Thursday, November 12, 2009

Hear the Borellis Speak on Cap-and-Trade at Harrisburg Tea Party Event This Saturday

Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli and Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli are both featured speakers at a rally to be held in conjunction with the "March on Harrisburg, PA" on Saturday, November 14. The march and rally is sponsored by the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots.

The rally will be held on the steps of the Pennsylvania State Capitol and is scheduled to begin at 2:30 PM eastern. Prior to the rally, people will gather in the parking lot of nearby City Island for a march across the Susquehanna River that is scheduled to begin at 2:00 PM eastern.

Tom and Deneen will both speak on the economic consequences of the "cap-and-trade" energy tax proposal supported by the Obama Administration and the liberal leadership of the House and Senate in Washington. The keynote speaker will be former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.

For more information about the event, click here.

This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Environmental Justice, Project 21, Protests, Race, Taxes

Posted by David W. Almasi at 5:21 PM

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

A Bush By Any Other Name

President Barack Obama is often likened - and clearly sees himself as spiritual successor - to presidential luminaries like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. But he is fast on track to following the footsteps of a less celebrated predecessor - George H.W. Bush.

Candidate Bush accepted his party's nomination at the 1988 Republican National Convention with the immortal, Peggy Noonan-penned promise "Read my lips: no new taxes." When President Bush later agreed to raise taxes as part of the 1990 budget negotiations, he wrecked his re-election chances and became a one-termer.

In September, 2008, candidate Obama promised, "I can make this firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Oops. The health care bill the House passed on Saturday, for which Obama personally lobbied members of Congress, contains - new taxes. Lots of them. New taxes that will effect earners of all income levels, but which will especially hurt small-business owners.

Of course this bill, like all of the health care proposals recently debated by Congress, was instigated by, and created at the behest of, Barack Obama, who promised in his February joint address to Congress, "quality, affordable health care for every American." That he could promise such a bauble while simultaneously vowing not to raise our taxes "one dime" betrays either a stunning economic ignorance - or deep mendacity.

Obama has clearly studied the greats, Lincoln and F.D.R. But he should also have made an examination of the less successful presidents, like George H. W. Bush, lest he repeat their mistakes and suffer their fate in political purgatory.

Written by Matt Patterson, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Matt Patterson at 1:15 AM

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Health Care Rally Photos

Max Pappas of FreedomWorks sent over some pictures of today's rally at the Capitol in opposition to liberal efforts to have the federal government take over our health care system.

I'm posting the pictures because this is a tremendous turnout (especially in mid-week, with little notice, on a dank and intermittently-rainy day), and I have no faith whatsoever that the mainstream media will accurately report the full size of the crowd.

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:11 PM

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"

...so says Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) regarding the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, referring to $385 billion in transfers the bill requires some states (including Ohio) send to others (such as California).

Senator Voinovich's presentation includes a map comparing the states slated to receive funds with the votes cast in the House in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. (Let's just say he finds some similarities.)

During his presentation, Senator Voinovich asks Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer (D-CA), "Does your definition of bipartisan mean someone who agrees with you?"

The video clip above includes Senator (please note, Senator) Boxer's response.

Hat tip: Senator Jim Inhofe's Press Office's YouTube Channel.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:46 PM

Monday, October 19, 2009

Medicare Confusion

I'm a little confused. Maybe you can help me out. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus wants to cut $500 billion from Medicare to cover about 30 million uninsured. That's over 10 years. Handing the entire amount out to the uninsured would work out to about $6,666 annually for each family of four.

That should be sufficient for a health care plan of some kind. Presumably the resultant reduction in cost shifting would lower costs, too. So why does he plan to spend an additional 330 billion?

Hmm... Couldn't be about control, could it?

Written by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:10 PM

Thursday, October 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

There is no Baucus bill.

Study: Generous unemployment benefits create moral hazard.

Tasteful chimp statuary?

Anne Bayefsky: "The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."

ObamaCare has been tried -- at the state level.

E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. | Download our book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:36 AM

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Radio Day!

I'm having another of what I call "radio days."

If you live in one of the following cities and are so inclined, you can hear me talking about health care reform and our new book Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Medicine on the following stations between now and 11 AM Eastern today:

WTAG Worcester, MA
0706 AM ET

KTRH Houston, TX
0733 AM ET

WOWO Fort Wayne, IN
0738 AM ET

WSYR Syracuse, NY
0820 AM ET

KVI Seattle, WA
0834AM ET

WOAI San Antonio, TX
0840 AM ET

KOGO San Diego, CA
0907AM ET

WHLO Akron, OH
0915 AM ET

WTAM Cleveland, OH
1030AM ET

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:00 AM

Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli has been closely monitoring the corporations who lobby for cap-and-trade.

Tom issued a statement Friday on the ways the new Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill (or perhaps I should say, bill framework, because it appears to be out of fashion these days for legislators to actually finish drafting their proposed bills before introducing them):

Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill Favors Corporate interests Over National Interest

The "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) favors corporate interests over our national interest, says the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions, exceeding the 17% target in the House Waxman-Markey legislation passed in May.

Boxer-Kerry lacks many important details, including a disclosure of which industries will benefit from free emissions credits.

"In the rush to legislate, the Boxer-Kerry bill is silent on key elements, such as how the government will hand out free emissions allowances that are worth billions of dollars. With that amount of money left on the table it opens the door for a behind-the-scenes lobbying fest that will reward well connected companies while looting taxpayers," said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project.

Waxman-Markey awards most of the estimated $777.6 billion of free allowances to industry between 2012-2020. Utilities were the biggest winner in the "House bill lottery," receiving 35% of allowances.

President Obama originally wanted to auction all the emission credits with the revenue going to reduce the budget deficit.

In addition to the allowance windfall, a few select companies will benefit from specific provisions. Caterpillar would gain from sales of its newly-developed hybrid bulldozer, because the bill empowers the EPA to issue new emissions standards for "new heavy-duty vehicles and engines and for nonroad vehicles and engines."

The Caterpillar hybrid bulldozer is priced about $100,000 more than conventional bulldozers – an added cost that will be passed on to construction projects.

The Boxer gift to Caterpillar may be a reward for CEO Jim Owens. Under Owens, Caterpillar is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) – a coalition of corporate and environmental special interest groups lobbying for cap-and-trade. Owens is a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

"Owens is putting his personal short-term interest over our national interest. He has previously acknowledged that cap-and-trade can harm the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, yet he remains a member of USCAP," added Borelli. "Owens' thirty pieces of silver is a hybrid bulldozer."

"It's clear the only winners with cap-and-trade will be the lobbyists, CEOs and their environmental allies. The bill represents a huge transfer of wealth in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars to industry. While the Washington elite benefit, the rest of America will end up paying the cost through higher energy prices, slower economic growth and sending jobs overseas," said Borelli.

Visit the Free Enterprise Project online at http://www.freeenterpriser.com.

###

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM

What's Happening Now

Senator Kerry blocks Senate fact-finding trip to Honduras.

Woman who "essentially starved" her toddler to death served a mere six months and is now accused of grotesquely abusing her son. Six months?

State of Michigan threatens woman for babysitting.

A population map.

In the none-of-its-business department: Major U.S. corporation spends $290,000 telling Irish voters to vote to join EU.

John Goodman asks: Why is AARP selling out seniors?

Labels: Congress, Courts, Crime, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Project 21's Bob Parks Discusses Health Care Policy on BET Special This Sunday

Project 21 member Bob Parks has taped a panel discussion on health care policy that is scheduled to air on Black Entertainment Television this Sunday, September 27, at 9:00 PM eastern.

Bob participated in BET's "Critical Condition: What's at Stake in Health Care Reform" with White House Domestic Policy Advisor Melody Barnes and Representatives James Clyburn (D-SC) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).

You can read Bob's comments about the taping of the show by clicking here.

Check your local listings for BET on cable. BET is available on channel 230 on Fios, channel 124 on Dish Network and channel 329 on DirecTV.

Editor's note: BlackNews.com has published a story about the broadcast, which can be accessed here.

Written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race

Posted by David W. Almasi at 12:53 AM

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore

If you are in the Baltimore/DC area or on your computer now, you you can tune in to WBAL 1090 AM to hear David Ridenour discussing his latest paper, which is on how 820,000 people a year will lose health insurance if the Obama-supported Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill goes through.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:39 PM

Monday, September 21, 2009

A Vision of Health Care Reform that Works

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a must-read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today on health care, "A Growth Vision for Health Reform."

It begins:

A 3-year-old boy was recently diagnosed with a rare, aggressive, soft-tissue cancer in his bladder. Radiation treatment would have stunted the growth of his pelvic bones, hips and bladder and left him disabled. Radical surgery could remove his bladder, prostate and portions of his rectum. That would have left him impotent, using a colostomy bag, and urinating through another bag in his abdomen.

His parents chose a third option - a new "unproven" therapy where a proton beam precisely targeted the radiation dose so that it didn't cripple their son for life. The boy is now cancer-free and his body functions normally.

This story would seem to be an example of our health-care system at its best. But it is incompatible with the left's vision for overhauling the health-care industry...

Read the rest here.

Posted by Amy Ridenour. E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:06 AM

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Has the Congressional Black Caucus Ever Been Polled on the Slavery Question?

Here's a bit of irony for a Sunday evening, courtesy of James Taranto, writing in his Best of the Web column published by the Wall Street Journal:

Only seven Congressional Black Caucus members voted to defund Acorn, and here's the honor roll...:

Sanford Bishop (Ga.)
William Lacy Clay (Mo.)
John Conyers (Mich.)
Artur Davis (Ala.)
Hank Johnson (Ga.)
Kendrick Meek (Fla.)
Laura Richardson (Calif.)

That is to say, fewer than 1 in 4 Black Caucus members voted to stop spending taxpayers' money on an organization that has been caught on video at least five times offering advice on how to practice slavery.

To be fair, hypocrisy may not be involved. I'm not sure anyone has ever polled the Congressional Black Caucus on the slavery question. Maybe a handful of its members have been for it all along.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:15 PM

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Happening Now

Even the anecdotes are lies. (Does this White House vet anything?)

Would you support a sex tax to pay for Obama's health care reform?

When a health care system has other priorities: "We were told to wrap him in a blanket and let him die."

How the poor cheat the IRS.

Scott Johnson: Who is lower, ACORN or the New York Times?

538: Baucus compromise draws enthusiastic support of Senator Max Baucus.

Obama Treasury Department admits: Cap-and-trade a huge energy tax.

This time, it's caribou: The left is trying to regulate energy using the Endangered Species Act again.

David Harsanyi: Conservatives have never opposed a president before. (So it must be racism.)

Congratulations to Mark Levin. (I'm one of the million.)

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:46 AM

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Reality Check

"Brevity is the soul of wit." It is also a purveyor of wisdom.

The original U.S. Constitution was 6 pages long, contained 4,400 words, and set the foundation for the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. Last week, Barack Obama spoke of his plans for a health care bill expected to exceed 1,000 pages.

Further compounding this departure from the beautiful simplicity of America's founding is the present day propensity to complicate legislative language. The Founders were careful to produce a document that all Americans could easily understand. The hotly debated health care legislation is too complicated apparently for even legislators to understand. As that staggering intellect, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), said, "I love these members, they get up and say, 'Read the bill,' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

My, how far we have come... but not for the better, I fear.

I comment on this abandonment of the ways of the past as it emphasizes a concern held by many: that this loss of legislative simplicity implies a complimentary loss of freedom. The eight year anniversary of the September 11 attacks is also a time to celebrate the liberty we, as Americans, have protected and maintained these many years. Though liberal activists have worked to marginalize the patriotic fervor of this most tragic anniversary, the majority of Americans not only remember those who were murdered, they also consider with reverence the strength and sustainability of America and her freedoms (so hated by our terrorist attackers). As we reflect on our liberty as Americans we should also remember the lurking legislative threats to our sacred freedoms, as signified by this rejection of simplicity.

This post was written by Caroline May, policy analyst the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Culture, Defense, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Caroline May at 11:15 PM

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Project 21's Kevin Martin Rebuts Obama Health Care Address

Project 21 member Kevin Martin watched President Obama's address to Congress last night and didn't see much difference in what the White House and liberals on the Hill proposed before their summer vacation when it comes to reforming health care and what they are peddling now:

After losing control of their message on health care reform and having heard the criticism of their proposal at town hall meetings throughout the recent recess, one would expect the President and his liberal allies to return to Washington with new and innovative ideas about such reform. Instead, what the President said last night was a mish-mash of the same talking points, half-truths and misleading statements.

President Obama and his allies are ignoring the real reform Americans want in our health care system - namely reining in high costs and lessening the burden of lawsuit abuse on caregivers. Dealing with waste, fraud and abuse is something Americans have long wanted and this can be a point of agreement with the President - but it is odd that this is a cause the President's team is late in joining. What took them so long?

When supporters of a government option preach that their plan will be cost-effective and deficit-neutral as Obama did last night, it rings hollow. One has to look no further than the pork projects in this year's partisan "stimulus" package and the resulting explosion of the deficit to realize that being cost-effective and deficit-neutral are not the President's forte.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by David W. Almasi at 4:47 PM

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

100 Stories of Personal Struggles with the Health Care System You Won't Hear from President Obama

As the White House has announced that the First Lady will watch the President's health care speech tonight with two people who have had what the White House terms as "struggles" with the U.S. health care system, I remind everyone about our new book, "Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care."

Shattered Lives tells of the struggles 100 people in countries that previously adopted the so-called "public option" (read: government option) on health care have had getting health care services. These are the kind of stories I think we can be confident the President won't reference during his speech tonight.

We are not charging for PDF copies of the book, which readers can download from http://www.nationalcenter.org/
ShatteredLives.html.

Why not download a copy now, and email it to any of your friends or family or are on the fence about the impact of increasing government control over our health system? Or post a link to the book's free downloads page on your Facebook page or blog?

Remember, folks: Government-run health care guarantees you health insurance -- it doesn't guarantee health care.

Labels: Congress, Europe, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, ShatteredLives, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:55 PM

Steve Milloy on O'Reilly Factor Discussing Relationship Between GE, NBC and White House

Steve Milloy, author of the 2009 book Green Hell, proprietor of the Green Hell and Junk Science websites and co-director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, was the first guest on the O'Reilly Factor Monday evening.

The topic: The mutual support system between General Electric, NBC News, the left-wing environmental movement and the Obama Administration.

The discussion included an August 19 email by a GE vice chairman saying "The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever," among other things. The e-mail made it clear GE supports climate legislation for its own financial benefit, and is working hard to see it enacted.

The August 19 email also makes clear that the company is making campaign contributions as part of its strategy to see the enactment of legislation from which it can benefit financially.

For more information on the August 19 email, see Timothy Carner's article in the Washington Examiner, "Leaked E-mail Shows How GE Puts the Government to Work for GE."

Hat tip to ConservativeNewMedia for posting the video on YouTube.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:34 AM

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Outrage of the Day: ObamaCare Would Tax Some Workers So Others Could Retire Early

James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation highlights once again a genuine travesty included in the President's health care reform proposal, a $10 billion bailout of labor unions.

Sherk writes, in part:

...The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans. Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers -- including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers...

To recap:

1) The bailout is intended not for poor or disabled people, but people with jobs who would like to retire before reaching age 65;

2) The bailout would be paid for by taxpayers, most of whom will not enjoy the leisure and other benefits of retiring before 65. Many will not be able to retire even at 65;

3) The unions had funds available to pay for these benefits, but they mismanaged them.

Pathetic.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Labor Unions, Retirement, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:49 PM

Senate Finance Crazy Talk

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, has developed a health care proposal that would cost taxpayers at least $900 billion while making health insurance less affordable.

The plan includes new taxes on health insurance companies. These would, of course, be paid by customers.

Our federal government taxes gasoline heavily as a conservation measure, that is, to reduce the amount of it we choose to buy.

Taxing health insurance makes sense only if you want to deter the purchase of it. It makes no sense whatsoever as a cure to the problem of too many uninsured Americans.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, Social Security, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:05 AM

Saturday, September 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

Government health care strikes again: 30 a day died in South Africa.

High taxes hurt soccer.

Scotland isn't the only nation releasing terrorists.

If government health care doesn't cure you, Joe Biden will claim it did.

Will Charlie Rangel face criminal charges?

Tom Blumer: "How crazy is it that Ford has to 'negotiate' a new contract with the United Auto Workers union, even though the union has ownership interests in two of its principal competitors...?

A competency question.

Jane Chastain: Cash for Clunkers not good for the environment.

Should government be able to harvest your organs without obtaining consent?

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Labor Unions, Retirement, Scandals, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:12 AM

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Don't Give the Speech, Mr. President

I issued a call to the President to drop his planned address on health care to a joint session of Congress earlier today. I suggested that the President instead meet with Congress in a Q&A session similar to Britain's "Prime Minister's Questions" in the House of Commons.

I did this because I believe another lecture by the President will get us (as a nation) no where. We've heard all his pretty words. Now we need to hear words that have specific, tightly-definable meaning. I doubt the President's teleprompter will provide him with that, but I think there's some chance that Members of Congress (assuming they don't get all tongue-tied because they are in the presence of the President, that is), given the chance to ask questions with followups, could get some specifics out of him.

I make no bones about the fact that I don't want an expansion of government-run health care in the United States. I'll be straightforward: I'm betting the President would muck up a genuine Q&A (especially if followups were permitted) and help defeat his own plan. but if I'm wrong about his abilities, I also think such a Q&A is his best chance to move his ball forward.

The President has gone as far as he can with charm, and charm is all he's going to be able to give us from the podium in front of Congress. A tour de force while engaging Congress in a specific, detailed way, however, would win him some support -- maybe enough to win the day for his side.

But, as I say, I'm betting he doesn't have it in him. Another show in front of the podium is his safe choice, and it is overwhelmingly likely that that's the one he's going to take.

For those interested, the full text of my statement earlier today can be found here.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:12 PM

Does Charlie Rangel Think We Opposed Government-Run Health Care When Hillary Clinton Proposed it Because She's White?

I notice the White House was quick to distance itself from New York Governor David Paterson when Paterson claimed racism motivates people who disagree with President Obama's political philosophy.

But now that the powerful chairman of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, Charlie Rangel, has made the same racism claim, has the White House spoken out in disagreement?

Not immediately, anyway.

Rangel's comments are a disgrace. There's no question he knows better. After all, the vast majority of those who oppose socialized medicine held those views before the blink-of-an-eye ago when Barack Obama entered the national political scene.

Does Charlie Rangel think we opposed government-run health care when Hillary Clinton proposed it because she's white?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:36 PM

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Dear President Obama: Please Read This

Join me in urging our President and every Member of Congress to read the article "How American Health Care Killed My Father" by David Goldhill in the September issue of the Atlantic.

Sample paragraph:

I'm a Democrat, and have long been concerned about America's lack of a health safety net. But based on my own work experience, I also believe that unless we fix the problems at the foundation of our health system - largely problems of incentives - our reforms won't do much good, and may do harm. To achieve maximum coverage at acceptable cost with acceptable quality, health care will need to become subject to the same forces that have boosted efficiency and value throughout the economy. We will need to reduce, rather than expand, the role of insurance; focus the government's role exclusively on things that only government can do (protect the poor, cover us against true catastrophe, enforce safety standards, and ensure provider competition); overcome our addiction to Ponzi-scheme financing, hidden subsidies, manipulated prices, and undisclosed results; and rely more on ourselves, the consumers, as the ultimate guarantors of good service, reasonable prices, and sensible trade-offs between health-care spending and spending on all the other good things money can buy.

Read it all here, pass the link (or this post) on to your Congressman, the White House and to others you know.

Hat tip: Greg Mankiw's Blog.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:18 AM

Outrage of the Day: A Rockefeller Questioning Profits

Senator John D. Rockfeller IV (D-WV) has sent a letter to the top 15 health insurance companies asking them to report how profitable they are. In part because Rockefeller is a Senate Committee chairman, the letters carry with them the threat of an implied subpoena if the companies don't respond.

The day he had the letters sent, Rockefeller said in a statement, "Too often consumers are not getting a fair deal for what they pay, they are not getting the protections they deserve, and the insurance companies are awash in profit."

How does he know? He can't have received any replies yet.

As the Senator's condemnation of the replies before he received them implies, this is grandstanding, not research. Health insurance companies report their profits to various regulators.

Why, if the Senator honestly wanted to know, he could have Googled it. I did.

From the August 5, 2009 Wall Street Journal:

'For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs -- doctors, hospitals, and drugs,' says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.

More Google results here, here, and here, among many others.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Outrage, Regulation, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:38 AM

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

6,000 surgical operations may be cut to make up for budgetary shortfall in Vancouver. Would 6,000 Canadians trade health insurance for health care? (Let's ask when some of them visit.)

Via Twitter, @ruffedge asks: USA or USSR?

How much would you spend to apply a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist? Me: Not so much. Congress: $8 billion. (H/T Celebrity Paycut)

Media Matters lied? Say it ain't so!

The Cash for Clunkers program's rules say dealers will be reimbursed within ten days, but dealers have found themselves on waiting lists. Reminds me of this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this. You can't make government efficient by passing a law saying it has to be.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:39 AM

What's Happening Now

Why hasn't David Axelrod recused himself from ObamaCare lobbying?

No sunlight in Sunny California: Touchy agency trying to force someone to surrender video he shot of it.

The left told a lie? Say it ain't so!

Who said it? Climate bill out of control.

U.S. vs. Europe: Life Expectancy and Cancer Survival. (H/T Coyote Blog)

From Newt to Barack: Some good advice the President won't take.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Europe, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:06 AM

Monday, August 17, 2009

Is Obama Really Dropping the So-Called Public Option? Not a Chance

The media is making much of the Obama Administration's hints that the President will no longer insist on a so-called "public option" in a health care bill he signs, but the idea of a government-started "co-op" alternative to private health insurance has not been abandoned.

What we have here is the left, finding a block on a road heading left, choosing another read, also heading left.

And heading to government-run health care.

Michael D. Tanner of the Cato Institute wrote instructively about the co-op "alternative" in June:

A closer look suggests that the only thing intriguing about the co-op alternative is whether it is a completely meaningless construct or simply camouflage for the "Public Plan" option...

...The new co-ops would presumably have to advertise like other insurance companies, build physician networks, pay competitive reimbursement rates, and in general act like, well, every other insurance company. It is suggested that the new federal co-ops would be nonprofits, and therefore would offer better service and lower costs. But many insurance companies, including "mutual" insurers and many "Blues," are already nonprofit companies. If the new co-ops operate under the same rules as other nonprofit insurers, why bother?

And there's the rub. Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers. This is not really about creating more choices and competition. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op's officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) says, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck, it's probably a duck.

Moreover, several previous attempts by governments to set up co-ops have, in fact, failed. Perhaps the largest such failure was the Florida Community Health Purchasing Alliance, which was set up by the State of Florida in 1993, and at one time covered 98,000 people. It was unable to attract small business customers and ultimately went out of business in 2000. Does anyone really believe that a Congress that is busy bailing out banks and automobile companies because they are 'too big to fail" is going to sit idly by while one of these new co-ops suffers a similar fate?

If a "co-op" is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, it's simply government-run health insurance by another name. Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.

A single national co-op with officers and director appointed by the President and Congress and set up to accomplish the objectives of a public option.

Sounds exactly like government-run health care to me.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:14 AM

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

If You Don't Care Enough About Policy to Know Better Than This, Why Didn't You Go Into Another Line of Work?

Picked up by the Detroit News, and then the Heritage Foundation, is this nearly-unbelievably ignorant statement by Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan:

Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility and I feel it when I'm flying. The storms are more volatile.

Few readers of this blog would be caught dead saying something this stupid:

...this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air that we breathe.

That one, of course, can be credited to the President of the United States.

It is, a disgrace that people run for high office without caring enough to familiarize themselves with multi-billion-dollar issues (the official price tag for the ghastly Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill alone nears a trillion dollars). Although I can think of a couple of exceptions, on the whole, the American people do not deserve to be governed by ignoramuses.

So please, elected officials: crack a book once in a while, okay?

Hat tip: The Foundry.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:18 PM

What's Happening Now

Tonsils redux: President Obama says greedy doctors are coming for your feet... but LA Times says prevention in these cases is expensive. Why don't the greedy doctors do prevention, Mr. Prez?

Funeral Director Full-Employment Bill: President Obama sees post office as model for health care system.

Obama: "Technically, I'm not for a single-payer system." Technically?

Murder a child; go free. Worse than appalling.

Wrong again, Mr. President.

Why are people upset about ObamaCare? Because certain politicians lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.

Government health care would cost more than the politicians claim.

CNN says talk radio hosts are too predictable.

Astroturf for hire. By the left.

No plants at Obama "town meeting." Uh huh.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Courts, Crime, Economics, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Media, Protests, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:06 PM

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Pelosi and Hoyer Declare War... On Themselves

"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."

I've always felt this is true. I just never thought Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer believed it, too.

So when might we expect Pelosi and Hoyer to hand over their passports?

In yesterday's USA Today, Pelosi and Hoyer wrote: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American... Health care is complex. It touches every American life. It drives our economy. People must be allowed to learn the facts."

Aren't these the same two congressional leaders who have demanded swift passage of their health care legislation? Aren't they the same folks who insist that congressmen needn't read bills before they vote? Aren't they the same two people who have sharply limited debate and prevented opponents from offering amendments?

So my question to Pelosi and Hoyer: Does this mean you'll allow extended debate and amendments to the health care bill when it comes up in September, or will you simply learn to live with the self-loathing?

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 2:11 PM

Monday, August 10, 2009

Pelosi and Hoyer: "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate"

Here's a link to the op-ed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD).

It's not very good, and not at all factual (haven't they read the bill?), but as its headline, helped along by Drudge, has made it notorious, I thought folks might like a link.

By the way, who agrees with me that "the promise of affordable health care for all" -- as the Representatives put it -- has not been the most debate domestic issue since the Lyndon Johnson Administration, as Pelosi and Hoyer claim? Just a guess, but I think the honor for that title would go to the abortion debate.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:28 AM

Obama/DNC Health Care Operation Urges Congressional Visits

Someone who lives in Virginia but who did not mention that his name could be used sent me and others the attached two-page flyer from President Obama's health care operation.

(Open each photo in a new tab or window to enlarge it, or download a PDF of the entire document here.)

The person had signed up to be on the Obama email list when Obama was a presidential candidate and received this by email.

In this case, the operation was encouraging this person to visit the office of Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia to lobby Senator Warner in favor of what the flyer calls "the President's health care guarantees."

Notice the flyer bypasses the issue of which, if any, legislation the recipient -- or the Senator -- is encouraged to favor. Recipients are just supposed to ask the Senator for the vaguely good-sounding items listed on the flyer, and leave the details to their supposed betters in Washington.

(For myself, I would never lobby anyone for "no gender discrimination" in health care, as I never used health services more than when I was carrying twins, and I have never once had even a bit of prostate trouble.)

Notice also that Obama's operation wants people to report to them how office visits go (see the section entitled "After Your Visit" on the flyer) and how the staff responds.

I post these pages for informational purposes only. Do with them what you will.

Note: This post was edited after publishing to add the option of downloading a PDF of the flyer.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:00 AM

Saturday, August 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Who says the Fifth Amendment is dead? A woman set fire to a man's genitals and is charged with endangering private property.

Your Grandpa is the mob. Funny pics. (H/T The American Catholic)

How Cash for Clunkers hurts charities.

More scurrilous allegations that if you disagree with big spending, racism may be the reason. Cynthia Tucker this time.

It can hurt to be a redhead -- literally.

More global warming hypocrites. Again.

Other than the ones in Congress, what is a pantywaist, anyway?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:45 PM

Obama Wants His Party to Shut Up?

Obama says he doesn't want the people who created "the mess" to do a lot of talking.

Given that his party has controlled the House and Senate since January '07, is he telling Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to shut up?

This post was written by National Center for Public Policy Research Vice President David Ridenour. E-mail comments to info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, White House

Posted by David A. Ridenour at 3:37 PM

Project 21 Members Come Out Swinging Against Krugman Racism Allegation

Members of the Project 21 black leadership group have come out swinging against New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for "scurrilously pinning racist motives on critics of President Obama's health care proposals."

Project 21 has also called on President Obama to condemn "this effort to stifle debate with race-baiting tactics"; as well as "all efforts to derail legitimate public debate."

Krugman's column drew the following specific comments from Project 21 members:

Mychal Massie (Pennsylvania):

"Paul Krugman is the one with race on the brain. Specifically, he is using race in the lowest and most repulsive declinations. He is using it because every other argument to stem the growing tide of condemnation for the proposed health care reform bill has failed. Ergo, when all else fails, parade out the race card and attempt to incite blacks into becoming the useful idiots.

"Opposition to the proposed health care bill isn't based on race. It is based on a people who are tired of Congress and the President spitting in their faces. It is the collective resolve of a people who are tired of being tread upon. One would think a Nobel prize-winner such as Krugman could figure that out."

Mychal Massie is chairman of Project 21.

Joe Hicks (Los Angeles, California):

"I must have somehow missed the articles from Krugman and other liberal and leftist members of the mainstream media that were critical of the activities of ACORN - the radical, leftist group Barack Obama once represented. Somehow, their heavy-handed activities - that many argue bent the boundaries of legality - were just considered to be the organized expression of disadvantaged communities.

"Now the same shameless, clueless writers are trying to convince us that those Americans who rightfully feel threatened by government-run health care and confront Obama's noxious scheme at public forums are somehow the acts of a 'mob.' Krugman reveals his bias by admitting that people are genuinely angry without bringing himself to understand exactly why they are mad. Smearing the rightful anger and concern of everyday Americans as collections of angry, old white folks - or part of the 'birthers' movement - shows the elitist disdain that liberal journalists such as Krugman have for democracy in action."

Joe Hicks is a Pajamas Television commentator and vice president of Community Advocates, Inc. of Los Angeles. He is a former executive director of the Los Angeles City Human Relations Commission and former executive director of the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Deneen Borelli (East Chester, New York):

"Krugman's commentary shows he is as out of touch as many of our elected officials are with real Americans. What's happening at town hall meetings has nothing to do with race and everything to do with concern over the rapid expansion of government.

"Americans are frustrated that letters, phone calls and e-mails to their elected representatives have had no impact on significant pieces of legislation such as cap-and-trade and stimulus spending. Americans are taking the next logical step by directly voicing their opinions to their representatives at town hall meetings."

Deneen Borelli is a full-time fellow with Project 21. She serves on the board of trustees of The Opportunity Charter School in Harlem, New York and previously served as Manager of Media Relations with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).

Bishop Council Nedd II (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania):

"I have nothing to do with the 'birther' issue, but I do have concerns about health care. So do the people in my parishes and in the local diner where I eat every day. Living in central Pennsylvania, these truly are the people portrayed in the Norman Rockwell painting about freedom of speech that Krugman reference in his column. To imply these people are now racists is racist in itself.

"Approximately half of the U.S. population didn't vote for Obama in the first place. Why is Krugman shocked that there is opposition to the Obama health care plan, and that people dare to voice their concern at public meetings? The Obama plan inserts government officials into end-of-life decisions for seniors and those among us with the least. That is not a race issue, that is a privacy issue. The Obama plan has given a whole new meaning to the idea of government for the people. This health plan is a bitter pill shoved down people's throat against their will."

Council Nedd is an Anglican bishop, serving the Diocese of the Chesapeake.

Bob Parks (Athol, Massachusetts):

"Why is it when liberals want to make their points, their knee-jerk reaction is to go racial? Paul Krugman is supposedly a journalist. Before throwing out the race card while speculating, he should give us some attributed quotes. Minus that, what he thinks is irrelevant."

Bob Parks is a Project 21 member and media commentator, and operator of the Black and Right web site.

Jimmie Hollis (Millville, New Jersey):

"I knew the moment Obama became a presidential candidate that anyone disagreeing with him would be called a racist, and that any opposition to his political views would be seen as racism. The left has always played the race card because it works.

"But I am nonetheless happy to see that people on the right and many in the middle are now beginning to speaking out firmly and with passion against policies they oppose. President Obama should speak out and condemn Paul Krugman racial commentary."

Jimmie L. Hollis is a Project 21 member and is retired from the U.S. Air Force, in which he served from 1962-1987.

Geoffrey Moore (Chicago, Illinois):

"This is not about race. It is about government control. The system is not perfect, but there is no need to have the government take over control of the entire health care system. The government has not demonstrated the ability to efficiently control costs and provide good service.

"Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who are not up in arms about their insurance. There are people who are somewhat pleased with the coverage they have. The government getting involved will create enormous expense and waste, while creating more problems than they intend to solve."

Geoffrey Moore is a Project 21 member and a marketing analyst in Chicago.

Project 21's entire statement can be read here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Media, Project 21, Race, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:32 AM

Friday, August 07, 2009

More Beer at White House? Not Likely

A black conservative activist reportedly was attacked outside a Town Hall meeting in Missouri yesterday by a man who called him a racial slur.

From a report this morning by ABC's Jake Tapper:

Outside [a town hall meeting held by Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-MO], conservative activist Kenneth Gladney handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them and was, he said, attacked. "He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack.

"'It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked,' he said."

Don't look for the White House to intervene in this case.

Addendum: Video and more information at Gateway Pundit and numerous posts at Missourah blog.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:44 AM

Not All Senators Are Treated Alike

The Environmental Protection Agency has told Republican Senators Jim Inhofe (OK) and George Voinovich (OH) that it will not provide the analysis they sought of the House cap-and-trade bill, but it will provide an analysis (pdf) for a bill it expects Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to introduce in September.

Among other things, the Senators sought (pdf) a "cost analysis of the Waxman-Markey provisions on households and energy-intensive, trade exposed industries."

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:35 AM

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to renew Cash for Clunkers. Only 37 Americans in the Senate.

Here's who voted which way when the Senate voted to table Tom Harkin's amendment to limit the car welfare program to individuals earning under $50,000 and couples earning under $75,000. 65 Senators support welfare for the rich. Zero Dems for means testing.

Washington Independent: Cash for Clunkers "steals its funding from a Department of Energy program encouraging the development of renewable energy technologies." Someone thought this bill was about the environment?

John McCain calls Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill "a farce," saying "they bought every industry off - steel mills, agriculture, utilities." More welfare for the rich.

President of the United States or Captain Queeg with his strawberries? Seemingly both.

Searching for swastikas.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Spending, History, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:33 PM

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

What's Happening Now

Democrat leaders are exploring using a loophole to get health care reform passed. Others -- like me -- call it cheating.

A picture is worth a thousand words: A metaphor for ObamaCare.

Benjamin Franklin would not have supported government health care.

Will a health care bill pass? Charles Krauthammer's prediction.

Consumer Reports magazine is lobbying for government health care. So much for objectivity!

Government health care may mean waiting in line. You think?

Does a "DUI on a horse" charge mean the rider is drunk - or the horse?

Not all the ignorant kids are American. One in 20 British children believe singer Bob Geldof discovered gravity and that the classic book "Pride and Prejudice" was written by JK Rowling. (H/T Adam Smith blog)

A website now tracks the wit and wisdom of Vice President Joe Biden. (H/T Danny_Glover on Twitter)

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Crime, Education, Government Health Care, Health Care, History, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:48 AM

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congress, Administration Hurt People, Rip Off Taxpayers to Buy People Cars

I have not yet blogged about Cash for Clunkers because every time I think about it, I become so enraged I become completely incomprehensible.

Until I settle down, I recommend this excellent article, "'Cash for Clunkers' Breaking Down, But Not Before Hurting Lower-Income Buyers, Auto Recyclers," by Elizabath Hovde for the Portland Oregonian.

Hovde explains how Cash for Clunkers hurts "already-hurting auto parts suppliers," recyclers and lower-income people, and she has the facts to prove it.

John McCain reportedly is going to filibuster the renewal of Cash for Clunkers when it hits the Senate next week, and good for him. Too bad it was barely debated when it passed the first time.

I agree with those who point to the initial self-destruction of this program and say, if the federal government can't administer a program to give away free money so people can buy themselves a nice new car, how can we possibly trust it to run our health care?

Somebody is saying that, right? Because we would be insane to trust our very lives to a government this full of boobs.

Cash for Clunkers -- the coercive confiscation of the wealth of some people to help other people upgrade the quality of their consumer goods (notice we don't even bother with means testing anymore) -- is antithetical to common sense, fairness and any sense of budgetary realism. It's so bad, it's anti-American. Our federal government was not set up for the purpose of buying people vehicles (or anything else, for that matter).

I'm going to go now and read the list of the Members of Congress who voted today to extend this travesty. None of them, I believe, deep in the hearts, are Americans. Their passports may say they are Americans, but their hearts show something else. And anybody who takes the money under this program is a welfare queen, and should be ashamed of themselves. You are stealing from your fellow taxpayers, and the government endorsing the theft doesn't make it right.

Addendum, 8/1/09: The U.S. public opposes the program, 54 percent to 35 percent.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Spending, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:35 AM

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Congressman Barney Frank: Public Option is Route to Single Payer

One thing I have always appreciated about Rep. Barney Frank is that he is a very effective communicator.

In this video, he can't be more plain: The Obama/Democrat leadership health care "public option" is intended to lead the U.S. to single-payer health care.

The left will keep denying it, but there's no doubt its Barney Frank in this video, and he's in a position to know.

If you have a blog, I hope you will consider re-posting this video. It's YouTube page is here.

Hat tip: Conservatives for Patients' Rights.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:10 PM

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

House Republicans to Introduce Health Care Plan Thursday

House Republicans will introduce a health care bill tomorrow.

For those with an interest, below is the text of a one-pager describing the bill that the conservative House Republican Study Committee, chaired by Rep. Tom Price, M.D., is distributing on the Hill:

EMPOWERING PATIENTS FIRST ACT

A Solution from the Republican Study Committee for Access to Affordable, Quality Health Care for All Americans

Pillar #1: Access to Coverage for All Americans

Makes the purchase of health care financially feasible for all - Extends the income tax deduction (above the line) on health care premiums to those who purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market. And, there is an advanceable, refundable tax credit (on a sliding scale) for low-income individuals to purchase coverage in the non-group / individual market.

Covers pre-existing conditions - Grants states incentives to establish high-risk / reinsurance pools. Federal block grants for qualified pools are expanded.

Protects employer-sponsored insurance - Individuals can be automatically enrolled in an employer-sponsored plan. Small businesses are given tax incentives for adoption of auto-enrollment.

Shines sunlight on health plans - Establishes health plan and provider portals in each state, and these portals act to supply greater information, rather than acting as a purchasing mechanism.

Pillar #2: Coverage Is Truly Owned by the Patient

Grants greater choice and portability - Gives patients the power to own and control their own health care coverage by allowing for a defined contribution in employer-sponsored plans. This also gives employers more flexibility in the benefits offered.

Expands the individual market - Creates pooling mechanisms, such as association health plans and individual membership accounts. Individuals are also allowed to shop for health insurance across state lines.

Reforms the safety net - Medicaid and SCHIP beneficiaries are given the option of a voucher to purchase private insurance. And states must cover 90% of those below 200% of the federal poverty level before they can expand eligibility levels under Medicaid and SCHIP.

Pillar #3: Improve the Health Care Delivery Structure

Institutes doctor-led quality measures - Nothing suggested by the Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research can be finalized unless done in consultation with and approved by medical specialty societies. It also establishes performance-based quality measures endorsed by the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement (PCPI) and physician specialty organizations.

Reimburses physicians to ensure continuity of care - Rebases the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) and establishes two separate conversion factors (baskets) for primary care and all other services.

Promotes healthier lifestyles - Allows for employers to offer discounts for healthy habits through wellness and prevention programs.

Pillar #4: Rein in Out-of-Control Costs

Reforms the medical liability system - Establishes administrative health care tribunals, also known as health courts, in each state, and adds affirmative defense through provider-established best practice measures. It also encourages the speedy resolution of claims and caps non-economic damages.

Pays for the plan - The cost of the plan is completely offset through decreasing defensive medicine, savings from health care efficiencies (reduce DSH payments), ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, plus an annual one-percent non-defense discretionary spending step down.

An Associated Press story about the legislation, "House Republicans Unveil $700B Health Care Plan" by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, published this afternoon, contains additional details.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's feed. | Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 PM

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Hear Barack Obama Complain About Congress Passing Bills It Hasn't Read

Why would the man who is trying to pass health care reform and cap and trade without Congress reading the bills say anything like this?

Because it was 2004.

Hat tip: Naked Emperor News for posting the clip on YouTube; P.J. Gladnick on Newsbusters for writing about it.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Liberals, Media, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Monday, July 27, 2009

Quote of Note: Bipartisan Approach to Health Care

"The only thing bipartisan about the [health care reform legislation] so far is the opposition to it."

-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on CNN's "State of the Union," July 26, 2009, as quoted by the Associated Press

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:37 AM

What Talking Points Memo Doesn't Tell You

The liberal Talking Points Memo blog's Brian Beutler is touting some memos the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's staff created -- with tax dollars -- to pressure their fellow members of Congress (TPM wrongly reports they were created only for Committee members) into going along with the the Democrat health care bill.

The memos purport to show the benefits that will head toward constituents of the individual Members if only they would sell their souls to obtain the benefits.

Talking Points Memo helpfully displayed the one created for the district of Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR). Like others I reviewed, this document is just one page -- a curiously short summary for an over 1,000 page bill with literally life-and-death implications.

Such things as the following also were missing from the summaries:

references to the counseling sessions Medicare will start paying for so seniors know how to minimize the expenses of their last year of life (e.g., potentially by forgoing that last year of life);

revealing that people who pursue healthy lifestyles and are rewarded by lower premiums will lose this benefit ("hardly a formula for lower costs," says CNN Money) if the House bill becomes law;

the $500 billion in Medicare cuts, including the $156 billion in cuts to the popular Medicare Advantage option;

a minimum benefits package that includes abortion;

the Congressional Budget Office estimate that the bill "would result in a net increase to the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period." (The one-pager falsely claims the bill is "fully paid for.");

the Lewin Group estimate that 88.1 million Americans could lose their present health care coverage, even if they don't want to;

the fact that an estimated 1.2 million small businesses would be hit by a 5.4 percent surtax, and many Americans would face a higher income tax rate than do taxpayers in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan;

the letter the Mayo Clinic sent to Congress, warning the House bill could put it out of business;

and a good bit more.

It appears that Talking Points Memo and the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee want the public to be educated on what is in the House bill -- but not too educated.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:14 AM

Saturday, July 25, 2009

What's Happening Now

Under the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill, the taxpayers have to give General Electric $200 every time it sells a refrigerator.

Government medicine won't work for little Gunner.

Can you picture in your mind's eye the scene on the Battleship Missouri as Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allied Powers? Apparently, President Obama can't.

Who's uninsured -- in pictures.

India questions the science behind the global warming theory. Would James Hansen try the Indian government "for high crimes against humanity and nature"?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, History, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:30 AM

Friday, July 24, 2009

What's Happening Now

RedState reports: A top Democratic Congressional staffer says hospice is how the Democrats' health care bill controls health care costs.

MoveOn.org organized a rally in favor of Obama's health care reform legislation outside GOP Senator John Cornyn's Dallas office, but found itself outnumbered by Tea Party patriots as much as 20-1.

Midwives to be paid the same as doctors under the House Democrats' health care bill. America to follow Britain in giving up having a doctor present at births?

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus agree with President Obama about the Cambridge Police Department.

Put some tobacco in a pipe and smoke it, and your government health premiums go up. Put some crack in and smoke it and, hey, no problem!

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:44 PM

Annoy a Liberal Congressman Today

Apparently fearful the American people will see the chart Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and GOP members of Congress' Joint Economic Committee released about the House Democrats' health care bill, House Democrats are reportedly blocking GOP attempts to mail it to their constituents.

The Democrats say (as far as I know, with a straight face) that they are blocking distribution not because they are censoring criticism, but because the chart is not precisely accurate.

For the record, the Republicans who created the chart say it is accurate. Meanwhile, we can expect the born-again accuracy czars of the House Democrat caucus to start admitting their health plan will lead to rationing, their cap-and-trade bill will kill jobs and that their stimulus bill was about pork and political payoffs.

Click on the chart to enlarge it

There's no copyright on this chart, so why not annoy a liberal Congressman today by emailing it to all your friends? Click the little envelope or one of the "share" options below to do so easily.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:36 AM

Thursday, July 23, 2009

What's Happening Now

A secret meeting. Others are not-so-secret anymore.

Opposed to government-run health care? Join the bus tour.

We need a special prosecutor.

Surprise! A letter to the Senate (pdf) on Sotomayor.

The House Democrats' health care bill and illegal aliens.

Bill Cosby is shocked at Barack Obama.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Courts, Crime, Culture, Government Health Care, Health Care, Immigration, Race, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:32 PM

House Left Moves to End Community Service Requirement in Public Housing

The Congressional conservatives' Republican Study Committee reports that Congressmen Rangel (D-NY), Frank (D-MA), Waters (D-CA) and Watt (D-NC) will introduce an amendment to the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill later today to prohibit requiring people in public housing to contribute eight hours per month to community service or spend a comparable time in an economic self-sufficiency program.

Eight hours per month must have been too much to ask.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Liberals, Social Welfare

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:01 PM

Race Preferences in Health Care Bill

Project 21 issued this press release this morning:

Obama Health Care Bill Contains Race Preferences

Black Activist Speaks Out Against Proposed Unequal Allocation of Health Resources

For Release: July 23, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110x11

An examination of the 1018-page "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" (H.R. 3200) - the official Obama health care bill - finds several cases in which grant money for medical training can be awarded solely on factors of race and class.

Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II, an Anglican bishop and director of the Ecumenical Institute for Health Policy Research based at Valley Forge Christian College, is condemning the addition of racial preferences to the President's legislation.

"The U.S. Supreme Court just struck down racial preferences. So why does a newly-introduced bill want to perpetuate something that has just been declared unconstitutional?" asked Project 21's Nedd. "Racial preferences will not improve health care. They will increase tensions when some people are being unfairly put at the front of the line."

Between pages 878 and 909 of H.R. 3200, in an area related to grants for medical training, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to grant preference in awarding training grants. For the specialties of "family medicine, general internal medicine, general pediatrics, geriatrics and physician assistantship" (pages 878-882); "medical residents on community-based settings" (pages 883-886) and "general, pediatric and public health dentists and dental hygienists" (pages 887-891), it is written that "the Secretary shall give preference to... entities that have a demonstrated record of... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds."

Further, the bill amends the Public Health Service Act to give preferences in "advanced education nursing grants" to programs that "increase diversity among advanced education nurses" (pages 892-895). Grants for "enhancing the public health workforce" similarly give preference to "entities that have a demonstrated record of... training individuals who are from underrepresented minority groups or disadvantaged backgrounds" (pages 907-909).

A PDF version of H.R. 3200 can be found at http://tw8.us/qW.

Nedd added: "By making racial preferences a shortcut to federal funding, schools will reduce their quest for the best and turn it into a hunt for the right racial numbers. This, in the long run, will hurt the quality of our nation's health care. We need to stop the social experimentation and focus on cost and performance."

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21Index.html.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.
Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Project 21, Race, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:03 AM

A Travesty, In My Opinion

It seems the White House plans to re-write the health care bill after some version of it passes the House and Senate, then jam the re-written version through Congress before anyone in Congress -- or the public -- has a chance to see what's in it.

Is this the transparency candidate Obama promised?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Human Rights, Liberals, Retirement, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:19 AM

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

Project 21 says the NAACP's apparent search for purpose is leading it down the wrong road:

NAACP Endorsement of Climate Legislation Puts It at Odds With Views of Black Americans

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

Struggling for purpose in light of the election of the first black president, the NAACP moves in the wrong direction, says a group of black conservatives, when it endorses a climate policy in tandem with the World Wildlife Federation that is opposed by a majority of black Americans.

"I'm all in favor of the nation's oldest civil rights group redefining its mission and agenda; however this indicates that the NAACP continues to struggle with current realities that face the nation's black communities by promoting policies they are opposed to," said Project 21’s Joe Hicks, who is also a PajamasTV commentator. "If this group simply wants to be defined as another left-wing organization touting the weak science on climate change, then it is destined to face ever-growing irrelevancy."

Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli added: "It's outrageous for the NAACP to place liberal ideology over the welfare of the nation. By aligning with the environmental activist lobby, the NAACP is now an official member of 'Club Green' - the exclusive club of elites waging war against fossil fuels. Tragically, the cover charge for their membership - job losses, reduced standard of living and high energy costs - will be borne disproportionately by the very people the NAACP claims to represent."

The NAACP's zeal for regulation is opposed by most black Americans. A recent poll of 800 black Americans found 76 percent believe Congress should make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority. 56 percent believe policymakers do not adequately consider the quality of life of black Americans when addressing climate policy. When asked how much they would pay for gas and electricity to reduce greenhouse emissions, 76 percent said they would be unwilling to pay more than $50 a year while 52 percent were unwilling to pay anything at all.

Hicks added: "The NAACP shows how out of touch it has become by advocating Obama Administration policies on so-called climate change that impact the very population that claim to represent - poor, black Americans. Adding an increased burden of higher coast for essential things like gasoline and electricity at a time of economic hardship demonstrates that they have no independent course of leadership, but instead is blindly following this administration's disastrous lead."

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies for The National Center for Public Policy Research, which sponsors Project 21, and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. It can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

- 30 -

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Economics, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:01 AM

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

"It Will Destroy Health Care in This Nation"

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), a doctor in the real world, gives a good description of the majority's health care destruction bill in these comments delivered to his fellow members of the House Education and Labor Committee. Following Price's sharp exchange with Committee Chairman George Miller (D-CA) over something Price says Speaker Pelosi said and Miller says she didn't, my favorite part is Price saying this: "You know what [the American people] will have access to? They have access to an opportunity to get in line. They'll be able to get in line."

Price also said, flatly, that the House Democrats' bill "will destroy health care in this nation."

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:38 PM

Outrage of the Day: Congressional Leadership Blocks Debates

The House leadership is refusing to allow debates on controversial issues as Congress deals with spending bills this summer.

The effort is designed to help members of the majority party get re-elected by permitting them to fudge where they stand on issues on which their constituents are divided. In practice, however, it tends to make both Members of Congress (of both parties) and their constituents (of all political persuasions) angry and frustrated.

People like to be heard, even when their views don't prevail, and they are less likely to support people who make them mad. For the country's sake, as well as their own, this is a policy the House leadership should reconsider.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Congress, Outrage

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:12 AM

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Video of Project 21's Mychal Massie on the O'Reilly Factor

Here's a video of Project 21 Chairman Mychal Massie (right), guest host Laura Ingraham and Mark Sawyer, Ph.D. of UCLA on Friday's Fox News O'Reilly Factor.

They discussed President Obama's speech at the NAACP convention (including the President's curiously changed accent) and Senator Barbara Boxer's patronizing comments this week to a witness from the Black Chamber of Commerce at a recent hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mychal also mentioned the National Center for Public Policy Research's recent poll of African-Americans on cap and trade.

Hat tip to AmericasNewsToday1 for posting the video on YouTube.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed. Follow on Twitter.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Culture, Environmental Justice, Media, Project 21, Race, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:00 AM

Friday, July 17, 2009

Quote of the Day: Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) on Waxman-Markey from The Foundry

Looks like cap-and-trade's potential to create yet another wealth-killing bubble is receiving at least some attention from Senate Democrats.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics, Liberals, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Outrage of the Day: Congress Kills Jobs; Doesn't Care

Neither the left nor the right has reason to oppose reform of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, foolish legislation adopted last year with little thought to its ramifications, but Congress won't reform it, and Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee continues to refuse to even hold hearings.

CPSIA reform wouldn't end the recession, but it would end some job losses at no greater cost than the passage of the bill. As Congress is going to pay itself anyway, why not?

Carter Wood of the Shopfloor.org blog more details in "CPSIA Update: Jobs Being Destroyed, Congress Looks Away," or visit my Outrage of the Day for March 16, "Waxman Drags Feet on Needed CPSIA Reform."

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Legal Reform, Outrage, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:04 AM

Thursday, July 16, 2009

CBO: No Savings in Democrats' Health Care Bills

The Congressional Budget Office said today taxpayers should expect no net savings if one of the health care plans being developed by House and Senate Democrats is adopted.

In a nutshell, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf says any savings the plans might deliver are offset by additional costs they impose.

President Obama, has, of course, been insistent that health care reform is necessary so cost savings can be achieved.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:16 PM

House Health Care "Reform" Bill Bans Sale of Private Health Insurance Policies

Investor's Business Daily is reporting that page 16 of the House Majority's health care bill bans new health insurance policies from being sold after the bill becomes law.

The editorial says, in part:

It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised - with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers...

...It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.

There's more in the editorial; for copyright reasons I could only excerpt it. Please go to Investor's Business Daily and read "It's Not An Option" immediately. Then ask your friends to do so.

This isn't merely a smoking gun showing the liberals are making a hard push now for socialized medicine, folks. This is a forest fire.

Addendum, 9:30 AM: A private source is telling me that, under the legislation, individual private insurance policies would still be permitted for sale through the government's insurance exchange, but the current system for the purchase and sale of health insurance would be shut down. So, as Matt Drudge would say, developing...

Addendum, 11:57 PM: More explanation here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:50 AM

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The House Majority's Health Plan, Pictured

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) and GOP members of Congress' Joint Economic Committee have released the following chart explaining how the House Majority's health care plan is structured.

Click on the chart to enlarge it

There's no copyright on this chart. Why not email it (or this post -- see options below) to a friend?

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

The Government's Penalties for Success Are Running Into Its Subsidies for Failure

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) says today in an article by Matt Cover for CNSNews.com that small businesses don't make $280,000 a year, so new health care tax hikes at that level won't harm small business.

Oddly though -- as a commenter on the CNSNews.com website noted -- the Small Business Administration will provide financial assistance to firms making many times that.

If you manufacture cigarettes, for example, you are eligible for Small Business Administration assistance if you have a thousand employees. Setting aside the question of why Congress is subsidizing cigarette manufacturing while penalizing it with sin taxes, can we rationally assume a business with a thousand employees never clears $280,000 a year?

So we appear to have a case in which you are penalized for being rich at the same time you are subsidized for not being rich enough.

But there is a method to Congress' madness, says Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX), as reported by Adam Brickley and Fadia Galindo for CNSNews.com. The Congressional majority's health care tax plan is designed to harm small businesses sufficiently to force them to cut their employees' health care benefits, thus forcing those employees onto the public health care plan.

So when it looks like Congress is taxing and subsidizing the same people in a completely nonsensical way, we can rest assured that there is a purpose behind it after all -- the purpose of driving as many of us as politically-possible into a substandard, inevitably insolvent public health care plan.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Social Welfare, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:36 PM

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Rolling Stone: Cap and Trade is a Carbon Tax Structured So Private Interests Collect the Revenues

Tom Borelli of our Free Enterprise Project has repeatedly warned Americans that passage of cap-and-trade will lead to the creation of a new economic bubble (see here, here or here).

Now Rolling Stone magazine is getting into the act, and it's not pulling any punches.

A sample paragraph to whet your appetite:

...cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman [Sachs], is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it's even collected. [Emphasis in the original]

"If it's going to be a tax, I would prefer that Washington set the tax and collect it," says Michael Masters, the hedge fund director who spoke out against oil futures speculation. "But we're saying that Wall Street can set the tax, and Wall Street can collect the tax. That's the last thing in the world I want. It's just asinine."

Read Rolling Stone's "The Great American Bubble Machine" by Matt Taibbi for the rest of the story.

We've said all along that if you actually believe human beings are causing dangerous global warming, and you honestly believe that this global warming must be fought by suppressing energy use, the only approach that has any hope of not being corrupt is increasing energy taxes. We do oppose increasing energy taxes, but would prefer that by far to cap-and-trade.

I did not expect to see this sentiment in Rolling Stone, but we welcome it to the club.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Corruption, Economics, Regulation, Scandals, Taxes

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 PM

Did Sonia Sotomayor Lie Today?

John Hinderaker thinks she may have.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:34 PM

Monday, July 13, 2009

Video of Tom Borelli on Obama's Corporatism Strategy on Glenn Beck

Here's the video of Monday's broadcast of the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News channel in which Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project and Wall Street analyst/Fox Business News commentator Charles Payne talk about GE's quasi-merger with the Obama Administration, GE's hiring of Linda Daschle as a lobbyist, the recent appointment of a GE executive to a top Obama Administration post at the EPA and how, as Glenn Beck put it in the segment, "the little guy gets screwed."

Hat tip to America's News Today for putting the video on YouTube.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Corruption, FreeEnterpriseProject, Government Power, Government Spending, Liberals, Regulation, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:10 PM

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

It's Even Worse When It's The Majority Leader

It is not a very good thing when a Congressman laughs at the notion that Congressmen should read the text of legislation before voting on it.

CNSNews.com's Monica Gabriel and Marie Magleby report today that Majority Leader Steny Hoyer actually laughed when asked by CNSNews.com if Members of Congress should read a government health care "reform" bill before voting on it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com.

If the bill is so unimportant it's not worth the trouble to read (by people who are paid well to read it, no less!), maybe we should just do without.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Power, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:31 AM

Friday, July 03, 2009

Climate Policy: No Gain, No Pain

Thanks to a head's up from Climate Depot, I read with interest the following on the weakness of the computer models used to predict climate from the Britsh Number Watch website:

Most computer models are nonsense. This does not include those used by engineers in designing airplanes, bridges etc., which are based on detailed experiments on the systems involved and tested in a variety of real conditions before being used.

The reason they are nonsense is that they tend to be based on guesses of the value of coefficients assumed, particularly and disastrously feedback coefficients. There are few, however, that are quite as bad as climate models, where the physics of the interactions between variables and parameters is virtually unknown to mankind.

...Imagine you settled down in your seat in a jumbo jet and noticed a plaque on the back of the seat in front which reads 'This machine was designed with the aid of a super-computer. We did not know the values of all the parameters, so had to guess most of them.' You would get off in a hurry. Yet the world's political and media establishment are asking you to gamble the economic future of yourself and your descendants on just such a proposition.

Yes, that really is what the global warming debate comes down to. Shall we believe computer models that are at best based on educated guesses (and which disagree with one another), and enact policies that significantly harm the economy based upon them, even knowing that the policies themselves wouldn't affect the climate noticeably?

I say no; it's wrong to hurt people based on a theory you have no idea is correct, especially if you know the solution won't fix the problem even if your theory IS correct.

You've heard of "no pain, no gain" with regard to weight training? The cap-and-trade climate debate is the reverse: "no gain, no pain." That is, as there isn't going to be any noticeable gain from Waxman-Markey and its ilk, why inflict the pain?

Hat tip: Climate Depot.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:43 AM

Thursday, July 02, 2009

National Center's Tom Borelli Discusses Cap-and-Trade on Glenn Beck

In case you missed it, here's the segment of Glenn Beck's Fox TV show from Wednesday night featuring Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.

The topic is cap and trade, USCAP, corporations doing the bidding of the left, the Waxman-Markey global warming bill and the use of last minute amendments filled with goodies (amendments Congress wasn't given time to read, of course) by the House leadership to get the legislation approved by the House.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:11 AM

Naughty Conservatives Shouldn't Mind Votes for Waxman-Markey (Or So We're Told)

In an error-riddled column posted Wednesday on TownHall.com, the supposedly conservative Michael Gerson has a novel take on the Republican Congressmen who voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: He blames conservatives for minding.

One of his reasons: "It is typical that we praise independent judgment and political nerve in our elected officials -- until they actually show those qualities."

If any conservatives and/or others dedicated to limiting government called on our elected representatives to show "independent judgement and political nerve" in service of anything other than principle, they were wrong to do so.

Gerson doesn't quote anybody, though, and I can see why: There are a lot more quotes available of conservatives calling upon their elected representatives to govern conservatively.

Gerson's try to tar the conservative movement with a hypocrisy tag doesn't work.

Gerson is honest, though, in saying he likes the bill (I find it difficult to believe this man is a conservative).

He likes it because, he says, the global warming theory is the dominant view of the "scientific community" (a brush broad enough to include gynecologists), because "some scientists" warn of "possible 'tipping points'," and because, supposedly, mankind's carbon dioxide emissions have reduced crop yields and driven some species to extinction. How he could possibly know this is not mentioned, possibly because what he claims is beyond the current ability of modern science to prove or disprove.

Gerson says "global warming since the 19th century is undeniable," which is another way of saying the planet warmed as the Little Ice Age ended, though Gerson does not mention that there even was a Little Ice Age (and before it, warmer temperatures, though no SUVs).

Gerson doesn't mention, either, that if concern for crop yields is paramount, a little more CO2 in the atmosphere might be just the thing.

And then there's his comment that warming since the end of the Little Ice Age is "closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide," which by itself would prove nothing if it were true, but it isn't.

There's more, such as Gerson's ludicrious comment that in failing to appreciate cap-and-trade, "conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage... innovation," as if Waxman-Markey had anything whatsoever to do with free markets (oops, Gerson left the word "free" out, so there goes the innovation).

I could go on, but there's really no need. I linked to the version of this column on TownHall with comments. The column is impossible to appreciate, but some of the comments are superlative.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Liberals, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:16 AM

Monday, June 29, 2009

Subjects of Congressional Ethics Probe Fight Back

Project 21 just issued a press release criticizing the Congressional Black Caucus's apparent plans to retaliate against the House Office of Congressional Ethics, which concluded that several CBC members should be investigated by the full Ethics Committee for alleged violations of gift rules.

The release says:

Project 21 Critical of Members of Congress Under Ethics Investigation for Retaliating Against House Ethics Office and for Playing 'Race Card'

For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org

An apparent effort by the Congressional Black Caucus to deter ethics investigations of its membership is drawing sharp criticism from members of the black leadership group Project 21.

CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.

CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.

"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."

Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.

"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."

"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."

The controversy was sparked by an ethics complaint (PDF) filed with the OCE by National Legal and Policy Center President Peter Flaherty.

In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.

Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."

Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spent significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."

The press release can be found online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-Congressional_Ethics_062909.html.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Corruption, Liberals, Project 21, Race, Scandals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 8:16 AM

Sunday, June 28, 2009

There's Money to Be Made

Al Gore reportedly has billions of reasons to be glad the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill was approved by the House in a squeaker Friday.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Liberals

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 AM

Saturday, June 27, 2009

American Spectator Covers African-American Energy Poll

Thanks to W. James Antle for his story "Lights Out," in the American Spectator, which mentioned The National Center's poll of the African-American community on energy issues.

The article appeared on Rush Limbaugh's "Stack of Stuff" Thursday.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:46 PM

Friday, June 26, 2009

Examiner Coverage of Poll

Mark Tapscott, Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner, covered our poll today in his editorial, "Survey Finds Three-Fourths of African-Americans Have Big Worries About Obama-Waxman-Markey."

Many thanks to Mark, whose editorial page is a must-read. If you aren't reading daily now, try it for a week -- heck, try it for a day -- and you will be hooked.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Polls, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:23 PM

Truth in Labelling

David Ridenour calls the Waxman-Markey bill the "Waxman-Markey Economic Climate Change" bill, because the only climate Waxman-Markey has a prayer of changing is our economic one.

And prospects for that, if it passes, are very good indeed.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Economics

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:03 PM

Understatement of the Day

The New York Times, referring to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill: "The bill has shortcomings."

Ya think?

P.S. Apologies. I forgot to add that, except for the sentence quoted above, the NY Times editorial is also one of the most dishonest bits of writing you'll ever come across. To name just one example, it ends on an implied claim that Waxman-Markey will prevent "drought, famine, [and] coastal devastation."

In fact, Waxman-Markey, if adopted, will have an impact on the environment that is too scant to measure even if human beings are causing global warming through CO2 emissions.

As the headline of far, far wiser Orange County Register editorial put it, "Climate change bill all pain, no gain."

Even environmentalists should oppose hurting people for no reason -- and some of them, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, do oppose Waxman-Markey.

The rest have no excuse.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Media

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:44 AM

National Review Online Coverage of Our Poll

National Review Online has covered our poll on African-Americans and climate policy -- twice.

On The Corner, Kathryn Jean Lopez contributed "Blacks vs. Cap and Trade," and at Planet Gore, Edward John Craig wrote "More Opposition to the Obama Energy Tax."

Much appreciated!

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Media, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:21 AM

House Leadership Takes Suicidal Stand Against Its African-American Base - Townhall.com

David Ridenour has a new column published on TownHall.com examining the Democratic Congressional leadership's seemingly suicidal lack of concern for the wishes of its most loyal core constituency, African-Americans.

It begins:

Overly influenced by certain big-name green groups, misled by their own ideology and perhaps also a bit dazzled by the unlikely stardom of failed-politician-turned-climate-hero Al Gore, Democrats on Capitol Hill seem bent on self-destruction when it comes to climate change...

Go here to read the rest.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:52 AM

Politico Coverage of Our Poll

Cesar Conda has covered our energy and climate poll of African-Americans in his blog on Politico.

Thanks to Cesar for the coverage!

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Media, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:14 AM

Poll Shows: Black Americans Prefer Delaying Action on Climate Change; Want Economy Fixed First

76% of African-Americans want Congress to make economic recovery, not climate change, its top priority, says a poll just released by the National Center for Public Policy Research.

The U.S. House of Representatives is planning a vote today on the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill.

The legislation, if adopted, is expected to reduce aggregate GDP by $7.4 trillion in an effort to reduce global warming, based on a Heritage Foundation analysis.

The survey of 800 African-Americans, 80% of which were self-identified Democrats and 4% self-identified Republicans, found significant concern that government action on climate change would have a harmful and disproportionately negative impact on the African-American community.

Among the key findings:

* 38% believe job losses from climate change legislation would be felt most strongly in the black community. 7% believe job losses would fall most on Hispanics and 2% on whites;

* 56% believe Washington policymakers have failed to adequately consider economic and quality of life concerns of the black community when addressing climate issues;

* 52% of respondents don't want to pay more for gasoline or electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 73% are unwilling to pay more than 50 cents more for a gallon of gas; 76% are unwilling to pay more than $50 more per year for electricity;

* Black Americans are virtually deadlocked on plans to reduce emissions if it would increase prices and unemployment. 44% opposed reductions under these circumstances, 45% supported them.

* 76% want Congress to make economic recovery the top priority.

The survey was conducted by Wilson Research Strategies and has a margin of error of +/- 3.4%. The questions we asked, plus summary materials, can be viewed at: http://www.nationalcenter.org/BlackOpinion.html.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Polls, Race, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:29 AM

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Chuck Schumer's Hypocrisies

Climate Depot unveils two shocking examples of hypocrisy by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) when it reports that global warming zealot Schumer is seeking federal aid for New York farmers because below-average temperatures are affecting crop yields.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Hypocrisy #1: Schumer has been co-sponsoring climate legislation that would have immense negative economic effects on the American public, supposedly in the interest of preventing global warming. So now he wants to hit up the taxpayers because it's too cold?

Hypocrisy #2: To hear him tell it, Schumer is extremely worried about farmers in New York who lost crops due to below-average temperatures. Federal funds are needed, he says, to mitigate the damage of nature: "We must provide immediate assistance after the unusually low temperatures that destroyed... crops and profits for the season."

But does Schumer do anything when federal laws -- federal laws he supports, such as the Endangered Species Act -- restrict vital water to farmers in the San Joaquin Valley, causing what one California Congressman, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D), called a "Dust Bowl migration," as thousands of families are moving away from his district, thanks to unemployment nearing 50 percent in some communities.

Schumer calls upon the federal government to act immediately when nature hurts the farmers of his state, but when policies he ardently supportS hurt the farmers of California, he just doesn't care.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Endangered Species, Liberals, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Friday, June 19, 2009

Chaos on Capitol Hill

Roll Call reports that negotiations over climate legislation among Democrats on Capitol Hill blew up last night.

This mimics the disorder among members of the Congressional majority on health care. CNN reported today that that the Democrats' plans to advance government's role in health care may be "on the rocks"; that's our sense of things as well.

Believers in a free market should not become overconfident, however; the left still holds most of the cards, and it has shown in the past that it is willing to pass nearly anything, as long as it is left-wing and/or shovels tax money to groups and individuals allied with the left. The Congressional majority will gladly pass bad, even horrendous, bills on climate and health care (indeed, from what I can see, they are only considering horrendous bills), so the odds against our team remain high.

That said, I'm amazed at the incompetence and lack of discipline going on in leftist ranks on the Hill. Congressional liberals were mostly out of power from 1995-2007 (House liberals were the entire time). They wanted to curb our use of energy and increase government's role in health care decisionmaking during that entire period, so why did they not get together and make plans? Work out drafts and get those drafts scored?

The Republican majority in Congress had its problems, but it sure hit the ground running in 1995.

This makes no sense to me.

P.S. One possibility just occurred to me. Possibly the environmental groups, with their hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, did not expend enough effort to get folks together on their version of climate heaven because they figure, if a climate bill passes, they wouldn't be able to do fundraising on global warming anymore. That's just a guess on my part, though. Could be they've just been incompetent.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:46 PM

Thursday, June 18, 2009

CWRA's Chances of Passage

Senator James Inhofe believes it is doubtful the the Clean Water Restoration Act will pass the full Senate.

I am a bit less sanguine, but readily acknowledge his superior familiarity with the Senate.

Here's hoping he's right.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:40 PM

CWRA Approved by Senate Committee, As Expected

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Clean Water Restoration Act by a party-line vote this morning.

This was expected.

Prospects for CWRA on the Senate floor are less predictable. It could go either way, although the left appears to have an advantage given 1) its control of Congress, and 2) the limited public attention (even from conservative media) the onerous provisions of this massive bill are receiving.

On a more positive note, excluding the bigger-the-government-the-better crowd, the more Americans look at this bill, the less they like it. And why would they like it? Who wants to get a federal permit, or the very least have to investigate whether they need a federal permit, just to landscape their own back yards?

It is not as though the original Clean Water Act, which is a powerful law by anyone's definition, has been repealed or expired. We don't need CWRA to have clean water.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:58 PM

Inhofe on CWRA

Senator James Inhofe's opening statement on CWRA from the hearing is a useful addition to the debate.

I hadn't previously realized the National Association of Realtors and had come out against the bill (perhaps I should stop reviewing the environmental groups' propaganda sheets, which often claim only right-wing dirty water lovers oppose CWRA).

An excerpt from Senator Inhofe's statement:

I see this bill as a significant part of a hostile agenda aimed squarely at rural America. Whether it’s new energy taxes from cap-and-trade legislation or more unfunded environmental mandates, it’s clear that this bill is yet one more raw deal for rural America.

Allowing EPA and the Corps to exercise unlimited regulatory authority over all inter- and intrastate water, or virtually anything that is wet, goes too far and is certainly beyond anything intended by the Clean Water Act. But, that is what S. 787 does. It vastly expands Federal control of private property, despite assurances contained in S. 787. In fact, the very premise of the bill is to override a State’s fundamental right to oversee waters within its borders and to usurp the power of land owners to manage their property as they see fit. The Constitution never envisioned federal jurisdiction being boundless; it carves out room for state and local governments and private property owners to manage their resources.

Two of my Republican colleagues have filed amendments to S. 787, which highlight some very legitimate concerns with the bill. I have chosen not to try and amend the bill because, frankly, I don’t think this bill is fixable. Allow me to just briefly list some of the groups that have expressed concerns with this bill that are not covered by any the amendments filed today: The Associated Builders and Contractors, the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, the American Forest and Paper Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of REALTORS, the American Highway Users Alliance, the American Association of Airport Executives, and the list goes on for about 14 pages...

Senator Inhofe's statement on CWRA should be read in its entirety.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:56 PM

Pop Quiz on the Clean Water Restoration Act

1) Which two states hate the Clean Water Restoration Act so much, their legislatures actually passed resolutions urging the Congress not to enact it?

A. Texas and Oklahoma
B. Georgia and Alabama
C. Washington and Oregon
D. Idaho and Montana
C. Rhode Island and Massachusetts

2) Which of the following groups oppose the Clean Water Restoration Act?

A. National Association of Counties
B. National Cattlemen's Association
C. American Farm Bureau
D. National Association of Home Builders
E. All of the above

3) Which is more accurate:

A. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, was intended to cover all waters in the United States, but the U.S. Supreme Court limited its scope. The Clean Water Restoration Act would simply restore the original scope of the Clean Water Act.

B. The original Clean Water Act, which remains in effect, limited federal authority to "navigable" waters of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this definition. The Clean Water Restoration Act would expand federal authority beyond navigable waters to virtually every drop of water in the United States, including water on private property.

Answer to 1: D - Idaho (House and Senate) and Montana (Senate).
Answer to 2: E
Answer to 3: B

If you didn't get 3-out-of-3, visit our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Quote of Note: Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters

"For years, the 1972 Clean Water Act has been misused in the name of protecting America's waters and wetlands. The statute’s original limitation that its key provisions only apply to navigable waters was largely ignored. Instead, the law was broadly applied to a wide variety of circumstances, including remote and inconsequential drainage ditches or temporary puddles and even to completely dry land.

The statute’s complex and costly provisions interfered with the economic use of the lands it encompassed, including farming and ranching operations, construction of housing and other buildings, and domestic oil and gas production.

Fortunately, two Supreme Court decisions, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States in 2001, and Rapanos v. United States in 2006 partially reined in these excesses.

Now, the CWRA seeks to overturn these Supreme Court decisions and make the statute more expansive than ever. In fact, it would turn the Clean Water Act into what some analysts believe to be the most dangerous federal intrusion on private property rights in existence..."

-Ben Lieberman, "The Clean Water Restoration Act Means Troubled Waters For Property Owners," Heritage Foundation The Foundry blog, June 17, 2009

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:32 PM

"The Biggest Bureaucratic Power Grab in a Generation"

If you haven't visited the National Center for Public Policy Research's new Clean Water Restoration Act Information page (or even if you have), you can get a good 2 1/2 minute summary of CWRA from Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) from the video above.

Senator Inhofe starts the video with "Rural America, watch out!" and goes on to call CWRA "the biggest bureaucratic power grab in a generation."

If you have a blog or web page yourself, please consider posting this video. Although few people have heard of this bill, Senator Inhofe is not exaggerating about its scope.

It's important that people become educated about CWRA -- the issue is that big.

P.S. Our Clean Water Restoration Act Information page provides links to addition information about CWRA from a variety of sources.

The legislation is scheduled for a vote in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee June 18.

Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Land, Liberals, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:09 AM

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Obama Disses Kennedy

The White House is running away from Senator Ted Kennedy's health care reform bill, now that the bill is receiving adverse publicity.

I don't believe any of the liberal bills calling for an increase in the government's role in our health care system are a good idea for America, but I can't call myself impressed by the way the White House is dissing Kennedy here. Kennedy at least is man enough to put a bill out there.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:33 AM

Monday, June 15, 2009

CBO: Kennedy's Health Care Bill Would Increase Deficit by $1.0 Trillion from 2010-2019

The Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation staff released this evening (PDF) a "preliminary analysis" of Title I of the draft of the Affordable Health Choices Act, which was created by Democrats on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

The CBO/Joint Committee conclude:

...According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage...

The price tag is obviously the big news in this item, but the CBO/Joint Committee estimate that 15 million people would lose their employer-provided health insurance deserves some note.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:55 PM

Backyard Puddles to be Regulated by Feds?

The American Farm Bureau is reporting, correctly, that if the Clean Water Restoration Act (Senator Russ Feingold's S.787) becomes law, the federal government will claim the authority to regulate "all water" in the United States.

"S. 787 would remove any bounds from the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction, so that the regulatory reach of the act would extend to all water -- anywhere from farm ponds, to storm water retention basins, to roadside ditches, to desert washes, to streets and gutters, even to a puddle of rainwater," says a letter signed by the group.

Nearly two years ago, the groups's president, Bob Stallman, explained in more detail:

Since its enactment in 1972, the Clean Water Act has regulated “navigable waters,” or waters of the U.S. The proposed legislation would delete the term “navigable” and replace it with “all intrastate waters” and add confusing language allowing the federal government to regulate “activities affecting these waters.” Although technical and hard to get your head around, these terms, if interchanged, would pose serious consequences for most landowners.

The legislation would grant -- for the first time ever -- the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction over all wet areas within a state, including groundwater, ditches, pipes, streets, municipal storm drains and gutters. It would grant these same agencies -- for the first time ever -- authority over all activities affecting those waters, regardless of whether the activity is occurring in water or adds a pollutant. With unfunded mandates, this slippery slope takes away power from state and local jurisdictions, shifting the control to the federal government for development and use of local land and water resources.

What does this mean for the typical residential landowner? Likely, a lot of hassle, expense and time spent in court. The legislation clearly states "all waters." Those of you with farm, stock and even goldfish ponds – beware.

The legislation is scheduled to be voted upon in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

The National Center for Public Policy Research has a Clean Water Restoration Act Information webpage here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Land, Property Rights

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:39 AM

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Raising Taxes By the Mile

Project 21's Ak'Bar Shabazz has an op-ed opposing a new federal tax on driving in Sunday's Washington Examiner.

It begins:

During the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama endeared himself to many voters with a promise that 95 percent of Americans would get a tax cut and those making under $250,000 "would not see a single dime of tax increase - not on anything."

Since Obama won and he's already spent so much, it was only a matter of time before his pledge went by the wayside. First came new taxes on tobacco to pay for middle-class kids' health care.

Now Rep. James Oberstar, D-MN, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wants a vehicle mileage tax (VMT) imposed on every vehicle. And he wants it right away.

When a colleague suggested state-level pilot programs to test the feasibility of the tax, Oberstar replied: "It's going to be done, it's something we have to do. Why not just move it along?" Oberstar hopes for a vote as early as June.

Obama's transportation secretary, former Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood, promoted a VMT back in February. Although the White House backed off LaHood's trial balloon then, Congress may now try to ram it down Americans' throats...

Read the rest here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Project 21, Radio, Taxes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:18 PM

Clean Water Restoration Act Information Webpage Created

The National Center for Public Policy Research has created a webpage with links to resources about the Clean Water Restoration Act.

The page has links to resources about CWRA published not only by the National Center, but by a variety of other organizations as well. If you are a columnist, blogger, speaker or talk show host planning to address the issue, you will find plenty of useful information on the page.

As National Center Senior Fellow R.J. Smith noted below, the legislation is scheduled for a markup and vote in the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee on June 18.

You can visit the page here.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:05 AM

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Clean Water Restoration Act Scheduled for Senate Committee Vote June 18

An important message from National Center for Public Policy Research Senior Fellow R.J. Smith on the Clean Water Restoration Act, which is less about protecting our nation's waters and more about expanding the federal government's power to regulate private property.

From R.J. Smith:

I received an email at 11:05 p.m. last night from Senate Environment and Public Works staff that Senator Barbara Boxer and company are going to bring the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) up for full committee mark-up and vote in their Thursday 18 June business session scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in the EPW Hearing Room, 406 Dirksen.

This is Senator Russ Feingold's S.787, which was introduced on April 2.

With the Democrats having nationalized the financial, banking and automobile industries -- bringing a strong layer of socialism to the key portions of the US economy -- they are now moving to nationalize the American land and water.

Under the Clean Water Act, the Federal government only had the authority to regulate "navigable waters" and control the discharge of pollutants and dredge and fill activities within those navigable waters.

The so-called Clean Water RESTORATION Act restores nothing. That is a hoax. Instead, it removes the restrictive and limiting terms "navigable" waters and unconstitutionally extends the Federal regulatory authority over ALL waters of the United States. This includes the driest desert areas that may only hold water for a few weeks a year during summer monsoon rains. And it includes completely isolated prairie potholes (small ponds and marshes) with no connection whatsoever to any other waters.

Furthermore, the bill will now prohibit ALL activities affecting all waters of the United States. This means that anything a landowner, a business, a county roads department, a waterfowl conservation program undertakes that could conceivably affect anything that is wet -- will be subject to the discretionary jurisdiction of Army Corps or EPA bureaucrats. They will then be able to make the lives of family farmers, ranchers, tree farmers, home builders -- almost anyone and everyone -- literally impossible. They will have the total power to force every farmer or rancher or ordinary business owner to run a gauntlet of permits, red tape, delays -- that will delay projects long enough and cost so much as to essentially shut down or bankrupt even the most necessary and innocuous projects.

There are copious examples of wetlands horror stories over the last 20 years in which people have been imprisoned and fined staggering amounts for simply building their own home, cleaning up dumps, or creating habitat for waterfowl. And that occurred under the CWA restrictions of "navigable waters" and prohibitions only on discharging pollutants and dredge and fill activities.

Once those constraints are removed by the CWRA, life will quickly become a bureaucratic nightmare with no exit -- particularly so throughout all of rural America. This bill would be much more honestly named "The Rural Cleansing Act of 2009."

This will be a tough battle given that the E&PW Committee make up is 12 Ds and 7 Rs (which includes Senators George Voinovich and Lamar Alexander).

It is important that people who are concerned about this enlist the help of the agricultural community, especially county and state farm bureaus. They should notify not only the members of the Senate E&PW but also the Senate Agriculture Committee.

It is also vital to contact Rep. Collin Peterson Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and request that he ask for oversight hearings on the impact of the CWRA on America's farmers and the nation's food production.

They should also request that the farmers and ranchers they know and their county and state farm bureaus and cattlemen's associations contact the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, asking them to strongly oppose the CWRA.

Addendum (6/14/09): For more information on the Clean Water restoration act, please visit our new CWRA information webpage at http://www.nationalcenter.org/CWRA.html.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Environment, Government Power, Land, Property Rights, Regulation, Regulatory Victims

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:03 PM

Outrage of the Day: Pork in the Health Care Bill

A liberal crusade for decades has been the transfer of the U.S. health care system to government hands.

So when the liberals are about to make their most serious run at their cherished prize in 16 years, you'd think they'd leave the pork out of their bill, wouldn't you? Because pork in the bill is a turnoff for many voters, regardless of their position on government-run health care.

I thought so. I was wrong.

According to Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who is Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the bill released by the Democrats of said committee last week has plenty of work.

According to Enzi, the bill includes:

A "Community Makeover Program" to spend billions to "beautify" streets, up to $10 per person in selected communities;

A federal government program to build new sidewalks and bike paths, and put up street lights;

Financing of new grocery stores and farmers’ markets;

Mandate that a new Washington health police bureaucracy dictate what local restaurants can offer their customers; and,

Subsidizing community projects such as jungle gyms in parks.

The big-spenders are so addicted to pork, they can't keep it out of anything.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Outrage, Retirement

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:43 PM

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Game, Set and Match to the Heritage Foundation

The National Resources Defense Council has attempted to undermine the credibility of the Heritage Foundation's analysis on the cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade global warming bill.

The NRDC would have done itself a favor to stay home from work that day. Heritage's response to the critique so thoroughly nails the NRDC that all the NRDC has done is give the Heritage study more publicity.

For instance, in the second paragraph of its critique, the NRDC complains that the Heritage Foundation analysis of the cost of the Waxman-markey cap-and-trade bill fails to take into account the "cost of inaction," that is, the cost of the bad stuff that would happen if Waxman-Markey is not adopted.

HEL-LO! Anybody home, NRDC? Waxman-Markey, even in a best-case scenario, would have negligible, if any, impact on the climate. And the Heritage Foundation DID mention this, to whit, in the original study:

The impact of Waxman-Markey on the next generation of families is thousands of dollars per year in higher energy costs, over $100,000 of additional federal debt (above and beyond the unconscionable increases already scheduled), a weaker economy, and more unemployment. And all for a change in world temperature that might not be noticeable [emphasis added].

You don't need to take Heritage's word for it, or mine. Even prominent environmental organizations that agree with the NRDC about the global warming theory say Waxman-Markey would not (to their way of thinking) sufficiently affect the climate.

Optimists are saying Waxman-Markey might (believe me, nobody knows) lower world temperatures by half a degree celsius over 40 years or so.

If spending all that money isn't going to solve the alleged problem, then what's the point of spending the money?

By way of congratulations to Heritage, let's recap Heritage's conclusions...

If Waxman-Markey is adopted, by 2035:

The typical family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $1,500 per year.

Pain at the electric meter causes consumers to reduce electricity consumption by 36 percent. Even with this cutback, the electric bill for a family of four will be $754 more that year and $12,933 more in total from 2012 to 2035.

The higher gasoline prices will have forced households to cut consumption by 15 percent, but a family of four will still pay $596 more that year and $8,000 more between 2012 and 2035.

In total, for the years 2012-2035, a family of four will see its direct energy costs rise by over $24,000. These inflation-adjusted numbers do not include the indirect energy costs consumers will pay as producers are forced to raise the price of their products to reflect the higher costs of production. Nor does the $24,000 include the higher expenditure for such things as more energy-efficient cars and appliances or the disutility of driving smaller, less safe vehicles or the discomfort of using less heating and cooling.

As the economy adjusts to shrinking GDP and rising energy prices, employment takes a big hit. On average, employment is lower by 844,000 jobs. In some years cap and trade reduces employment by more than 1.9 million jobs.

The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. Waxman-Markey drives up the national debt 29 percent by 2035. This is 29 percent above what it would be without the legislation and represents an additional $33,400 per person, or more than $133,000 for a family of four. To reiterate, these burdens come after adjusting for inflation and are in addition to the $450,000 per family of federal debt that will accrue over this period even without cap and trade.

No wonder the NRDC was so desperate to try to undermine Heritage's credibility.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Energy, Environment, Media, Regulation

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:20 AM

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Barack Obama's Just Making Stuff Up

Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal writes: "Something's wrong when the president invokes a formula that makes it impossible for him to be wrong and it goes largely unchallenged."

Not quite. Two things are wrong. The White House shouldn't be making stuff up, and the media should be challenging the President over it.

Heck, according to the article, even the Democratic Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is exposing the White House on this. If liberal Democrats can do it, why can't the media?

I'm sure some reporters are too dumb to realize they're being lied to flat-out, but surely not all of them are idiots.

What's the point of us paying the price of a newspaper if the President can lie and the media doesn't notice?

Go to Bill McGurn's article for the full story.

P.S. If you don't have a Wall Street Journal subscription and you're wondering what President Obama made up, it's a fake figure for the number of jobs his so-called "stimulus" spending bill has "saved." As the article explains, there's no measurement for anything like that. The White House had to have made it up.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Jobs, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:16 AM

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Quote of Note: Obama on the Need for Justices to Have "Empathy"

"...while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

"In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart."

-Barack Obama, Senate Floor Speech on the Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, September 2005

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Quotes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:16 AM

Quote of Note: Obama on the Senate's Advise and Consent Role

"As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

"I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record..."

-Barack Obama, Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, Jr., January 26, 2006

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Quotes, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:02 AM

Monday, June 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Political Decisionmaking at Government Motors

From "Lawmakers Seek to Influence Plant Locations" by Neil King, Jr. and Kate Linebaugh for the June 2 Wall Street Journal:

The Obama administration has said repeatedly that it won't use its majority stake in General Motors Corp. to meddle in the company's daily affairs. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill aren't being so shy.

The areas of potential concern to lawmakers range from proposed plant and dealership closings to longer-term plans for more fuel-efficient cars. And key elected officials are already promising to weigh in even as President Barack Obama and his aides say they will shield GM from outside pressure.

"I think members will express themselves for sure. We should do that," said Rep. Sandy Levin, a Michigan Democrat whose district lies just north of Detroit. "We should express the interests of our constituents."

...Lawmakers have already shown they have muscle with GM, and they aren't likely to back off now. Members of the Michigan delegation rebelled last month when word got out that GM, post-bankruptcy, planned to boost its imports of cars made at GM factories in China. As a result, GM agreed as part of its talks with the United Auto Workers union to reopen two idled plants by 2011 to manufacture as many as 160,000 compact cars a year.

Rep. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat whose district north of Detroit includes three plants set to cease production, is one of many lawmakers in the region who want the refitted plants in their backyard.

He has backing from Democratic Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who said Monday that she is going to be "aggressive" about trying to snare a facility that will help keep some automotive jobs in the state, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Ms. Granholm, besides countless television appearances pleading for aid, has made about a dozen trips to Washington to meet with Mr. Obama, the president's automotive task force and dozens of other officials...

"I think where GM builds its next plant is going to be more of a political decision than a business decision," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra, a Republican from western Michigan. "For the foreseeable future, these car companies will be run by the Obama administration, and it will not be arm's length."...

Lawmakers care about their own prominence and re-electability, not profitability. They are not going to run General Motors successfully. Mostly (as is obvious from the priorities stated by the Congressmen in the article above, and by such things as the adoption of legislation forcing automakers to meet unrealistic and anti-family mileage standards), they aren't even going to try.

General Motors didn't stay competitive. Even hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars won't change that fact.

If the U.S. government actually wanted to help the domestic car business, Congress and the Administration would repeal mileage standards (which kill Americans as well as car companies), stop pro-union public policies and get the government out of car company management and ownership immediately.

The government isn't doing any of those things.

E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's feed.

Labels: Business, Congress, FreeEnterpriseProject, Jobs, Outrage, Socialism, White House

Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:00 PM

Important Links

About Amy Ridenour

About the National Center

Featured from our Blogroll

Historic Documents

Archives

Highlighted Project

Fine print

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Hear the Borellis Speak on Cap-and-Trade at Harrisburg Tea Party Event This Saturday

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

A Bush By Any Other Name

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Health Care Rally Photos

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"

Monday, October 19, 2009

Medicare Confusion

Thursday, October 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Radio Day!

Friday, October 02, 2009

Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest

What's Happening Now

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Project 21's Bob Parks Discusses Health Care Policy on BET Special This Sunday

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore

Monday, September 21, 2009

A Vision of Health Care Reform that Works

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Has the Congressional Black Caucus Ever Been Polled on the Slavery Question?

Thursday, September 17, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Reality Check

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Project 21's Kevin Martin Rebuts Obama Health Care Address

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

100 Stories of Personal Struggles with the Health Care System You Won't Hear from President Obama

Steve Milloy on O'Reilly Factor Discussing Relationship Between GE, NBC and White House

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Outrage of the Day: ObamaCare Would Tax Some Workers So Others Could Retire Early

Senate Finance Crazy Talk

Saturday, September 05, 2009

What's Happening Now

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Don't Give the Speech, Mr. President

Does Charlie Rangel Think We Opposed Government-Run Health Care When Hillary Clinton Proposed it Because She's White?

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Dear President Obama: Please Read This

Outrage of the Day: A Rockefeller Questioning Profits

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

What's Happening Now

What's Happening Now

Monday, August 17, 2009

Is Obama Really Dropping the So-Called Public Option? Not a Chance

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

If You Don't Care Enough About Policy to Know Better Than This, Why Didn't You Go Into Another Line of Work?

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Pelosi and Hoyer Declare War... On Themselves

Monday, August 10, 2009

Pelosi and Hoyer: "'Un-American' Attacks Can't Derail Health Care Debate"

Obama/DNC Health Care Operation Urges Congressional Visits

Saturday, August 08, 2009

What's Happening Now

Obama Wants His Party to Shut Up?

Project 21 Members Come Out Swinging Against Krugman Racism Allegation

Friday, August 07, 2009

More Beer at White House? Not Likely

Not All Senators Are Treated Alike

Thursday, August 06, 2009

What's Happening Now

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

What's Happening Now

Saturday, August 01, 2009

Outrage of the Day: Congress, Administration Hurt People, Rip Off Taxpayers to Buy People Cars

Thursday, July 30, 2009

For Release: July 23, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110x11

For Release: July 22, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or dalmasi@nationalcenter.org

For Release: June 29, 2009
Contact: David Almasi at 202/543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org