Political correctness is any doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, that holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.
2011-02-11
2011-02-03
How To Repeal ObamaCare
How to repeal ObamaCare
Posted By kbh On February 2, 2011 @ 10:39 am
Senate Minority Leader McConnell will offer an amendment to repeal the health care laws. Senate Democratic leaders and the White House are taking a “Move it along, nothing to see here” approach. They correctly point out that, even if Senator McConnell holds all 47 Republicans, as appears likely, he cannot reach the 60 vote threshold he would need to waive a budget point of order that will be raised against his amendment by Democrats. If such a point of order did not exist, Republicans would still need 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of a repeal amendment, and there’s no way they can get to 60.
Is Senate Majority Whip Durbin therefore correct, when he dismisses the McConnell amendment [1] as a meaningless political stunt?
At the moment Democrats are hanging their hat on the CBO-scored deficit reduction associated with the two laws. This CBO score means that a straight repeal amendment faces a Budget Act point of order and therefore needs 60 votes to succeed. If Republicans were in 2013 to try to repeal the laws as-is, CBO would score them with increasing the deficit. That’s not impossible to do through reconciliation, but it’s a trickier path.
Still, this is a solvable problem. The best policy way to address this would be to leave some (most?) of the Medicare savings in place, and not repeal them. I’d also favor leaving the “Cadillac tax” on high cost health plans in place.
I think Republicans would be unlikely to choose this path, because it would disrupt their clean policy message and legislative strategy to repeal all of ObamaCare. If I’m right, they could include in the reconciliation bill other spending cuts that more than offset the CBO-scored deficit increase. Technically, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman could also overrule CBO scoring, but why give Democrats the rhetorical advantage of a perceived process abuse? Republicans correctly insist that we need to slow spending growth, and they could here turn a tactical disadvantage into a legislative opportunity to further cut spending.
DC Democrats are right that repeal won’t happen this week, even with a Republican House. They should worry, though, because there is a clear and achievable path to repeal just two years from now, and the McConnell amendment moves down that path.
Is Senate Majority Whip Durbin therefore correct, when he dismisses the McConnell amendment [1] as a meaningless political stunt?
“These Republicans are duty-bound to offer this repeal amendment,” Durbin told reporters. “They did it in the House; they’re going to do it in the Senate; and we’ll just deal with it.”Leader McConnell is undoubtedly thinking longer term. The path to repeal is straightforward and, while difficult, achievable:
- Keep up the pressure in 2011 and 2012:
- maintain and strengthen Republican unity toward full repeal;
- repeatedly attack the bill legislatively on all fronts, knowing that most votes will pass the House and fail in the Senate;
- continue legal pressure through the courts; and
- tee up repeal as a key partisan difference in the 2012 Presidential and Congressional elections;
- In 2012 win the White House, hold the House majority, and pick up a net 3 Republican Senate seats to retake the majority there; and
- In 2013, use reconciliation to repeal ObamaCare, requiring only a simple majority in the Senate.
At the moment Democrats are hanging their hat on the CBO-scored deficit reduction associated with the two laws. This CBO score means that a straight repeal amendment faces a Budget Act point of order and therefore needs 60 votes to succeed. If Republicans were in 2013 to try to repeal the laws as-is, CBO would score them with increasing the deficit. That’s not impossible to do through reconciliation, but it’s a trickier path.
Still, this is a solvable problem. The best policy way to address this would be to leave some (most?) of the Medicare savings in place, and not repeal them. I’d also favor leaving the “Cadillac tax” on high cost health plans in place.
I think Republicans would be unlikely to choose this path, because it would disrupt their clean policy message and legislative strategy to repeal all of ObamaCare. If I’m right, they could include in the reconciliation bill other spending cuts that more than offset the CBO-scored deficit increase. Technically, the Senate Budget Committee Chairman could also overrule CBO scoring, but why give Democrats the rhetorical advantage of a perceived process abuse? Republicans correctly insist that we need to slow spending growth, and they could here turn a tactical disadvantage into a legislative opportunity to further cut spending.
DC Democrats are right that repeal won’t happen this week, even with a Republican House. They should worry, though, because there is a clear and achievable path to repeal just two years from now, and the McConnell amendment moves down that path.
Repeal ObamaCare
Senate Democrats Block ObamaCare Repeal, Concede on 1099 Repeal
The Senate Democrats voted in a bloc against the repeal of ObamaCare, putting those members up for reelection in 2012 in a more vulnerable position politically. In an attempt at political cover, the Democrats voted in favor of repealing the law’s 1099 provision, which has overburdened small businesses.
The “McConnell Amendment,” which is the House-passed legislation for ObamaCare repeal, failed by a vote of 47 to 51 this evening. Senators Mark Warner (D.-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) did not vote.
“We promised the American people we would have a vote in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare. We just had that vote. Every single Republican voted to repeal. Every single Democrat voted to retain to the 2,700-page Washington takeover of our health care,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) at a press conference after the vote.
During much of the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and McConnell stood alone in the center aisle talking. McConnell’s arms were crossed during most of their conversation, and Reid attempted to walk away several times.
Immediately following the vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) sent out 12 separate press releases targeting the the most vulnerable Democrats in 2012 for their vote against repealing ObamaCare.
“As they prepare to face voters in 2012, Senate Democrats will have a very tough time explaining why they once again chose to prioritize President Obama’s costly, unpopular health care overhaul over the best interests of seniors and small businesses in their states,” said NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh.
The press releases were sent to the media and grassroots groups in the states of these Democrats: Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.).
The releases were similar to this one sent to groups in Missouri. “Just two days after a second federal judge struck down the Democrats’ costly, unpopular health care overhaul as ‘unconstitutional,’ liberal U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) voted to oppose repealing the law, preserving its individual mandate, $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and $570 billion in tax hikes.”
Walsh also said, “Whatever election-cycle posture they adopt in the wake of this vote, it’s clear that voters will hold these and other Democrats accountable at the polls next year.”
Reid surrendered to McConnell’s demand that the Senate vote on ObamaCare repeal only after a Florida court ruled on Monday that the health care law was unconstitutional.
McConnell took to the Senate floor this morning to put pressure on the Democrats—who jammed the bill through on Christmas Eve a year ago—to now vote to repeal it.
“The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea, that it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so. Job creators say so,” said McConnell. “It's time for those who passed this bill to show that they've noticed.”
The Democrats spent the day on the Senate floor trying to defend their beloved health care law, saying it does everything from lowering the deficit (by not spending $1.2 trillion?) to improving patient care (by the government taking over your health care?).
At one point, Reid spoke on the floor using fictitious poll numbers. “Republicans are fighting to repeal the health reform law, ignoring the 80% of Americans who want them to leave it alone,” he said.
Reid did not cite the source for his 80% statistic, but other polls put the number of Americans who are against repealing at 40% (Gallup) to 42% (CNN).
Also this evening, the Senate passed a repeal of the section of ObamaCare that burdens small businesses with filing excessive 1099 tax forms. The vote for the amendment, sponsored by Stabenow, was 81 to 17. The House Ways and Means Committee will craft a similar bill, then the two chambers will work out a coordinated resolution to send to President Obama.
Although Reid scheduled the 1099 repeal passage as political cover for the vulnerable Democrats who were going to vote against full repeal, the vote was indicative of the larger failure of the law.
Less than a year after it went into effect, the Democrats have been forced to pass legislation to fix the job-killing bill that they jammed through.
“There is a victory today that we celebrate—to get rid of the 1099 requirement,” said McConnell after the vote. “So we’ve at least rolled back one of the egregious features of many in a 2,700 page law.”
The Democrats’ insincerity in wanting to repeal the 1099 burden was evident in that they actually stole their legislation from the Republicans.
Sen. Mike Johanns (R.-Neb.) spent almost a year pushing for repeal of the 1099 tax paperwork mandate. Last week, he announced that he had finally gotten 60 co-sponsors, enough to ensure passage of his bill.
Then this week, the Democrats took Johnanns’ amendment, changed six words, and introduced it as the “Stabenow Amendment.”
“It really is the same amendment,” Johanns said at a press conference after the vote. “I’m actually kinda flattered.”
“It turns out Sen. Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own,” said McConnell, mocking the Democrats’ plagiarism. “It’s not a bad precedent actually. We’ve got a lot of other good ideas that we’d be happy to share.”
McConnell also said after the vote that “this is just the beginning” of the Republicans efforts to repeal, defund, and replace ObamaCare.
Posted 02/02/2011 ET
The Senate Democrats voted in a bloc against the repeal of ObamaCare, putting those members up for reelection in 2012 in a more vulnerable position politically. In an attempt at political cover, the Democrats voted in favor of repealing the law’s 1099 provision, which has overburdened small businesses.The “McConnell Amendment,” which is the House-passed legislation for ObamaCare repeal, failed by a vote of 47 to 51 this evening. Senators Mark Warner (D.-Va.) and Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) did not vote.
“We promised the American people we would have a vote in the Senate to repeal ObamaCare. We just had that vote. Every single Republican voted to repeal. Every single Democrat voted to retain to the 2,700-page Washington takeover of our health care,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) at a press conference after the vote.
During much of the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and McConnell stood alone in the center aisle talking. McConnell’s arms were crossed during most of their conversation, and Reid attempted to walk away several times.
Immediately following the vote, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) sent out 12 separate press releases targeting the the most vulnerable Democrats in 2012 for their vote against repealing ObamaCare.
“As they prepare to face voters in 2012, Senate Democrats will have a very tough time explaining why they once again chose to prioritize President Obama’s costly, unpopular health care overhaul over the best interests of seniors and small businesses in their states,” said NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh.
The press releases were sent to the media and grassroots groups in the states of these Democrats: Jon Tester (Mont.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Jim Webb (Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), and Jeff Bingaman (N.M.).
The releases were similar to this one sent to groups in Missouri. “Just two days after a second federal judge struck down the Democrats’ costly, unpopular health care overhaul as ‘unconstitutional,’ liberal U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.) voted to oppose repealing the law, preserving its individual mandate, $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and $570 billion in tax hikes.”
Walsh also said, “Whatever election-cycle posture they adopt in the wake of this vote, it’s clear that voters will hold these and other Democrats accountable at the polls next year.”
Reid surrendered to McConnell’s demand that the Senate vote on ObamaCare repeal only after a Florida court ruled on Monday that the health care law was unconstitutional.
McConnell took to the Senate floor this morning to put pressure on the Democrats—who jammed the bill through on Christmas Eve a year ago—to now vote to repeal it.
“The case against this bill is more compelling every day. Everything we learn tells us it was a bad idea, that it should be repealed and replaced. The courts say so. The American people say so. Job creators say so,” said McConnell. “It's time for those who passed this bill to show that they've noticed.”
The Democrats spent the day on the Senate floor trying to defend their beloved health care law, saying it does everything from lowering the deficit (by not spending $1.2 trillion?) to improving patient care (by the government taking over your health care?).
At one point, Reid spoke on the floor using fictitious poll numbers. “Republicans are fighting to repeal the health reform law, ignoring the 80% of Americans who want them to leave it alone,” he said.
Reid did not cite the source for his 80% statistic, but other polls put the number of Americans who are against repealing at 40% (Gallup) to 42% (CNN).
Also this evening, the Senate passed a repeal of the section of ObamaCare that burdens small businesses with filing excessive 1099 tax forms. The vote for the amendment, sponsored by Stabenow, was 81 to 17. The House Ways and Means Committee will craft a similar bill, then the two chambers will work out a coordinated resolution to send to President Obama.
Although Reid scheduled the 1099 repeal passage as political cover for the vulnerable Democrats who were going to vote against full repeal, the vote was indicative of the larger failure of the law.
Less than a year after it went into effect, the Democrats have been forced to pass legislation to fix the job-killing bill that they jammed through.
“There is a victory today that we celebrate—to get rid of the 1099 requirement,” said McConnell after the vote. “So we’ve at least rolled back one of the egregious features of many in a 2,700 page law.”
The Democrats’ insincerity in wanting to repeal the 1099 burden was evident in that they actually stole their legislation from the Republicans.
Sen. Mike Johanns (R.-Neb.) spent almost a year pushing for repeal of the 1099 tax paperwork mandate. Last week, he announced that he had finally gotten 60 co-sponsors, enough to ensure passage of his bill.
Then this week, the Democrats took Johnanns’ amendment, changed six words, and introduced it as the “Stabenow Amendment.”
“It really is the same amendment,” Johanns said at a press conference after the vote. “I’m actually kinda flattered.”
“It turns out Sen. Johanns did such an outstanding job raising awareness about the 1099 requirement that Democrats took the idea and are now claiming it as their own,” said McConnell, mocking the Democrats’ plagiarism. “It’s not a bad precedent actually. We’ve got a lot of other good ideas that we’d be happy to share.”
McConnell also said after the vote that “this is just the beginning” of the Republicans efforts to repeal, defund, and replace ObamaCare.
Why ObamaCare is a Really Bad Idea
Obamacare In Serious Condition
Posted By Brian Darling On February 2, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
A large number of Senators went on record tonight opposing ObamaCare. The House spoke on a bipartisan basis on a measure to fully repeal the President’s health care law by 56 votes last month. Just yesterday, a Florida federal court issued a decision declaring the individual mandate, and the whole law, unconstitutional. If one of the many cases challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare makes it to the Supreme Court, move the President’s health care reform law into critical condition.
Tonight, the Senate voted 47-51 on an amendment to repeal ObamaCare that was offered to S. 223 [1], the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. The amendment was offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The McConnell Amendment, SA 13 [2], would have repealed both the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-148) and the reconciliation measure containing provisions modifying the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-152). Both laws constitute the whole of ObamaCare.
The text of the McConnell repeal language in the amendment is below:
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) argued that this bill is tragically flawed because at the core of this law is an unconstitutional mandate that all Americans be forced to buy a product.
The judicial branch of the federal government is having their say and two federal courts have concluded that the individual mandate within ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida struck down ObamaCare because of the individual mandate yesterday.
Judge Vinson wrote [9] the following:
Conn Carroll [10] of The Foundry argues that this idea needs to be expunged from the law books.
Tonight, the Senate voted 47-51 on an amendment to repeal ObamaCare that was offered to S. 223 [1], the FAA Air Transportation Modernization and Safety Improvement Act. The amendment was offered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The McConnell Amendment, SA 13 [2], would have repealed both the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-148) and the reconciliation measure containing provisions modifying the ObamaCare bill (P.L. 111-152). Both laws constitute the whole of ObamaCare.
The text of the McConnell repeal language in the amendment is below:
SEC. X02. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.The Senate debate on this amendment touched on the subjects of the unconstitutional individual mandate [3], growing discontent [4] with the law and massive new regulations authorized by the law. Other Senators discussed free market alternatives to ObamaCare and the fact that companies with the best lobbyists are securingwaivers [5] for specific companies. The debate was an excellent view into the developing arguments for a full repeal of the President’s health care law.
(a) Job-Killing Health Care Law.–Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.–Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) argued that this bill is tragically flawed because at the core of this law is an unconstitutional mandate that all Americans be forced to buy a product.
We want full repeal of Obamacare for a very simple reason: the big problems with the bill, the big problems with the plan aren’t at the margin, they’re at the core. The big problems can’t be fixed with a perfecting amendment, the changing of a comma, changing punctuation, revising one or two or five or ten sentences. The big problems are at the core of the plan, starting with the mandate from the federal government, unprecedented, that every man, woman, and child in America needs to go into the market and buy a particular product. That’s why we demand repeal.Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it [6].” Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) responded to that point that now people are finding out what is in the bill, they don’t like it.
Since the passage and signing of the law by President Obama, the American people are finding out something new that is in the bill that they don’t like, and as a matter of fact, it turns out that members of the House and Senate who voted for Obamacare also did not know precisely what was in the bill and certainly did not anticipate the ramifications of this massive, ill-advised law.Senator John Ensign (R-NV) argued that the regulations are already overburdening the American people and have exploded to over six thousand pages.
I’ve printed off many of the regulations in the bill here before us today. Look at the size of this thing, and they’re not even close to being done writing the regulations. I challenge anybody with any company or any American to try to understand this bill and its regulations. It’s virtually impossible. It takes a team of lawyers and health care experts to even come close to understanding all the implications of this bill, according to my staff’s calculations, so far about 6,200 pages in regulations. This could go to at least 26,000 pages. I think it is safe to say the devil really is in the details with this health bill. The American people are going to learn more about the unintended consequences of this legislation as more and more of these regulations roll out.Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) argued for free market health care reform and discussed how Lasik eye surgery and the cost of contacts have gone down because of competition.
With regard to the specifics of the health care bill, there are some problems in health care. As a physician, I’ve seen some of the problems. You know what the number-one complaint I got? It was the expense of health insurance, the rising expenses. The federal takeover of health care did nothing for that; in fact it has increased expenses, you see premiums rising. When you see problems there are two directions to go…You could say: do we need more government or less government? From my perspective as a physician, I saw that we already had too much government involvement in health care. I saw that what we had going on limited competition. You need more competition in health care if you want to drive prices down. You need to allow insurance to be sold across state lines. You need to allow competition in prices. One of the surgeries that I did was lasik surgery, where you correct someone’s eyes so they don’t have to wear glasses. No insurance covers it. You think maybe this body will get together and force people to buy insurance for lasik surgery? You know what? Without government getting involved competition drove the prices down on lasik. The prices were driven down because the consumer was involved. The same way with contact lenses, you can buy a contact lens for $4, maybe $3. It used to be $20 or $30. Competition works.Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) pointed out that the Obama Administration has doled out 733 waivers for friends of the Obama Administration. DeMint argues that repeal would be a waiver for all Americans.
Many Americans will lose their health plans with Obamacare, but you can keep your health care plan if your union or company got one of the 733 Obamacare waivers so far. The waivers cover almost 2.2 million people. You can get your health care or you can keep it if you’re a member of the six chapters of the Service Employees International Union who got waivers and whose political action committee spent more than $27 million helping Barack Obama get elected, or if you’re one of the 8,000 members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union that got waivers. Their PAC spent millions in helping Obama and Democrats get elected. These are unions who supported cramming Obamacare down the throat of the rest of Americans. Even though labor unions represent less than 7% of the private work force, they have received 40% of the waivers. They don’t want the health care, they want other Americans to have it; they don’t want the health care that other Americans have to accept. Most Americans don’t play these political games. They don’t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ‘the great American waiver.’ Every Republican in the Senate is committed to repealing this bill. Every American gets a waiver when we repeal this billThe House passed H.R. 2 [7] on January 19, 2011 by a 245–189 vote. This bill is still on the Senate’s calendar after Senator McConnell used the provisions Rule 14 [8]to put the bill on the Senate’s calendar. McConnell still can move to proceed to that measure at anytime during this Congress. The vote today was not the last vote the Senate will have on a full repeal of ObamaCare.
The judicial branch of the federal government is having their say and two federal courts have concluded that the individual mandate within ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida struck down ObamaCare because of the individual mandate yesterday.
Judge Vinson wrote [9] the following:
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be ‘difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power’ and we would have a Constitution in name only.Judge Vinson sided with Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming to hold that “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” is unconstitutional.
Conn Carroll [10] of The Foundry argues that this idea needs to be expunged from the law books.
The United States economy, and the American people, cannot wait for the Supreme Court to render a final decision. Obamacare is not just a judicial question. It is a fundamental question about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we want an America of limited government and vibrant economic growth? Or do we want to move toward an unlimited European-style welfare state?Mike Franc [11], Vice President for Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation argues that the Obama Administration should listen to the Florida court and suspend ObamaCare.
Now, the White House faces a simple and straightforward choice: Will President Obama abide by a decision arrived at by a federal district court judge pursuant to all applicable federal procedural niceties, or, unilaterally ignore the rule of law, as he has done in the past? [12]Any way you look at the issue, ObamaCare is in serious condition with the American people, the federal judiciary and Congress. If President Obama does not take the many legal and political challenges to his unconstitutional health care law seriously, he may force the federal Courts and the Congress to take extraordinary measures to erase ObamaCare from the Federal Code. Hopefully cooler heads prevail on the President to do the right thing, listen to the American people, the courts and Congress – repeal ObamaCare right now.
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/02/obamacare-in-serious-condition/
URLs in this post:
[1] S. 223: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:S.223:
[2] SA 13: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/%7Er112sPuOYI:e16665:
[3] unconstitutional individual mandate: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/12/Why-the-Personal-Mandate-to-Buy-Health-Insurance-Is-Unprecedented-and-Unconstitutional
[4] discontent: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
[5] waivers: http://blog.heritage.org../?p=48101
[6] we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it: http://blog.heritage.org../2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/
[7] H.R. 2: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2:
[8] Rule 14: http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIV
[9] wrote: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3174287/Opinion%20-%202.pdf
[10] Conn Carroll: http://blog.heritage.org../2011/02/01/morning-bell-another-victory-on-the-road-to-repeal-3/
[11] Mike Franc: http://blog.heritage.org../2011/02/02/will-president-obama-abide-by-courts-decision-and-suspend-obamacare/
[12] as he has done in the past?: http://blog.heritage.org../2010/07/08/gulf-spill-update-gulf-states-suffer-under-de-facto-drilling-ban/
A Better Way To Do Healthcare
February 3, 2011
The Politics of Saving 'Granny'
Alice Rivlin and Paul Ryan have a bipartisan plan.
ObamaCare has recently been dealt three body blows. Speaker John Boehner pushed a bill to repeal it through the House. GOP leader Mitch McConnell will get to put Senate Democrats on record with a vote on repeal as well. And this week, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson declared the law unconstitutional.
The White House's reaction is dismissive. The nation doesn't want to "re-litigate" ObamaCare, we're told. So long as Mr. Obama sits in the Oval Office, repeal is going nowhere. The Supreme Court will uphold the law. And by 2012, health care will be a winning issue for Democrats.
I'm not so sure. Take the question of Granny. In a speech last Friday defending his health-care law's effect on seniors against GOP attacks, Mr. Obama said, "I can report that Granny is safe." She may not feel that way if she's one of the 700,000 seniors whose private Medicare Advantage insurance policy was not renewed last year because her insurance provider quit the business.
There will be more nonrenewals in 2011. This year's funding cuts to Medicare Advantage will be $2 billion; next year's will be $6 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate that half of those with Medicare Advantage policies—seven million seniors—will lose their coverage eventually. And 60% the doctors surveyed by the nonprofit Physicians Foundation said health-care reform would "compel them to close or significantly restrict" the number of patients in their practices, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid.
Granny's daughter, son and grandchildren are not all that safe, either. Providers such as Guardian Life and the Principal Financial Group are dropping their health-insurance businesses. And companies will be tempted to drop coverage for their employees and dump them onto the government's tab.
No taxpayer is safe, either. Last week Richard Foster, CMS's chief actuary, confirmed to Congress that ObamaCare's Medicare cuts couldn't be used to reduce both Medicare's unfunded liability and to pay for ObamaCare's expense. Since the Obama administration is relying on this double counting to rig the numbers, Mr. Foster's testimony was particularly damaging.
What the country most needs—and what the GOP must now advocate—is a fundamentally new approach to containing health-care costs.
The most promising model for Medicare comes from Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). Under their plan, starting in 2021 those turning 65 and going on Medicare would get a fixed contribution to use to purchase insurance, allowing them in many instances to keep their existing coverage. Consumers will be in charge.
Annual support would grow at the same yearly rate as the economy plus 1%. Medicare payments would be adjusted by income, geography and health risk. Poor seniors would get extra help for out-of-pocket expenses.
This bipartisan model builds on the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2003. This market- and competition-oriented experiment gave seniors a fixed sum they could use to purchase drug insurance coverage. In response, drug companies and insurance providers flooded the market with options that drove prices for consumers down.
Though more seniors signed up for the benefit, signed up quicker and used it more than expected, the program costs much less than estimated (the original Congressional Budget Office estimate was $552 billion for the first 10 years, but the estimated cost is now $385 billion). Competition and consumer choice are far more effective in containing costs than is bureaucratic price-setting.
We're at an unprecedented moment. The huge historic advantage Democrats have enjoyed on the health-care issue has evaporated. ObamaCare is increasingly less popular. Its unpopularity is up nine points in the last month, to 50%, in a Kaiser/Harvard survey. The public is now taking a close look at what the Republican Party might have to offer.
The Rivlin-Ryan alternative plan is bold and not without risk. Past efforts at entitlement reform haven't been successful. Having worked in the Bush White House during the 2005 Social Security battle, I know of what I speak. Still, the Rivlin-Ryan plan is right on substance. And unlike 2005, it may also be the right moment.
Thanks in good measure to Mr. Obama's profligacy, the entitlement crisis is no longer a vague, abstract concern. More and more Americans understand the current course leads to a disaster for the nation's finances. And so the public may be willing to go places and do things that in the past it may not have.
This is an unusual and fluid moment. My hunch is voters are more inclined than ever to reward the political party that addresses entitlement reform—and more inclined than ever to punish the one that fiddles while America's fiscal house burns.
The White House's reaction is dismissive. The nation doesn't want to "re-litigate" ObamaCare, we're told. So long as Mr. Obama sits in the Oval Office, repeal is going nowhere. The Supreme Court will uphold the law. And by 2012, health care will be a winning issue for Democrats.
I'm not so sure. Take the question of Granny. In a speech last Friday defending his health-care law's effect on seniors against GOP attacks, Mr. Obama said, "I can report that Granny is safe." She may not feel that way if she's one of the 700,000 seniors whose private Medicare Advantage insurance policy was not renewed last year because her insurance provider quit the business.
There will be more nonrenewals in 2011. This year's funding cuts to Medicare Advantage will be $2 billion; next year's will be $6 billion. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimate that half of those with Medicare Advantage policies—seven million seniors—will lose their coverage eventually. And 60% the doctors surveyed by the nonprofit Physicians Foundation said health-care reform would "compel them to close or significantly restrict" the number of patients in their practices, especially those on Medicare or Medicaid.
Granny's daughter, son and grandchildren are not all that safe, either. Providers such as Guardian Life and the Principal Financial Group are dropping their health-insurance businesses. And companies will be tempted to drop coverage for their employees and dump them onto the government's tab.
No taxpayer is safe, either. Last week Richard Foster, CMS's chief actuary, confirmed to Congress that ObamaCare's Medicare cuts couldn't be used to reduce both Medicare's unfunded liability and to pay for ObamaCare's expense. Since the Obama administration is relying on this double counting to rig the numbers, Mr. Foster's testimony was particularly damaging.
What the country most needs—and what the GOP must now advocate—is a fundamentally new approach to containing health-care costs.
The most promising model for Medicare comes from Clinton Budget Director Alice Rivlin and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wis.). Under their plan, starting in 2021 those turning 65 and going on Medicare would get a fixed contribution to use to purchase insurance, allowing them in many instances to keep their existing coverage. Consumers will be in charge.
Annual support would grow at the same yearly rate as the economy plus 1%. Medicare payments would be adjusted by income, geography and health risk. Poor seniors would get extra help for out-of-pocket expenses.
This bipartisan model builds on the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit passed in 2003. This market- and competition-oriented experiment gave seniors a fixed sum they could use to purchase drug insurance coverage. In response, drug companies and insurance providers flooded the market with options that drove prices for consumers down.
Though more seniors signed up for the benefit, signed up quicker and used it more than expected, the program costs much less than estimated (the original Congressional Budget Office estimate was $552 billion for the first 10 years, but the estimated cost is now $385 billion). Competition and consumer choice are far more effective in containing costs than is bureaucratic price-setting.
We're at an unprecedented moment. The huge historic advantage Democrats have enjoyed on the health-care issue has evaporated. ObamaCare is increasingly less popular. Its unpopularity is up nine points in the last month, to 50%, in a Kaiser/Harvard survey. The public is now taking a close look at what the Republican Party might have to offer.
The Rivlin-Ryan alternative plan is bold and not without risk. Past efforts at entitlement reform haven't been successful. Having worked in the Bush White House during the 2005 Social Security battle, I know of what I speak. Still, the Rivlin-Ryan plan is right on substance. And unlike 2005, it may also be the right moment.
Thanks in good measure to Mr. Obama's profligacy, the entitlement crisis is no longer a vague, abstract concern. More and more Americans understand the current course leads to a disaster for the nation's finances. And so the public may be willing to go places and do things that in the past it may not have.
This is an unusual and fluid moment. My hunch is voters are more inclined than ever to reward the political party that addresses entitlement reform—and more inclined than ever to punish the one that fiddles while America's fiscal house burns.
This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, February 3, 2011.
2011-01-27
Obama's Government in Review
January 27, 2011
Obama vs. Ryan: The Choice Is Clear
On Tuesday, Republicans offered an alternative to the president's big-government vision.
President Barack Obama's State of the Union address and Rep. Paul Ryan's Republican response offer competing visions of the country.
For Mr. Obama, it is business as usual. Sunny days are ahead if only government continues its spending binge. A year ago the euphemism was "stimulus." Now it is "investment." Most of his hour-long speech was a paean to liberal activism, as the president called for redoubling outlays on high-speed rail and "countless" green energy jobs. His single concrete proposal about cutting spending was a five-year freeze on nondefense discretionary outlays. This follows last year's call for a three-year freeze that was never enacted.
The president's proposal would save $400 billion over 10 years. But that is on a federal budget that's increased 25% in two years, raising government's share of GDP to 25% from roughly 20%.
Freezing government at the current record levels is insufficient. And to their credit, Republicans have proposed cutting $100 billion from this year's budget. This would save $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The GOP already made a $42 billion down payment on their $100 billion in cuts from the president's budget by deep-sixing the Democratic omnibus bill during the lame-duck session.
In its new poll this week, Resurgent Republic (a group I helped form) found that voters believe by 61% to 31% that the federal government should be "spending less to reduce [the] deficit" rather than "spending more to help [the] economy." Yet the president continues to believe that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity. This makes him look disconnected from spending, deficits and the debt—issues that most Americans now link to the nation's economic health.
Mr. Ryan's speech was a quarter the length of the president's, yet he devoted half again as many words (922) to the country's fiscal picture as did Mr. Obama (621). It was free of budget gimmicks, and he laid out in candid, unvarnished terms America's fiscal challenge.
By doing so, the Wisconsin congressman framed the discussion that will play out over the next year or two. He drew deeply from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to defend limited government. "Our nation is approaching a tipping point," Mr. Ryan said. "We still have time" to make vital changes, the Budget Committee chairman said, "but not much time." The challenge is about more than budgets and debt. It is about government's basic purposes and its role in our lives. If we don't act soon, the nature of American society will change in deep, lasting ways.
Mr. Ryan understands that the nation's fiscal imbalance cannot be repaired just by cutting nondefense discretionary spending (which makes up only $666 billion of this year's $3.5 trillion federal budget). More than $2 trillion of the budget consists of mandatory spending, and he knows that reforming these programs, especially Medicare, is the only path to fiscal sanity and economic growth. Otherwise America will face a crushing debt and huge tax increases.
Precisely when and how to reform and restrain mandatory spending remains to be seen—Mr. Ryan has his own ideas, outlined in his "Roadmap for America's Future." But the debate about the role and purpose of government has been joined in a way America hasn't seen in three decades.
Tuesday, Mr. Obama proclaimed the country was "poised for progress." In some anemic ways it is. But 142 million Americans were employed the day before Mr. Obama took office and 139 million are today. The total debt was $10.6 trillion before his inaugural and $14.2 trillion today. The time for blaming his predecessor passed long ago. Mr. Obama is the president and Americans increasingly expect him to act as such.
After Tuesday night's address, the president sent supporters an email about his speech. The subject line read "We Do Big Things" and the message was signed simply "Barack." The familiarity was touching, but the theme was misplaced. Tuesday's speech gave no evidence that Mr. Obama will do the big things this country needs in the next two years.
For Mr. Obama, it is business as usual. Sunny days are ahead if only government continues its spending binge. A year ago the euphemism was "stimulus." Now it is "investment." Most of his hour-long speech was a paean to liberal activism, as the president called for redoubling outlays on high-speed rail and "countless" green energy jobs. His single concrete proposal about cutting spending was a five-year freeze on nondefense discretionary outlays. This follows last year's call for a three-year freeze that was never enacted.
The president's proposal would save $400 billion over 10 years. But that is on a federal budget that's increased 25% in two years, raising government's share of GDP to 25% from roughly 20%.
Freezing government at the current record levels is insufficient. And to their credit, Republicans have proposed cutting $100 billion from this year's budget. This would save $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. The GOP already made a $42 billion down payment on their $100 billion in cuts from the president's budget by deep-sixing the Democratic omnibus bill during the lame-duck session.
In its new poll this week, Resurgent Republic (a group I helped form) found that voters believe by 61% to 31% that the federal government should be "spending less to reduce [the] deficit" rather than "spending more to help [the] economy." Yet the president continues to believe that we can borrow and spend our way to prosperity. This makes him look disconnected from spending, deficits and the debt—issues that most Americans now link to the nation's economic health.
Mr. Ryan's speech was a quarter the length of the president's, yet he devoted half again as many words (922) to the country's fiscal picture as did Mr. Obama (621). It was free of budget gimmicks, and he laid out in candid, unvarnished terms America's fiscal challenge.
By doing so, the Wisconsin congressman framed the discussion that will play out over the next year or two. He drew deeply from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to defend limited government. "Our nation is approaching a tipping point," Mr. Ryan said. "We still have time" to make vital changes, the Budget Committee chairman said, "but not much time." The challenge is about more than budgets and debt. It is about government's basic purposes and its role in our lives. If we don't act soon, the nature of American society will change in deep, lasting ways.
Mr. Ryan understands that the nation's fiscal imbalance cannot be repaired just by cutting nondefense discretionary spending (which makes up only $666 billion of this year's $3.5 trillion federal budget). More than $2 trillion of the budget consists of mandatory spending, and he knows that reforming these programs, especially Medicare, is the only path to fiscal sanity and economic growth. Otherwise America will face a crushing debt and huge tax increases.
Precisely when and how to reform and restrain mandatory spending remains to be seen—Mr. Ryan has his own ideas, outlined in his "Roadmap for America's Future." But the debate about the role and purpose of government has been joined in a way America hasn't seen in three decades.
Tuesday, Mr. Obama proclaimed the country was "poised for progress." In some anemic ways it is. But 142 million Americans were employed the day before Mr. Obama took office and 139 million are today. The total debt was $10.6 trillion before his inaugural and $14.2 trillion today. The time for blaming his predecessor passed long ago. Mr. Obama is the president and Americans increasingly expect him to act as such.
After Tuesday night's address, the president sent supporters an email about his speech. The subject line read "We Do Big Things" and the message was signed simply "Barack." The familiarity was touching, but the theme was misplaced. Tuesday's speech gave no evidence that Mr. Obama will do the big things this country needs in the next two years.
2011-01-26
2011 The State of the Union Heritage Reply
Reaction Roundup: Heritage Responds To The State Of The Union
Posted By Conn Carroll On January 25, 2011 @ 9:28 pm
More Change and Progress
What does the committed progressive do when the direction of history turns against them? That’s what seems to have happened between 2008 and 2010–between an election thought to be the next great leap forward in the movement of liberalism and another which seems to signal a popular rejection of just that claim. The Left had long maintained that big government is inevitable, permanent, and ever-expanding – the final form of “democratic” governance. But now the progressive transformation seems to have bogged down. Indeed, the Left’s beloved modern state seems at issue. The American people just haven’t bought in to the whole new New Deal. Now what?
Consolidate. For progressives, politics has always been seen as an ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change” and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo as we wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past,” he said at one point, referring to the fight over open homosexuality in the military. “It is time to move forward as one nation.” Look at what he said about “the new health care law”: he is eager to improve it, but “what I’m not willing to do is go back.” “So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.” Lock in progressive achievements and let’s move on.
Next, redefine what change means. Rather than transformative change (as in the old notion of ‘we are the change we have been waiting for’) it now turns out that “the world has changed,” driven by technology and competition. The new challenge is not to bring about change but to respond to change and “meet the demands of a new age.” What we can’t do is stand pat–a cut against conservatives using the phrase early progressives coined against their critics who wanted to “stand pat” rather than join the liberal surge. Today we must change to keep up with change.
President Obama said several times that we must “win the future.” Fine. Does anyone want to lose the future? But–and here he betrays his progressive principles and reconfirms that liberalism is the philosophy of government–it turns out that the key is more government “investment” in innovation, education and infrastructure. And more progressive government: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past.” We know what that means.
So: consolidate, meet the demands for change and win the future. There’s still hope: “We are poised for progress.”
- Matt Spalding
Still No Choice in Education
We agree with the president: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right.
In his address tonight, President Obama lauded his Race to the Top Program and continued to promote national standards. He also talked extensively about “investing” more in education, a clear indication that he plans to continue Washington’s education spending spree.
But conservatives have a better plan for improving education: The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) plan. A-PLUS would allow states to opt out of onerous federal programs such as those found within NCLB, and would allow state and local leaders to have more control over education dollars and decision-making.
The president’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight – a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.
- Lindsey Burke
Obamacare is Still Unconstitutional
Tonight, the President, defending his health care plan, stated “If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you.” Unfortunately, he did not express any concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. As Heritage has described here [3], the health care mandate is both unprecedented, and unconstitutional. A federal court in Virginia has already agreed, declaring the mandate unconstitutional, and a majority of states are challenging the mandate in court in Florida.
The mandate’s constitutional defect is a major problem for Obama’s offer to just modify the existing, ill-conceived bill, because as President Obama’s own Justice Department has argued in court, the mandate is so essential given the other requirements in the law that its elimination would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Tinkering around the edges will not fix the problems with this bill. A due respect for the Constitution and public opinion requires that the unprecedented overreaching of the mandate be corrected–and this will require complete repeal.
- Robert Alt
Social Security
The good news was that the speech included a reference to fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, President Obama’s laudable goal of finding a “bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations” was either empty rhetoric or showed a serious misunderstanding of what causes that program’s underfunding. His next sentence exempted everything that might improve future generations’ retirement security except raising taxes.
Not only does that make a bipartisan solution almost impossible, but the tax increases that he has discussed in the past don’t fix the problem. For instance, Social Security’s nonpartisan actuaries say that making every dollar or earnings subject to the payroll tax only delays the start of permanent deficits by 8 years from 2016 until 2024. Future retirees can still expect a more than 20 percent cut in their benefits. And those who would pay those higher taxes will see the huge increase in their marginal tax rates drain away dollars that could otherwise have been used to start small businesses.
The President’s approach ignores the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission. It also fails to recognize that Americans are living longer than ever, and that over 80 percent of those who reach retirement age are healthy enough to work a little longer if it means that they can avoid the 20 percent benefit cuts that will come otherwise. If he really wants a bipartisan solution to Social Security’s problems, this speech didn’t show it.
- David John
Repeal
Throughout the health care debate, the Heritage Foundation offered numerous ideas [4] for how to improve the health care system, including for those who are most in need.
Americans want health care reform, but not the kind enacted under the new health care law. They do not want to turn more power over their health care dollars or personal health care decisions to Washington bureaucrats. And, Congress cannot fix a health care law that is founded on a fundamentally flawed foundation. [5]
Real health care reform [6] is based on consumer-focused, market-based reforms that empower individuals by fixing the tax treatment of health insurance, transforming health care entitlement programs, and letting the states develop reforms that best meet the unique needs of their citizens through portability, choice and competition.
If the President is serious about American’s fiscal future, he would begin by repealing a health care law that adds a trillion dollars in new health care spending, stifles economic growth through a half a trillion in new taxes, burdens future generations with unknown costs, and undermines individual freedom through government mandates and regulations.
- Nina Owcharenko
Subsidies Don’t Create Jobs
In his state of the union address, President Obama dragged out a 50 year-old, cold-war poster child to paper over his proposal for a tried-and-failed energy/jobs policy. The rhetoric for his policy alludes to the Sputnik space race. Unfortunately, the reality promises a sputtering economy. Government bureaucrats and federal mandates are not the motivating force for innovation and job creation.
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation.
Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs.
After much hyped state subsidies of up to $76 million and after millions of dollars of federal subsidies Evergreen Solar is now shutting its factory in Massachusetts, laying off 700 workers, and moving production to China.
If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise only succeeds when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.
- David Kreutzer
The State of the Family
This evening’s State of the Union address was notably devoid of discussion of one of the issues that could be fairly characterized as “decades in the making,” the phrase President Obama used to introduce a litany of problems facing the country. Evidence continues to accumulate [7] that the persistence of problems like poverty and welfare dependency is strongly associated with the rise in the number of children born out of wedlock.
To a striking degree, the challenges of the federal budget are linked to and aggravated by the fracturing in family budgets brought on by the failure of families to form [8] and government policies that neglect the best adhesive to repair that fracturing – the bonds of marriage. The state of American families went unmentioned tonight but it is vital that this conversation, and its implications [9] for the State of the Union, happen with a new urgency at the national level.
- Chuck Donovan
Preserving Peace
The President said tonight that the nation must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle to be free are the men and women in uniform. President Obama was right to say that the country is united in support of those who serve and their families. As a result, he also rightly said that we must provide them the equipment that they need, care and benefits they’ve earned, and more.
The challenge in meeting this task of providing our all-volunteer force all the tools they need to succeed now and for the next 20 years is that the U.S. is slipping in this area, as well. The traditional margins of U.S. technological military superiority are declining across the board. These long-held “margins” are ingredients in U.S. military supremacy that have ensured that our forces are never in a fair fight. Indeed, during a recent trip to China, the Secretary of Defense said [10] that the Chinese “clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk.”
Let us truly recall the lessons of history in reversing the trend [11] of trying to seek a peace dividend when none exists. A decade of conflict and two decades of underinvestment have left the U.S. military too small and inadequately equipped to do everything being asked of these men and women. In July 2010, a bipartisan commission warned of a coming “train wreck” if Congress does not act quickly to rebuild and modernize the U.S. military. There is no quick or easy fix. Meeting the military’s full modernization requirements [12]
American Founders understood [13] that “the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.” As Thomas Paine warned, it would not be enough to “expect to reap the blessings of freedom.” Americans would have to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” Supporting freedom and defending the nation still requires public spending on the nation’s defense forces in both times of war and peace. As President George Washington asserted in his First Annual Message, delivered in 1790, the “most effectual means of preserving peace” is “to be prepared for war.” Congress and the President should recommit tonight to rebuilding America’s military and giving the best to those who serve.
- Mackenzie Eaglen
Tax Agenda Falls Short
President Obama acknowledged the two biggest tax issues holding back the economy and hampering our competitiveness: our inefficient individual income tax code and our high corporate tax rate. His desired remedies, however, fall short of what is needed.
The individual income tax code needs fundamental reform. It has become cluttered with too many credits, deductions, and exemptions that slow economic growth. The president did not lay out his vision for tax reform. For tax reform to become a reality leadership at the presidential level is vital. President Obama’s lack of thorough attention to the issue does not bold well for success in the near future.
The president revisited his old hobby horse: eliminating tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners. This was an odd inclusion in the speech since just a few weeks ago he signed a 2 year extension of those very tax cuts. And if tax reform does become a reality, the 2001/2003 tax cuts would be a non-issue.
On the corporate tax front the president was better but far from perfect. He rightly called for the rate to come down but only if Congress closes “loopholes” to offset the cost. Many of the provisions that are commonly referred to as loopholes are in fact justifiable deductions that help lessen the blow of the corporate tax systems’ other shortcomings like the taxation of income earned in foreign countries and the lack of ability for companies to immediately deduct the cost of capital investment. Getting rid of them will temper any benefit derived from a lower rate. The few loopholes that do exist would fall well short of making up the revenue from a rate cut. Spending should be cut to make sure the rate reduction does not add to the deficit.
The best tax recommendation the president made was the elimination of 1099 reporting requirements that are part of the healthcare law. These requirements will cripple small businesses should they ever go into effect.
The worst tax idea was the elimination of so-called subsidies for oil companies. These tax breaks allow oil companies to expense a portion of the huge upfront costs they incur for developing new oil sources. The specific provisions would not be necessary if the tax code rightly allowed all businesses to expense their capital investments. Taking them away from oil companies will increase the cost of oil for all Americans and be a step in the wrong direction for the tax code.
-Curtis Dubay
Denial on Deficits
On one vital point the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending — current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the Commission’s final report. The preamble to the report concluded [14]:
The President in short has turned his back on his own Commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to the Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.
-JD Foster
American Leadership
In the opening section of his address, the President referred to the need to “sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.” Those are certainly words that conservatives can endorse and respect, just as they will agree with his statement that America is “the first nation that was founded for the sake of an idea.” As Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed [15] “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, … a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
Unfortunately, this was not the creed that the President proclaimed in his speech. Instead of recognizing that the Founders wanted to limit the role of the federal government, the President continued on in the vein that has marked American politics for too many years: arguing that the needs of tomorrow demand more spending — the President now calls them “investments” — on programs that have already failed.
Laudably, the President called on Congress to pass the free trade area with South Korea; regrettably, he accompanied it with a reiteration of his promise to “only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs,” a pledge that, in the case of the agreement with South Korea, meant months of delay and special favors to organized labor in the U.S. automotive sector [16].
Laudably, the President twice noted the need for American leadership in the world. He even went so far as to claim that “American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.”
The source of this restoration, though, remained mysterious. In Iraq, the President noted, the war is ending — thanks to the surge strategy that the President opposed. America continues to disrupt Islamist plots — made by an enemy the President was unwilling even to name, in a war that, as the still-open Guantanamo prison testifies, has required him to rethink his presumptions.
In Afghanistan, the President reiterated the U.S. determination to win — and coupled it with a promise that “we will begin to bring our troops home” in July 2011. The New START treaty and the “reset” with Russia made predictable appearances — but nothing was heard about the fact that Russia is an autocracy that attacks, threatens, and subverts its neighbors, while at the same time it murders and imprisons opponents at home.
In the realm of foreign affairs, the only surprises came at the end of the President’s remarks, when he expressed solidarity with Southern Sudan, and explicitly said that “the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” Where is that support in Russia? In Iran? In China?
As Marion Smith wrote in his essay [17] on American leadership, “George Washington recommended a foreign policy of independence and strength, a policy that would allow America to ‘choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.’ ” What was missing from
the President’s address was any sense that both U.S. interests and our sense of justice ought not to be engaged only in the Tunisias of the world. The President’s emphasis on the value of American’s alliances was welcome. Too bad it was not balanced by a recognition that the U.S. also faces hostile regimes.
In an echo of President George W. Bush’s call in 2002 for “a balance of power that favors freedom” — a phrase much mocked at the time — President Obama called for “a world that favors peace and prosperity.”
Until the President accepts that prosperity flows from freedom, and that we will not advance the cause of peace by speaking only in abstractions about oppression in “some countries” and ignoring the flaws in the world’s multilateral institutions, all of us are not likely to move closer to that goal.
- Ted Bromund
President’s Budget Proposals Don’t Match the Rhetoric
President Obama asserted that “a critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” Yet he failed to offer any proposals that would significantly rein in escalating spending and deficits.
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 [18] levels.
Furthermore, only 12 percent of the federal budget would be affected by the President’s freeze proposal. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are truly driving long-term deficits [19] upward. Yet the President ignored nearly all entitlement reforms proposed by his own commission [20], and even stated opposition to any change in future Social Security benefits. Additionally, the President again defended his budget-busting trillion-dollar health care program.
Finally, President Obama sought to rehabilitate the reputation of runaway spending by renaming it “investment.” While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent [21] faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted [22] into earmarks, bike paths, and museums, or allocated to budget-busting transit [23] programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit – which is crowding out private investment – and should reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.
-Brian Riedl
1 Million Electric Cars Should Reach the Market When They’re Ready
In his address President Obama emphasized that [24] “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
How much more research and incentives do electric cards need? [25] We taxpayers have handed out billions for advanced battery vehicle manufacturing. We taxpayers foot the bill (from $2,500–$7,500, depending on the battery capacity) for every electric vehicle purchase. And we taxpayers help pay for the tens of millions of dollars the Department of Energy spends to study increased battery storage. Even so, the demand for electric vehicles is low because electric cars are prohibitively costly even with the lavish handouts.
One survey [26] found that the number of consumers interested in buying a hybrid vehicle dropped from 61 percent to 30 percent when they learned they would pay an additional $5,000 compared to a comparable vehicle with a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) Only 17 percent of those surveyed showed interest in buying a battery electric vehicle (BEV), and that number decreased to 5 percent when told a BEV would cost an additional $15,000 compared to the closest ICE-powered vehicle. Even after counting the gasoline savings you would reap from buying an electric vehicle, electric cars are still a bad investment [25]. A good sign for the viability of electric vehicles is when they won’t need the handouts from taxpayers.
President Obama also said in his address, “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution.”
The same is true with our vehicle fleet in the U.S. No one will know what it will look like 30 years from now, or even 4 years from now. So why is the government trying to dictate that market when it knows it can’t?
-Nick Loris
Free Enterprise vs Big Government
President Obama, in his speech tonight, rightfully identified the issue of competitiveness as a key for reviving the economy, and innovation as a vital ingredient in achieving that competitiveness. America can, as he said, out innovate the rest of the world. But his prescription for sparking that innovation and making America again a world leader is badly off-target. His model is Sputnik, and he prescribes economic NASAs as the solution. Washington would set the rules, define the parameters of the challenge. This is not the way the today’s economy works.
American entrepreneurs do not need grants from Washington in order to compete, they don’t need incentives from bureaucrats in order to compete. The Steve Jobs’ of the future are not applying for federal grants, or federal “challenges.” What they need is for Washington to get out of their way — to tax them less, regulate them less, and leave them alone. Yet, there was nothing in his remarks that provided hope that these burdens would be lifted anytime soon, save for a short reference to regulatory reform, and even that was hedged with defense of regulation. Until the need to free enterprise — rather than guide it — is addressed — the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans will remain leashed, and all the NASAs in the world will not improve our competitiveness
-James Gattuso
Energy “Investment”
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama pointed to the government investments that led to such commercial successes as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS (interestingly, he left out Tang). The implication is that more tax payer support would bring the same sort of innovation to the energy sector. This supposition is misleading.
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. People like former Secretary of Energy and Defense, Dr. James Schlesinger argued tirelessly for investment in GPS not because it would help him to find the nearest burrito bar but because he (and not many others at the time) understood the national security value of such a system. It was not until after the first Gulf War (when Americans witnessed the accuracy with which GPS could guide a vehicle to its destination) that entrepreneurs gained access to GPS signals. It was they that that commercialized that technology, not the federal government. In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it.
This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization, and to define the market.
That is not the right approach for the United States. We are a country abundant with natural resources and as the President correctly pointed out, “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovations.” Mr. President, you had me at “innovation.” Too bad you lost me after that.
-Jack Spencer
Obama’a Sputnik Moment
“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” declared President Obama in the State of the Union address. If he believes that, he probably should have studied his history and how President Eisenhower responded to Russia’s satellite launch—because Ike would not have endorsed anything like Obama’s prescription. In the wake of sputnik hysteria the Gaither commission argued [27] for an astronomical increase in spending to “catch-up” with the Soviets. Eisenhower knew that writing checks that the nation can’t cash is no way to make America more innovative. Ike declared you do not win a competition by “by bankrupting yourself…”
President Eisenhower’s reluctance to throw government and money at every problem was rooted in his distrust of Big Government. “Eisenhower was deeply concerned about the growth of the federal government and the systematic loss of state and local autonomy,” writes [28] Martin Medhurst, an expert on Ike’s rhetoric. “He was concerned about a government that spent more than it took in. …”
Eisenhower also understood that getting spending under control was about getting Washington’s priorities right. Ike did not want to needlessly throw money at anything, even defense(“[G]ood management dictates that we resist overspending as resolutely as we oppose under-spending, Ike declared), but he clearly understood that soundly funding defense had to be his first priority. Obama’s call of simply calling for not-cutting security spending is not enough – defense modernization is already underfunded and defense spending too inefficient [29] – Obama needs to buck up defense [30] even as he needs to do much, much more to reign in other government spending.
We did not hear that kind of commitment during the State of the Union address. Nor did we hear a president who is willing to get tough with all of America’s competitors in the same way Ike would. Instead, the Obama Doctrine [31] is still alive and well.
The State of the Union address was a pale shadow of what the nation should expect [32] from presidents who are responsible for providing for the common defense.
-James Carafano
What does the committed progressive do when the direction of history turns against them? That’s what seems to have happened between 2008 and 2010–between an election thought to be the next great leap forward in the movement of liberalism and another which seems to signal a popular rejection of just that claim. The Left had long maintained that big government is inevitable, permanent, and ever-expanding – the final form of “democratic” governance. But now the progressive transformation seems to have bogged down. Indeed, the Left’s beloved modern state seems at issue. The American people just haven’t bought in to the whole new New Deal. Now what?
Consolidate. For progressives, politics has always been seen as an ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change” and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo as we wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past,” he said at one point, referring to the fight over open homosexuality in the military. “It is time to move forward as one nation.” Look at what he said about “the new health care law”: he is eager to improve it, but “what I’m not willing to do is go back.” “So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.” Lock in progressive achievements and let’s move on.
Next, redefine what change means. Rather than transformative change (as in the old notion of ‘we are the change we have been waiting for’) it now turns out that “the world has changed,” driven by technology and competition. The new challenge is not to bring about change but to respond to change and “meet the demands of a new age.” What we can’t do is stand pat–a cut against conservatives using the phrase early progressives coined against their critics who wanted to “stand pat” rather than join the liberal surge. Today we must change to keep up with change.
President Obama said several times that we must “win the future.” Fine. Does anyone want to lose the future? But–and here he betrays his progressive principles and reconfirms that liberalism is the philosophy of government–it turns out that the key is more government “investment” in innovation, education and infrastructure. And more progressive government: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past.” We know what that means.
So: consolidate, meet the demands for change and win the future. There’s still hope: “We are poised for progress.”
- Matt Spalding
Still No Choice in Education
We agree with the president: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right.
In his address tonight, President Obama lauded his Race to the Top Program and continued to promote national standards. He also talked extensively about “investing” more in education, a clear indication that he plans to continue Washington’s education spending spree.
But conservatives have a better plan for improving education: The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) plan. A-PLUS would allow states to opt out of onerous federal programs such as those found within NCLB, and would allow state and local leaders to have more control over education dollars and decision-making.
The president’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight – a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.
- Lindsey Burke
Obamacare is Still Unconstitutional
Tonight, the President, defending his health care plan, stated “If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you.” Unfortunately, he did not express any concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. As Heritage has described here [3], the health care mandate is both unprecedented, and unconstitutional. A federal court in Virginia has already agreed, declaring the mandate unconstitutional, and a majority of states are challenging the mandate in court in Florida.
The mandate’s constitutional defect is a major problem for Obama’s offer to just modify the existing, ill-conceived bill, because as President Obama’s own Justice Department has argued in court, the mandate is so essential given the other requirements in the law that its elimination would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Tinkering around the edges will not fix the problems with this bill. A due respect for the Constitution and public opinion requires that the unprecedented overreaching of the mandate be corrected–and this will require complete repeal.
- Robert Alt
Social Security
The good news was that the speech included a reference to fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, President Obama’s laudable goal of finding a “bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations” was either empty rhetoric or showed a serious misunderstanding of what causes that program’s underfunding. His next sentence exempted everything that might improve future generations’ retirement security except raising taxes.
Not only does that make a bipartisan solution almost impossible, but the tax increases that he has discussed in the past don’t fix the problem. For instance, Social Security’s nonpartisan actuaries say that making every dollar or earnings subject to the payroll tax only delays the start of permanent deficits by 8 years from 2016 until 2024. Future retirees can still expect a more than 20 percent cut in their benefits. And those who would pay those higher taxes will see the huge increase in their marginal tax rates drain away dollars that could otherwise have been used to start small businesses.
The President’s approach ignores the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission. It also fails to recognize that Americans are living longer than ever, and that over 80 percent of those who reach retirement age are healthy enough to work a little longer if it means that they can avoid the 20 percent benefit cuts that will come otherwise. If he really wants a bipartisan solution to Social Security’s problems, this speech didn’t show it.
- David John
Repeal
Throughout the health care debate, the Heritage Foundation offered numerous ideas [4] for how to improve the health care system, including for those who are most in need.
Americans want health care reform, but not the kind enacted under the new health care law. They do not want to turn more power over their health care dollars or personal health care decisions to Washington bureaucrats. And, Congress cannot fix a health care law that is founded on a fundamentally flawed foundation. [5]
Real health care reform [6] is based on consumer-focused, market-based reforms that empower individuals by fixing the tax treatment of health insurance, transforming health care entitlement programs, and letting the states develop reforms that best meet the unique needs of their citizens through portability, choice and competition.
If the President is serious about American’s fiscal future, he would begin by repealing a health care law that adds a trillion dollars in new health care spending, stifles economic growth through a half a trillion in new taxes, burdens future generations with unknown costs, and undermines individual freedom through government mandates and regulations.
- Nina Owcharenko
Subsidies Don’t Create Jobs
In his state of the union address, President Obama dragged out a 50 year-old, cold-war poster child to paper over his proposal for a tried-and-failed energy/jobs policy. The rhetoric for his policy alludes to the Sputnik space race. Unfortunately, the reality promises a sputtering economy. Government bureaucrats and federal mandates are not the motivating force for innovation and job creation.
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation.
Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs.
After much hyped state subsidies of up to $76 million and after millions of dollars of federal subsidies Evergreen Solar is now shutting its factory in Massachusetts, laying off 700 workers, and moving production to China.
If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise only succeeds when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.
- David Kreutzer
The State of the Family
This evening’s State of the Union address was notably devoid of discussion of one of the issues that could be fairly characterized as “decades in the making,” the phrase President Obama used to introduce a litany of problems facing the country. Evidence continues to accumulate [7] that the persistence of problems like poverty and welfare dependency is strongly associated with the rise in the number of children born out of wedlock.
To a striking degree, the challenges of the federal budget are linked to and aggravated by the fracturing in family budgets brought on by the failure of families to form [8] and government policies that neglect the best adhesive to repair that fracturing – the bonds of marriage. The state of American families went unmentioned tonight but it is vital that this conversation, and its implications [9] for the State of the Union, happen with a new urgency at the national level.
- Chuck Donovan
Preserving Peace
The President said tonight that the nation must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle to be free are the men and women in uniform. President Obama was right to say that the country is united in support of those who serve and their families. As a result, he also rightly said that we must provide them the equipment that they need, care and benefits they’ve earned, and more.
The challenge in meeting this task of providing our all-volunteer force all the tools they need to succeed now and for the next 20 years is that the U.S. is slipping in this area, as well. The traditional margins of U.S. technological military superiority are declining across the board. These long-held “margins” are ingredients in U.S. military supremacy that have ensured that our forces are never in a fair fight. Indeed, during a recent trip to China, the Secretary of Defense said [10] that the Chinese “clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk.”
Let us truly recall the lessons of history in reversing the trend [11] of trying to seek a peace dividend when none exists. A decade of conflict and two decades of underinvestment have left the U.S. military too small and inadequately equipped to do everything being asked of these men and women. In July 2010, a bipartisan commission warned of a coming “train wreck” if Congress does not act quickly to rebuild and modernize the U.S. military. There is no quick or easy fix. Meeting the military’s full modernization requirements [12]
American Founders understood [13] that “the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.” As Thomas Paine warned, it would not be enough to “expect to reap the blessings of freedom.” Americans would have to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” Supporting freedom and defending the nation still requires public spending on the nation’s defense forces in both times of war and peace. As President George Washington asserted in his First Annual Message, delivered in 1790, the “most effectual means of preserving peace” is “to be prepared for war.” Congress and the President should recommit tonight to rebuilding America’s military and giving the best to those who serve.
- Mackenzie Eaglen
Tax Agenda Falls Short
President Obama acknowledged the two biggest tax issues holding back the economy and hampering our competitiveness: our inefficient individual income tax code and our high corporate tax rate. His desired remedies, however, fall short of what is needed.
The individual income tax code needs fundamental reform. It has become cluttered with too many credits, deductions, and exemptions that slow economic growth. The president did not lay out his vision for tax reform. For tax reform to become a reality leadership at the presidential level is vital. President Obama’s lack of thorough attention to the issue does not bold well for success in the near future.
The president revisited his old hobby horse: eliminating tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners. This was an odd inclusion in the speech since just a few weeks ago he signed a 2 year extension of those very tax cuts. And if tax reform does become a reality, the 2001/2003 tax cuts would be a non-issue.
On the corporate tax front the president was better but far from perfect. He rightly called for the rate to come down but only if Congress closes “loopholes” to offset the cost. Many of the provisions that are commonly referred to as loopholes are in fact justifiable deductions that help lessen the blow of the corporate tax systems’ other shortcomings like the taxation of income earned in foreign countries and the lack of ability for companies to immediately deduct the cost of capital investment. Getting rid of them will temper any benefit derived from a lower rate. The few loopholes that do exist would fall well short of making up the revenue from a rate cut. Spending should be cut to make sure the rate reduction does not add to the deficit.
The best tax recommendation the president made was the elimination of 1099 reporting requirements that are part of the healthcare law. These requirements will cripple small businesses should they ever go into effect.
The worst tax idea was the elimination of so-called subsidies for oil companies. These tax breaks allow oil companies to expense a portion of the huge upfront costs they incur for developing new oil sources. The specific provisions would not be necessary if the tax code rightly allowed all businesses to expense their capital investments. Taking them away from oil companies will increase the cost of oil for all Americans and be a step in the wrong direction for the tax code.
-Curtis Dubay
Denial on Deficits
On one vital point the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending — current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the Commission’s final report. The preamble to the report concluded [14]:
After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back.To the existing consensus regarding the need to act, the need for “America’s leaders to put up or shut up,” as the Commission put it, can now be added a second point of broad agreement – the President’s policies as outlined in his State of the Union Address regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs that have the nation on course to a “crushing debt burden”, continue the era of debt denial unabated, unabashedly, even proudly.
The President in short has turned his back on his own Commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to the Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.
-JD Foster
American Leadership
In the opening section of his address, the President referred to the need to “sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.” Those are certainly words that conservatives can endorse and respect, just as they will agree with his statement that America is “the first nation that was founded for the sake of an idea.” As Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed [15] “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, … a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
Unfortunately, this was not the creed that the President proclaimed in his speech. Instead of recognizing that the Founders wanted to limit the role of the federal government, the President continued on in the vein that has marked American politics for too many years: arguing that the needs of tomorrow demand more spending — the President now calls them “investments” — on programs that have already failed.
Laudably, the President called on Congress to pass the free trade area with South Korea; regrettably, he accompanied it with a reiteration of his promise to “only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs,” a pledge that, in the case of the agreement with South Korea, meant months of delay and special favors to organized labor in the U.S. automotive sector [16].
Laudably, the President twice noted the need for American leadership in the world. He even went so far as to claim that “American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.”
The source of this restoration, though, remained mysterious. In Iraq, the President noted, the war is ending — thanks to the surge strategy that the President opposed. America continues to disrupt Islamist plots — made by an enemy the President was unwilling even to name, in a war that, as the still-open Guantanamo prison testifies, has required him to rethink his presumptions.
In Afghanistan, the President reiterated the U.S. determination to win — and coupled it with a promise that “we will begin to bring our troops home” in July 2011. The New START treaty and the “reset” with Russia made predictable appearances — but nothing was heard about the fact that Russia is an autocracy that attacks, threatens, and subverts its neighbors, while at the same time it murders and imprisons opponents at home.
In the realm of foreign affairs, the only surprises came at the end of the President’s remarks, when he expressed solidarity with Southern Sudan, and explicitly said that “the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” Where is that support in Russia? In Iran? In China?
As Marion Smith wrote in his essay [17] on American leadership, “George Washington recommended a foreign policy of independence and strength, a policy that would allow America to ‘choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.’ ” What was missing from
the President’s address was any sense that both U.S. interests and our sense of justice ought not to be engaged only in the Tunisias of the world. The President’s emphasis on the value of American’s alliances was welcome. Too bad it was not balanced by a recognition that the U.S. also faces hostile regimes.
In an echo of President George W. Bush’s call in 2002 for “a balance of power that favors freedom” — a phrase much mocked at the time — President Obama called for “a world that favors peace and prosperity.”
Until the President accepts that prosperity flows from freedom, and that we will not advance the cause of peace by speaking only in abstractions about oppression in “some countries” and ignoring the flaws in the world’s multilateral institutions, all of us are not likely to move closer to that goal.
- Ted Bromund
President’s Budget Proposals Don’t Match the Rhetoric
President Obama asserted that “a critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” Yet he failed to offer any proposals that would significantly rein in escalating spending and deficits.
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 [18] levels.
Furthermore, only 12 percent of the federal budget would be affected by the President’s freeze proposal. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are truly driving long-term deficits [19] upward. Yet the President ignored nearly all entitlement reforms proposed by his own commission [20], and even stated opposition to any change in future Social Security benefits. Additionally, the President again defended his budget-busting trillion-dollar health care program.
Finally, President Obama sought to rehabilitate the reputation of runaway spending by renaming it “investment.” While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent [21] faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted [22] into earmarks, bike paths, and museums, or allocated to budget-busting transit [23] programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit – which is crowding out private investment – and should reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.
-Brian Riedl
1 Million Electric Cars Should Reach the Market When They’re Ready
In his address President Obama emphasized that [24] “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
How much more research and incentives do electric cards need? [25] We taxpayers have handed out billions for advanced battery vehicle manufacturing. We taxpayers foot the bill (from $2,500–$7,500, depending on the battery capacity) for every electric vehicle purchase. And we taxpayers help pay for the tens of millions of dollars the Department of Energy spends to study increased battery storage. Even so, the demand for electric vehicles is low because electric cars are prohibitively costly even with the lavish handouts.
One survey [26] found that the number of consumers interested in buying a hybrid vehicle dropped from 61 percent to 30 percent when they learned they would pay an additional $5,000 compared to a comparable vehicle with a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) Only 17 percent of those surveyed showed interest in buying a battery electric vehicle (BEV), and that number decreased to 5 percent when told a BEV would cost an additional $15,000 compared to the closest ICE-powered vehicle. Even after counting the gasoline savings you would reap from buying an electric vehicle, electric cars are still a bad investment [25]. A good sign for the viability of electric vehicles is when they won’t need the handouts from taxpayers.
President Obama also said in his address, “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution.”
The same is true with our vehicle fleet in the U.S. No one will know what it will look like 30 years from now, or even 4 years from now. So why is the government trying to dictate that market when it knows it can’t?
-Nick Loris
Free Enterprise vs Big Government
President Obama, in his speech tonight, rightfully identified the issue of competitiveness as a key for reviving the economy, and innovation as a vital ingredient in achieving that competitiveness. America can, as he said, out innovate the rest of the world. But his prescription for sparking that innovation and making America again a world leader is badly off-target. His model is Sputnik, and he prescribes economic NASAs as the solution. Washington would set the rules, define the parameters of the challenge. This is not the way the today’s economy works.
American entrepreneurs do not need grants from Washington in order to compete, they don’t need incentives from bureaucrats in order to compete. The Steve Jobs’ of the future are not applying for federal grants, or federal “challenges.” What they need is for Washington to get out of their way — to tax them less, regulate them less, and leave them alone. Yet, there was nothing in his remarks that provided hope that these burdens would be lifted anytime soon, save for a short reference to regulatory reform, and even that was hedged with defense of regulation. Until the need to free enterprise — rather than guide it — is addressed — the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans will remain leashed, and all the NASAs in the world will not improve our competitiveness
-James Gattuso
Energy “Investment”
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama pointed to the government investments that led to such commercial successes as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS (interestingly, he left out Tang). The implication is that more tax payer support would bring the same sort of innovation to the energy sector. This supposition is misleading.
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. People like former Secretary of Energy and Defense, Dr. James Schlesinger argued tirelessly for investment in GPS not because it would help him to find the nearest burrito bar but because he (and not many others at the time) understood the national security value of such a system. It was not until after the first Gulf War (when Americans witnessed the accuracy with which GPS could guide a vehicle to its destination) that entrepreneurs gained access to GPS signals. It was they that that commercialized that technology, not the federal government. In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it.
This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization, and to define the market.
That is not the right approach for the United States. We are a country abundant with natural resources and as the President correctly pointed out, “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovations.” Mr. President, you had me at “innovation.” Too bad you lost me after that.
-Jack Spencer
Obama’a Sputnik Moment
“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” declared President Obama in the State of the Union address. If he believes that, he probably should have studied his history and how President Eisenhower responded to Russia’s satellite launch—because Ike would not have endorsed anything like Obama’s prescription. In the wake of sputnik hysteria the Gaither commission argued [27] for an astronomical increase in spending to “catch-up” with the Soviets. Eisenhower knew that writing checks that the nation can’t cash is no way to make America more innovative. Ike declared you do not win a competition by “by bankrupting yourself…”
President Eisenhower’s reluctance to throw government and money at every problem was rooted in his distrust of Big Government. “Eisenhower was deeply concerned about the growth of the federal government and the systematic loss of state and local autonomy,” writes [28] Martin Medhurst, an expert on Ike’s rhetoric. “He was concerned about a government that spent more than it took in. …”
Eisenhower also understood that getting spending under control was about getting Washington’s priorities right. Ike did not want to needlessly throw money at anything, even defense(“[G]ood management dictates that we resist overspending as resolutely as we oppose under-spending, Ike declared), but he clearly understood that soundly funding defense had to be his first priority. Obama’s call of simply calling for not-cutting security spending is not enough – defense modernization is already underfunded and defense spending too inefficient [29] – Obama needs to buck up defense [30] even as he needs to do much, much more to reign in other government spending.
We did not hear that kind of commitment during the State of the Union address. Nor did we hear a president who is willing to get tough with all of America’s competitors in the same way Ike would. Instead, the Obama Doctrine [31] is still alive and well.
The State of the Union address was a pale shadow of what the nation should expect [32] from presidents who are responsible for providing for the common defense.
-James Carafano
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)