have been spent! 

In tonight's speech, the President proposed a temporary freeze in discretionary spending, but did you know the "stimulus" led to a 66 percent increase in non-defense discretionary funding last year? Spending cuts are great, but this enables him to simultaneously lock in the exorbitant increases. Not so great. 

Furthermore, the President should not be encouraging a $1.9 trillion debt limit increase and deficit commission guaranteed to raise taxes if he is serious about fiscal responsibility.

"Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same." We agree! But, now, it's time to back up that promise and you can rest assured that taxpayers will keep him accountable. 

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:02:55 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5042</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Health Care Alternatives</title><description><![CDATA[Here is another segment from President Obama's SOTU address:

"But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."

I wonder if he has seen the alternative proposal from the Republican Study Committee (RSC).

H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act, would increase access to coverage for all Americans by extending the income tax deduction on health care premiums and providing tax credits to low-income families in the non-group/individual market. H.R. 3400 would also increase insurance portability over state lines and would achieve significant tort reform to reign in frivolous lawsuits that continue to drive doctors out of the business year after year. 

Go here for more information on the RSC health care proposal.

And if you want even more examples of health care alternatives, here is a document highlighting 60 additional bills from Members of Congress who do not believe big government is the best government.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:26:40 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5041</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Bipartisanship?</title><description><![CDATA[The President said he will veto any financial reform bill that does not meet HIS definition of true reform. He was referring to H.R. 4173, the so-called "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act," that passed the House on December 11, 2009. 

This 1,300 page bill creates a new "consumer" agency, funded by billions in new taxes on financial companies - many of which did not create the fiscal crisis we currently face. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be given unprecedented regulating authority over financial products, but that's not even the most troubling aspect of this legislation. H.R. 4173 would essentially create a permanent "mini-TARP" with even less acountability than the first one!

Is this reform, Mr. President? ]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:51:19 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5040</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Here we go!</title><description><![CDATA[Word on the street is that the President will focus on a package of "modest" initiatives to aid middle-class families in tonight's SOTU. The big question is how he will fit the issue of health care reform into the context of these proposals. Or will he even try? Here's an excerpt of the President's speech taken from a Washington Post blog just a few minutes ago: 

"By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Co-pays will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans. And neither should the people in this chamber."

That's it?! I guess we'll see. The 2010 SOTU has just begun...

]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:21:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5039</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Video Submission</title><description><![CDATA[We recently received this video from one of our enthusiastic members highlighting a board game he's created aptly named, “Screw the Taxpayer”.  We applaud all of our members like Mr. White and encourage you all to keep fighting the good fight!]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:50:10 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5038</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Reminder: Tomorrow's NTU Online Coverage of the State of the Union</title><description><![CDATA[Don't forget: Tomorrow night at 9 p.m., NTU will provide special online coverage of the President's State of the Union message, and we want you to be there. Details on how you can join the conversation are below. See you online tomorrow night at 9 p.m. Eastern.

If you have a Twitter account, use the hash tag #SOTU to link into our discussions and analyses. Hash tags are like keywords for Twitter. Just use them in each of your messages to link to the ongoing dialogue. Remember to also follow @NTU for all the latest research!
You can also follow the discussion at Tinychat.com. Even if you don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, you can still share your thoughts and opinions by going to our special chatroom at tinychat.com/ntu.
You can also log onto NTU's Facebook page, where we will update our newsfeed with links, comments, and memorable quotes. Be sure to join our NTU Group!
NTU will also be updating our blog, GovernmentBytes.com, as the night progresses. You can comment on each post as well! Just click on the "Post a Comment" link and speak your mind.

Your NTU Grassroots Action Team]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:02:34 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5037</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>State of the States Part I</title><description><![CDATA[Across the country governors are giving their annual State of the State addresses.  Below are a few summaries of the addresses with explicit fiscal impacts:

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford offered three goals for his final year in office: overhaul the Employment Security Commission, require governors and lieutenant governors to run on the same ticket, and impose caps on state spending.  Sanford also called on lawmakers to raise the state’s cigarette tax and cut the corporate income tax.  

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick promised not to cut funding education funding and invest in statewide construction projects in order to create more jobs.  Patrick called for tighter ethics and lobbying rules and further investment in alternative energy.  

South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds is optimistic about the state’s direction and cited their low unemployment rate as evidence.  He reiterated the merits of his proposed spending plan.  Despite arguments from lawmakers, he said that South Dakota cannot afford across-the-board cuts.  Should any additional federal money come to the state, Rounds would propose using the funds to supplement his current budget, not create new spending.  

Maine Governor John Baldacci urged the legislature to close a $438 million budget gap by consolidationg natural resource agencies, streamlining government administration, eliminating government redundancies, and cutting social services.  Baldacci vowed not to raise taxes and renewed his support for an investment and tax-restructuring plan.  Under the plan, sales taxes would apply to a larger number of goods and services, and personal income taxes for those earning more than $250,000 per year would drop to 6.5%.  

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s top priority this year will be creating private-sector jobs.  He pledged to avoid raising taxes and trim the budget.  While state officials have plans to cut the budget by $200 million, Nixon is counting on over $1 billion in federal stimulus money although the state is not sure it will actually receive that amount.  

Delaware Governor Jack Markell called attention to his administration’s efforts to curb state spending and promote jobs.  Ultimately, Markell wants Delaware to provide quality services in an affordable manner.

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch asked lawmakers to change the state’s unemployment benefits so that they could pay for on-the-job training, give unemployment benefits to employees whose hours are reduced and help job applications evaluate their skills.  Lynch said the proposals would help the state’s economy by employing more workers; the programs would be paid for by the state’s unemployment compensation fund.  

Stay tuned for State of the State updates Part II
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:34:26 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5036</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>You're Invited to NTU's Online Coverage of the State of the Union</title><description><![CDATA[As a friend of the National Taxpayers Union, you're invited to be a part of for our special online coverage of the President's 2010 State of the Union address starting at 9 p.m. on Wednesday, January 27th. NTU's analysts and experts will be sharing their ideas and comments online using Twitter, Facebook, and NTU's blog GovernmentBytes.com as the President presents his policy agenda for the coming year, and we want you to be a part of the discussion.

Here is how you can join in the conversation:

If you have a Twitter account, use the hash tag #SOTU to link into our discussions and analyses. Hash tags are like keywords for Twitter. Just use them in each of your messages to link to the ongoing dialogue. Remember to also follow @NTU for all the latest research!

You can also follow the discussion at Tinychat.com. Even if you don't have a Twitter or Facebook account, you can still share your thoughts and opinions by going to our special chatroom at tinychat.com/ntu.

You can also log onto NTU's Facebook page, where we will update our newsfeed with links, comments, and memorable quotes. Be sure to join our NTU Group!

NTU will also be updating our blog, GovernmentBytes.com, as the night progresses. You can comment on each post as well! Just click on the "Post a Comment" link and speak your mind. 

As always, the NTU Foundation will release its line-by-line analysis of the spending proposals from the speech the day after. 

So, tune-in and log-on to join our staff and your fellow citizens for a night of policy, discussion, and fun!

Your NTU Grassroots Action Team]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:52:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5034</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert: Senators Vote "NO" on H.J. Res. 45</title><description><![CDATA[NTU urges all Senators to vote “NO” on H.J. Res. 45, a massive increase in the national debt limit of nearly $1 trillion. Congress has ramped up spending at an appalling rate, and approval of this resolution will only pile more onto the crushing burdens borne by Americans now and in the future. In order to best protect taxpayers, we urge that you support amendments to reduce hundreds of billions of dollars in wasteful spending and oppose any that would establish mechanisms to saddle families and businesses with even higher taxes:

•	Vote YES on the Thune amendment to end the “Troubled Asset Relief Program” (TARP). This amendment would shield taxpayers from further bailout liabilities by eliminating authority to spend unobligated TARP funds immediately, potentially saving upwards of $300 billion.

•	Vote YES on the Coburn amendment to rescind roughly $120 billion worth of wasteful and duplicative government programs.

•	Vote YES on the Sessions/McCaskill amendment to establish a responsible cap on spending growth of roughly 2 percent per year that would require a 67-vote point of order to waive.

•	Vote NO on the Conrad/Gregg amendment, and similar efforts introduced, to establish a bipartisan “spending commission.” Though well-intentioned, these proposals would virtually guarantee recommendations of (and expedited floor action on) enormous tax hikes to pay for Congress’ reckless overspending. 

Roll call votes on this resolution, including those on amendments and final passage, will be heavily weighted in our annual Rating of Congress.

If you have any questions, please contact 
NTU Director of Government Affairs Andrew Moylan at (703) 683-5700.
**********************************************
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:17:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5033</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Coalition Calls for Health Care Transparency</title><description><![CDATA[NTU and a diverse coalition have called on Members of the U.S. House to support a resolution that would urge "Congress and the Obama Administration to conduct all negotiations surrounding landmark health care reform legislation 'in full public view and not behind closed doors.'"  The coalition's letter is available here.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:11:35 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5032</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>One Election Is Not Enough</title><description><![CDATA[NTU's Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp makes an important point regarding the Massachusetts special election yesterday, "we are under no illusions that one Senate election will silence advocates of massive government expansion. This is why we will continue to use every resource we have to fight back until Washington takes the advice NTU members have offered all along: stop listening to special interests and start listening to taxpayers!"  You can read NTU's "Call to Congress" here.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:55:48 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5031</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Fate of Health Care Reform</title><description><![CDATA[The Washington Post recently wrote about President Obama's rhetorical use of the phrase, "Let me be absolutely clear." As someone quoted in the article observed, frequent use of that phrase begs the question of whether he is perhaps being unclear when he doesn't employ it.

Obama spoke to ABC News this afternoon about the last night's shocking election in Massachusetts and how it impacts the attempt to overhaul the health care system. The language he used wasn't exactly clear:"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," the president said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."It sounds like he wants to wait until Senator-elect Brown is seated, and then proceed to "jam" the bill through. But he did go on to offer a slight opening to Republicans:"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on," he said.

The President said there are "core elements" to the health care legislation that both Republican and Democrats agree on and they must come together to work for comprehensive reform.If only this was the strategy to health care reform from the get go, today the President would likely be welcoming Senator Coakley to Washington. Instead, he may well get a chance to see Senator Brown's truck in person.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:32:29 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5030</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Reading the Tax Code</title><description><![CDATA[The TaxGirl blog is having a trivia contest:

Assuming that you read out loud at the same speed as you count (on average), how many days would it take to read the entire Tax Code out loud without stopping?

The first person to provide her with the correct answer will win free tax prep software.


Update:
Never mind, someone already got the correct answer: it would take 43 non-stop days to read the Tax Code.]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:25:18 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5029</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Policy Priorities in the State of the Union Address</title><description><![CDATA[Last November, word was that the President was going to focus on deficit reduction in the upcoming State of the Union Address. From Politico:President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.This made good political sense after a year of massive spending increases for the so-called "stimulus," the SCHIP expansion, Cash for Clunkers, and on and on to the $1.5 trillion deficit and the Tea Party backlash.

Note that the report talks about downplaying spending "beyond jobs program." The House has passed a $15 billion jobs program that awaits action in the Senate, and the Administration just said that creating jobs will be the number one priority in the new budget. From Reuters:President Barack Obama's top goal as he enters a second year in office is to lift U.S. job creation and revitalize the economy, the White House said on Tuesday.Press reports have described a "barebones" budget proposal for FY 2011. Obviously the Administration was hopeful that the health care overhaul bill would have been made law by the time the new budget is delivered to Congress in the beginning of February. So with that expensive item still on his agenda, as well as a possible second jobs "stimulus," and also the cap-and-trade bill that comes with its own huge price tag, it remains to be seen what steps the President will outline to reduce the deficit (spending cuts or tax hikes?), or how much priority that deficit reduction effort will receive.

We'll be watching, and analyzing, the President's SoTU address next January 27 to find out.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 15:24:17 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5028</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Letter to the FCC Regarding Net Neutrality</title><description><![CDATA[Last week, NTU sent  	a letter to the Chairman of the  	Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding the Proposed Rulemaking on Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband Industry Practices.  We believe that there is little justification to proceed with rulemaking over “open Internet” access, instead for the public sector to limit its role over Internet governance in general.  

The so-called  	“Network Neutrality” rules would reverse the FCC’s longstanding policy-making preferences and introduce huge uncertainty into the marketplace.  It raises serious questions about property rights and consumer choice in the free-market economy.  If you look you history, you can see that broad mandates for government to “manage competition” and “expand service” in telecom and other sectors have proven to be mistakes.  Furthermore, net neutrality could lead to additional future burdens on individual taxpayers as well as businesses.  

No matter where you stand on net neutrality, most would agree that the Internet has done well without the intervention and taxation of the government.  Regulators should avoid doing anything that would potentially jeopardize investment and innovation.  They must consider the consequences for taxpayers that could result in enabling the government’s further control over the Internet’s daily functioning.  
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:56:59 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5027</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Budget Then and Now</title><description><![CDATA[Yesterday I was reviewing a statement that former NTU Executive Vice President David Keating gave before a House of Representatives' special Conference in 1994. The Conference was about a bipartisan spending reduction proposal under consideration in the 103rd Congress. David said that the proposal should be the first order of business for both the House and the Senate given that at that time, the national debt exceeds $4.5 trillion and the annual budget deficit "remains at unacceptable levels." 

In 1994 the deficit stood at $228 billion (in constant dollars), 2.9 percent of GDP. The federal deficit for FY 2010 is estimated to climb to $1.5 trillion ($1.2 trillion in constant dollars), around 10.5 percent of GDP. And, in January of 2010, the debt is now over $12.3 trillion.

If those '94 levels were "unacceptable," we have to work hard to come up with ways to describe how deplorable the current situation is.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:23:42 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5026</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>CBO Report on Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations</title><description><![CDATA[The Congressional Budget Office released its 2010 report on Unauthorized Appropriations and Expiring Authorizations. It is required to produce this each January to give Congress a heads up on those programs being funded even though their authorizations have expired and those programs whose authorization are due to expire this year.

For 2010, Congress has appropriated $290 billion for programs with expired authorizations. From the report:House and Senate rules — dating from the 19th century — generally preclude the Congress from considering appropriations that are unauthorized. In both the House and the Senate, legislation containing unauthorized appropriations is subject to a point of order. However, House and Senate rules are not self-enforcing. An individual Representative or Senator must raise a point of order for the rules to be enforced. If no Member raises a point of order, an unauthorized appropriation may proceed through the legislative process.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 08:39:38 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5025</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Private Sector Jobs Now!</title><description><![CDATA[This afternoon NTU's Vice President for Policy and Communications Pete Sepp joined other free-market allies to discuss the importance of private sector jobs.  The group met at the National Press Club to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the Bureau of the Budget Bulletin (known today as the Office of Management and Budget).  

On January 15, 1955 the Eisenhower Administration published a document stating, "The federal government will not start or carry on any commercial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels."  Today we need to make sure this observation remains relevant.  The federal government is creating an increasingly larger role for itself in the private sector, and this must be stopped. 

The best way to combat the federal government's encroachment on the private sector is by having a strong private sector with many jobs.  In order to do this, businesses need to be taxed less, especially at state and local levels.  However, the Obama Administration is fighting to make sure this doesn't happen. Obama is actively and aggressively "insourcing" jobs to the federal government, away from the private sector.  Indeed, in the past year, we all have watched as the number of government jobs exploded while job loss after job loss occurred in the private sector.  We must work together to stop this trend.

As Ronald Reagan stated, "The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away."  Today we all need to fight to make sure that Reagan's observation from years ago remains applicable.  


]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:25:41 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5024</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>CBO Made Easy-to-Understand</title><description><![CDATA[Huge thanks to Matthias Shapiro for maintaining the blog, Political Math.  Shapiro uses this medium to take data that are free for anyone to read through and transform them into something that is much easier to understand.  

In his most recent post, Shapiro communicates in a single image how much the top (and subsequently, the middle and bottom) earners make as well as how much they pay in taxes.  This chart illustrates that income and tax distribution.  The results are fascinating!  


]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:40:40 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5023</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Government Waste</title><description><![CDATA[Not that you need another example of government waste, but take a minute to check out this blog post, you will find it interesting.  The author received a sales tax audit for Alabama- a three year audit despite having operated in Alabama for only six months.  When he called to request more information from the auditor about why the audit was necessary, the auditor shocked him with his response.  The auditor acknowledged that the audit was senseless but that his office is trying to keep everyone employed during recent budget cuts so that no one would lose their jobs!  Furthermore, doing a three year audit after six months will provide additional training for employees.  This sounds like a game to me.  Take a look at the comments, seems the folks in Alabama aren’t the only ones undergoing senseless audits.  ]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:07:49 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5022</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Shadegg not to seek reelection</title><description><![CDATA[Congressman Shadegg of Arizona’s Third District, a House Member who was elected during the Republican Revolution 1994, announced today he would Not run for a ninth term of office. 

The fifth-highest ranked Republican in the House has been a prominent figure in the debate over healthcare reform, corruption, and 
fiscal discipline, receiving an “A” in the National Taxpayers Union Rates Congress report since the 105th Congress. 

John Shadegg has been a friend of the American tax payer and we wish him well.]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:07:02 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5021</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>From bad to worse</title><description><![CDATA[On Dec 18th, the federal Office of Management and Budget released a 24 page memo outlining a brand new accounting process to replace the much maligned ‘jobs saved or created’ count.  Its been a long time coming.  Besides the fact that 'saved or created' is obvious political spin, it’s already been uncovered that 94,341 (and counting…) out of the 640,329 jobs claimed by the government are doubtful or imaginary.  That means just about 1 in every 15 jobs the government reported was a lie.

If you’ve been keeping up on Recovery.gov news or just reading my blog posts you would probably expect me to be excited at any change to the current system.  (Pause for dramatic effect…)  You’d be wrong.

The administration has decided that instead of continuing to take flak for their shady accounting process, they would simply stop accounting.  Now, every job in every project stimulus funds touch is considered a stimulus job.  It might be a fraction of a job according to the formulas laid out in the Dec. 18th memo, but a stimulus job all the same.  As ABC’s Jake Tapper cited on his blog about the new system, “if the project is being funded with stimulus dollars – even if the person worked at that company or organization before and will work the same place afterwards – that’s a stimulus job.”

Somehow the administration has managed to go from claiming credit for non-existent jobs to claiming credit for previously existing jobs.
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:20:02 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5020</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>The Danger of Populism in Big Groups</title><description><![CDATA[Standing at the steps of the Ohio Statehouse on April 15th and on the US Capitol’s lawn on 9-12, I felt the rumbling of a nation. We all let the government get bigger and bigger until it mushroom clouded into some of the biggest spending bills in history BUT we saw the error of our ways, either in our party-line ideology or in our apathy to the government’s agenda. We stood out in our town squares, state capitols, and federal plazas protesting “No More Bailouts,” “End the FED,” and “This country began with a tax revolt!” And the result? There remains to be a Healthcare bill passed, the Cap & Trade bill sits in committee, the Card Check idea has been ignored, and more and more banks, originally bailed out, are trying to give the government handouts back. Out of it all, I saw that the less spending, government shrinking movement was still alive after all these years. 

Then, I read about the chance the Tea Party groups would be expanding their target lists to larger institutions such as Wall Street and I knew populism was rearing its ugly head. This form of populism is pitting common folk against the elites of the financial industry. Tea Party members need to understand: It is not the big corporations or the banks that caused the financial catastrophe but the government imposing itself on these sectors of our economy. The government imposed hefty regulations on housing institutions to make more, risky loans to unreliable lenders. The Federal Reserve continually manipulates our credit, which affects the power of banks. Even the failing automotive firms have been prey to imposed labor laws and emissions standards. 

The Tea Parties are a fantastic idea, developed by Americans for Americans, but only because they were focused and on point with the issue, the government issue. If they splinter with populism, they lose the only real chance at stopping these government-expanding bills from becoming a reality. I certainly hope those angry at the companies understand those firms were chained by our government and that by changing policy and those making the laws will ensure bailouts never happen again. Remember, regulation is killing our productivity and our entrepreneurship. Business and Free-Trade is the way to revive the economy. So at the next protest, the next townhall meeting, the next press conference, stand up and fight for a handcuffed government, not a shackled economy.
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:11:54 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5019</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>There's always another example of waste</title><description><![CDATA[I should really be used to this by now.  Over the past year I’ve made it a habit to check up on the recovery websites, typically I stick to the 18 million (tax)dollar recovery.gov and the privately run (woohoo) recovery.org.  These sites have all kinds of miserable information.  There’s been federal taxpayer money spent on things like small town bus amenities (excess of 1 million), ‘reclading the façade’ on an office building in Cleveland (110 million), building demolition in Los Alamos (212 million), a guardrail for a lake in Oklahoma that doesn’t exist (1 million) and hundreds more that have already had press.  

Today, during my usual depressed scouring of recovery.org, I spotted a project of interest.  It seems the federal government has approved 25-35 million dollars to replace the windows on an office building in Boston.  I thought that seemed suspiciously high, so I figured I would try to get some more information on this apparent skyscraper.  I took one look and went into number cruncher mode.

I counted 23 windowed floors each with 18 windows across which means there are roughly 414 windows per side.   If we multiply that by 4 sides we get a total of roughly 1656 total windows.  (The building is, admittedly, an awkward shape and without actually driving to Boston I’m forced to estimate.  If any Bostonian readers want to drive over and correct my numbers I would be very appreciative!)  At any rate, if taxpayers spend 35,000,000 on 1656 windows that comes out to a whopping $21,135.27 per window.  Those better be some impressive windows.

In case this seems like no big deal to you (this is only millions of waste instead of trillions), I understand.  I'll put it another way, with an estimated 40% of tax filings this year that will come back with a zero tax liability, we’re left with roughly 90,000,000 taxpayers.  The total cost of this project, replacing windows, is effectively like taking a little over a dollar from every 3rd taxpayer in America!]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 14:17:39 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5018</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cartoon Blogging</title><description><![CDATA[

Cartoon by Chip Bok]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:23:51 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5017</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Health care lobbying begs a fundamental question</title><description><![CDATA[On December 28th, the Politico web site ran a long article entitled "Wielding influence in health care fight" which lays out the influence and impact of various lobbying groups on the health care "reform" debate.  The groups, including organizations representing "Big Pharma", hospitals, health insurance companies, and the medical device companies each have described their lobbying strategy and tactics and the outcome for their group.

The descriptions are generally about how well the lobbyists "played their cards", as if legislation were a high-stakes poker game -- which is all too close to the truth, apparently.

The stories read like part of a business intrigue novel by a modestly talented writer of novels that people buy to read on airplanes:

Disagreements also abound on AHIP’s (the health insurers lobby) release of a report critical of the Senate reform measure just days before the final, Finance Committee vote.

AHIP said it released the report, which criticized a last-minute amendment watering down the penalty for individuals who don’t buy insurance, because it wanted to elevate the issue of curbing costs. Senate finance staff is convinced AHIP was motivated by an amendment that put limits on executive compensation.

Robert Zirkelbach, AHIP’s spokesman, denies the compensation issue prompted the report. “We have never raised that issue. It has not been a focus of ours throughout this debate,” he said.

Whatever the motivation, the report burned up any goodwill with the White House and Senate.

While on one hand it's easy to see Washington, D.C. for the slime pit it has become, full of people spending money (that should be going back to shareholders as dividends) to make sure Congress doesn't gore their particular ox when taking their next bite out of the American economy.

The lobbyists are simultaneously repugnant and understandable.

Throughout the debate and in most analysis, you read and hear about whether a particular lobby has been effective, who its political friends and enemies are: "On July 31, the House Energy and Commerce Committee — run by longtime PhRMA antagonist Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) — passed a reform bill that allowed for government negotiated prices and extracted about $160 billion from the industry."

One can't help but be offended (and I presume this is true of people of good will of all political stripes) by the idea that a particular politician is an "antagonist" of a particular (legal) industry. And one can't help but be concerned that the "antagonist" would use his temporary political power to "extract" money from that industry.  TV talking heads, newspaper columnists, and ivory tower academics tend to forget that it's actual people who own these companies, whose pensions and other investment funds are invested in their shares, and who presume that some combination of increased share value and/or a dividend stream will help these actual people get through the financial requirements of their lives, particularly their retirement.

It's often said -- and with great truth -- that companies don't pay taxes.  The meaning is that companies must and will operate at some level of return on capital, or else go out of business.  In competitive industries, these companies already tend to operate near the lowest return commensurate with the risk involved in that business.  (Higher risk businesses demand higher returns from investors to get funded, sensibly.) Therefore, there is little room for extra costs in competitive industries (a description which fits nearly every aspect of health care) and those costs must and will simply be passed on to customers (as higher prices) or to a lesser degree to shareholders (as lower dividends).  In either case, it is not the targeted company from whom the money is being extracted. It is you and me, at least if you own any mutual funds or ever need medical treatment. (If you’re an anti-social hermit with no investment funds and who will never see a doctor, then health care reform won’t affect you.)<

Nothing good comes of letting Henry Waxman extract his pound of flesh.  Nothing good comes of having the medical device industry subject to a huge tax which will just get passed along to everybody who needs a test or treatment that involves a medical device (CT scan, pacemaker, dialysis, etc.)  Nothing good comes of forcing industries to spend money on lobbying that could go into developing the next generation anti-AIDS drug or blood sugar meter or MRI machine, or to allowing investors a higher return to boost the quality of their lives, their kids’ educations, or their retirements.

I made these points to highlight my main point: All the discussion is about whether the lobby has been effective and how much a particular lobby saved or gained for its industry.  A few well-informed souls (like your humble blogger) tread into areas such as the real economics of these deals, with the assumption that at least a few other would-be well-informed souls have the interest and capability of understanding the point.

But what I have done with that economic analysis, and what the media does in all of its analysis, is overlook the fundamental question begged by this discussion: Why do politicians have the power to control and manipulate the private economy?

Where in either common sense or, more importantly, in the Constitution, is this sort of government power permissible or desirable?  Is it OK in any sense for the government to control entire industries and to impose, as a condition of citizenship, a requirement that people purchase something from an insurance company?

You’ve already repeatedly heard the “practical” implications arising from Congress’s multi-generational commercial power grab: When government gets too involved in business, you get GM. You get regulated monopolies, hardly a leading source of innovation and customer satisfaction. And you get Medicare, in which America’s seniors are routinely prevented from getting tests their doctors believe they need because of the rationing necessary to control costs when giving away something for “free”.

But it’s time for the nation to start thinking about the more basic questions, even if the question is generated by the bad outcomes government causes: “Who said you can do this?” and “Who said we want you to do this?” And when enough people have the answers to those questions reverberate in their minds, as they must, “Constitutionally, you can’t” and “We don’t”, maybe the nation will then return to a path of liberty, limited government, and economic bounty as conceived in the wisdom of our Founding Documents.]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 12:45:35 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5016</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Not-so-fun facts</title><description><![CDATA[I'm in the process of digging through every single roll call vote that Congress took last year for our annual Rating of Congress.  Every year, we plow through ALL of the votes Congress takes and include ALL that have a significant impact on taxpayers, whether through tax, spending, regulatory, or trade policy.

In 2008, both houses of Congress cast an incredible total of 905 roll call votes, far exceeding totals from recent years.  I knew that the 2009 numbers wouldn't be pretty, but I didn't know they'd be quite this hideous: both Houses of Congress cast a mind-numbing 1,388 roll call votes.

In 2008, the House voted 690 times. In 2009, that number climbed to 991 (fully 43% more than the previous year).  In 2008, the Senate voted 215 times.  In 2009, that number climbed to 397 (a staggering 84% more than the previous year).

It seems pretty clear by looking at these numbers that more is not better with this Congress.  If I start drowning in paper while looking through all of these votes, can someone throw me a lifeline?]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 10:24:45 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5015</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>What are we supposed to say, Thank you Big Government?</title><description><![CDATA[If slow-moving bureaucracy and unreliable plans haven’t dogged your New Year yet, check out Saturday’s New York Times article. Although extrapolated, the author estimates “6 million people in households with no income” receive food stamps – a doubling of recipients. While this is not too surprising, given 10% unemployment and a $1.58 trillion federal deficit (further slowing economic recovery), the question on my mind is: will the $60 billion set aside for such programs last? Some conservative legislatures think the programs are grooming a government-dependent class while many more are locked in bipartisan support of the subsidies. Either way, Cap and Trade, Obamacare, and/or a Federal Government handing out employee bonuses like bailout billions will most certainly deplete the source of that $60 billion faster than you can say Change You Can Believe In. 

You can check out how your county is doing here.]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:30:26 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5014</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Economists Actually Agree</title><description><![CDATA[My Econ 101 prof always joked about how economists can only agree on one thing- that they will never agree on anything.  Yet, House Minority Leader John Boehner released a list of 222 economists across the United States that actually agree that we must rein in federal spending rather than adding more “stimulus” spending.   

Listen to what the group had to say:

"The country’s economic future depends on Congress’ ability to rein in the growth of federal spending.  Failing to restrict spending growth will further balloon the national debt, impede economic growth, and threaten the long-term economic health of our Nation.  Controlling spending growth to reverse our dangerous debt accumulation can be done without endangering the near-term economic recovery, and will prove beneficial over the longer horizon."

Compare that to this letter that NTU distributed earlier this fall in which 107 economists agreed that it is best to place limits on government growth at all levels.  Limits which allow government to grow only by inflation and population are valuable in preventing fiscal instability and promoting good economic health.  

If 329 economists agree that another "stimulus" is bad news for our economy- maybe its time for the 535 members of Congress to listen.  ]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 08:56:43 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5013</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Ben Nelson Gets Purchased</title><description><![CDATA[Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has long been thought of as the most likely to withhold his vote on the Senate's health care bill because of concerns he had about the way it dealt with abortion.  Well, it looks like the oldest trick in the book was enough to secure Senator Nelson's vote on the final bill: a payoff.

The amendment introduced by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) includes in it language that singles out the state of Nebraska for an additional year of federal matching funds to offset the cost of the bill's expansion of Medicaid to 133% of the poverty level.  I don't know what the cost of that provision will be, but it certainly isn't much in the grand scheme of a $2.5 trillion health care bill.

THIS is why pork is a big deal, despite its overall cost not being very much.  Just like pork purchased the vote margin allowing cap-and-trade to pass the House a few months back, it looks like it will purchase the vote margin allowing health care to pass the Senate.
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:46:11 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5012</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>NTU Vote Alert: Senators vote "NO" on H.R. 3590</title><description><![CDATA[NTU urges all Senators to vote “NO” on H.R. 3590, the so-called “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” This $2.5 trillion bill is NOT real reform, but rather a political ploy to deceive taxpayers and to expand the size and scope of the federal government in a way that is both unprecedented and unsustainable.

	For months, you have heard from the American people through their phone calls, emails, town halls, and office visits.  Their message was clear: an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this bill. Will you choose to ignore the interests of the constituents you serve? They deserve more than mediocre legislation, which has been crafted behind closed doors and rammed through the Senate in an effort to conceal the truth. Recent studies show that H.R. 3590 will NOT rein in health care costs, nor will it spare taxpayers. Despite President Obama’s oft-repeated promise, this bill will hit those making less than $250,000 a year with higher taxes.

	We recognize that changes need to be made to our health care system, but this bill is the wrong kind of reform. Unbridled spending, tax hikes, and a more powerful, less accountable government are not the ways to lower costs and improve quality of care. It is our hope that you will put party politics aside, vote NO on H.R. 3590, and work instead toward passage of a common-sense, more fiscally responsible health care bill that empowers patients, not Washington bureaucrats. 

	Roll call votes on this legislation, including all cloture and passage votes on amendments as well as the underlying bill, will be among the most heavily weighted of the year 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>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 07:26:42 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5011</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Cartoon Blogging</title><description><![CDATA[]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:12:46 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5010</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>National Taxpayers Union Vote Alert: Vote "NO" on H.R. 2847 </title><description><![CDATA[       NTU urges all Representatives to vote “NO” on H.R. 2847, the so-called Jobs for Main Street Act. Introduced by Representative David Obey (D-WI), this misnamed “job creation” bill would pour $150 billion in taxpayer dollars into programs that have failed to spur job growth and decrease unemployment through the recently-enacted “stimulus” bill.

	H.R. 2847 would set aside $48 billion for various infrastructure projects such as Transit Assistance and Fixed Guideways, Amtrak, and the Housing Trust Fund. The original stimulus contained funding for many of these same projects, but we have yet to see signs of job creation. In any case, a sizeable portion of the money from that stimulus has not even been spent. Whether these ventures stand any eventual chance of success or not, why put additional money into programs that still have billions to disburse? 

	Moreover, H.R. 2847 would provide $24 billion to help state governments defray the cost of Medicaid – aid that will not take effect until January 2011. There is no need for Congress to commit to more deficit spending a year in advance. Additional spending and bloated budgets will not solve the crisis we currently face.

	A “NO” vote on H.R. 2847, the Jobs for Main Street Act, will be heavily weighted as a pro-taxpayer vote 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>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:27:22 MST</pubDate><link>http://blog.ntu.org/main/post.php?post_id=5009</link><category>Blog Entries</category>
		</item>
</channel>
</rss>