5 August 2009
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 5 August 2009 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,271
- Pages: 6
5 August 2009
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
What If Cash for Clunkers Was a Tax Credit? [Tax Foundation]
Obama Not Delivering on Promise [Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 05, 2009 12:00A.M. Critics of the “Cash for Clunkers” program are out in full force, claiming that its problems are evidence that government is inefficient and that it is further proof that government shouldn’t get involved in something as important as health care.
AUG 04, 2009 05:24P.M. Gibbs is certain there will be no middle-class tax hikes, but President Obama’s economic advisors Geithner and Summers aren’t so sure. On a repeated basis, the two advisers declined to c...
But suppose that instead of the government providing $4,500 in outlays per qualifying car in a program that is being administered by the Department of Transportation, the Congress instituted a $4,500 nonrefundable income tax credit (that was allowed to carry-over 10 years until it was exhausted for a given taxpayer) that met the exact same qualifying criteria as the current program, yet was administered by the IRS. Would the tax credit be good fiscal policy merely because it’s classified as a tax cut as opposed to an “outlay?”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Who Knows What Will Happen? [Americans for Tax Reform] AUG 04, 2009 04:07P.M.
The economic difference between these two scenarios is zero (except for possibly differences in administrative costs). Both policies would be financed by deficits, leading to either lower spending in the future or higher taxes in the future.
NotSoSure.org has another video out about government health care. Government health care is a leap of faith. Once health care is defined by
Despite this fact, it’s likely that many of these same critics of the $4,500 cash for clunker outlay who are citing its problems as proof government doesn’t work would have supported such a $4,500 cash for clunker tax credit merely because it would have been classified as a “tax cut” instead of an “outlay.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
bureaucrats, there is no guarantee tha...
It Takes Weeks to Post a Bill Online. Really?!? [Americans for Tax Reform]
For these people, Washington is all about semantics instead of understanding the economic effects of differing fiscal policies.
AUG 04, 2009 03:09P.M. It takes weeks to post a bill that has already been passed out of committee online? REALLY?!? The Examiner has a great op-ed today discussing the author’s attempts to convince the House E...
1
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
5 August 2009
I previously blogged about this case here and here.
President Obama On Abolishing Private Health Insurance [Americans for Tax Reform]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama Care To Cost $2 Trillion [Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 02:57P.M. The truth is finally out there. A recently surfaced video clip demonstrates President Obama’s long-standing committment to destroy
AUG 04, 2009 02:45P.M.
our free market health ccare system, and create a socialised mo...
Michael Cannon, The Cato Institute’s Health Care guru, has just completed his analysis of the cost of President Obama’s Health Care Proposal, and the results are even more frightening than we thought....
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Sarbanes-Oxley’s Harms Are Magnified by the PCAOB’s Unconstitutional Structure [Cato at Liberty]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Government Employment Up or Down? [Cato at Liberty] AUG 04, 2009 02:13P.M.
AUG 04, 2009 02:48P.M.
The New York Times editorialized today about the supposed “brutalizing” effects of state and local government spending cuts. They claim that “most states also have cut their public workforces.”
Passed with scant deliberation amid a stock market panic, the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 vastly expanded the federal government’s role in regulating corporate governance and the accounting industry. As part of that effort, Congress created a new agency to “audit the auditors.” Known as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the agency has broad rulemaking and enforcement powers to set accounting standards, investigate accounting firms, punish criminal violations, and make whatever rules “may be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Yet USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon takes a look at the actual data, and he finds that state and local governments added 12,000 workers in the latest quarter, while the private sector cut 1.3 million jobs. Thus, it appears that “brutal” restructuring is going on in the private sector, but not in the government sector. Indeed, Cauchon finds that “a huge influx of federal stimulus money to state and local governments more than offset a sharp drop in tax collections” this quarter. The article shows that state and local government spending rose quickly in the first three quarters of 2008, then dropped for two quarters, but is now rising again quite quickly. That doesn’t sound very brutal to me.
Remarkably, the PCAOB (pronounced “peek-a-boo”) also has the power to fund its own budget by levying taxes on publicly traded companies. Despite giving the PCAOB all this power, however, Congress insulated it entirely from presidential oversight. Unlike with an ordinary “independent agency,” the president has no power whatsoever to appoint or remove PCAOB officials. Those officials may be removed only “for cause” by the SEC, not the president; and SEC officials may themselves be removed only for cause.
Too often editorial boards and columnists seem to write economics articles based on their preconceived notions about what they think is going on, without looking at any solid data. Cauchon’s columns at USA Today are a refreshing alternative to the sort of impressionist writing on economics we see in the NYT editorial today.
The Free Enterprise Fund challenged the constitutionality of the PCAOB and appealed to the Supreme Court. Cato’s supporting brief focuses on the PCAOB’s practical policy consequences, illustrating how the PCAOB’s unconstitutional structure has created incentives for out-of-control spending, agency aggrandizement, and lack of coordination between regulators. Our brief also highlights the PCAOB’s efforts to impose American accounting standards abroad, which has caused confusion and invited retaliation from foreign regulators.
2
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
5 August 2009
Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and Earl Pomeroy.
Not So Sure - Part 2 [The Club for Growth]
The ads (shown below) focus on the crushing financial burden of government-run healthcare, as well as the horrors of the Orwellian-named N.I.C.E. agency in England, which has broadly the same powers over healthcare decisions that would be delegated to the U.S. government under current proposals in Congress.
AUG 04, 2009 01:42P.M. Here’s Part 1. I assume Part 3 is in the works and will be released later.
The Club’s ad campaign will run throughout the August recess and could be expanded to other states and districts as the debate over healthcare reform unfolds.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Club Launches Healthcare Ad Campaign [The Club for Growth]
“Members of Congress who would support a plan that raises taxes and involves the government in some of the most important and personal decisions in our lives will hear from us,” added Chocola. “It’s time for President Obama and congressional leaders to scrap their costly takeover of the healthcare sector and focus on solutions that empower patients not government bureaucrats.”
AUG 04, 2009 12:44P.M.
Club for Growth Launches $1.2 Million Ad Campaign
Want to help us pay for these ads? Club members can donate here. Non-Club members can donate by
TV blitz to highlight the dangers of government-run healthcare
first joining the Club here. It’s quick and easy.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Washington – The Club for Growth will launch a $1.2 million ad campaign this week aimed at Members of Congress who may be persuaded to reject a government-run health insurance program, as well as members with leading roles in the healthcare debate.
CNBC: Ryan Ellis vs. Howard Dean [Americans for Tax Reform] AUG 04, 2009 12:07P.M.
“We need to reform our healthcare system with patient-centered, free-market solutions that bring down costs and ensure more Americans have access to quality care,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “But some in Congress are pushing for governmentrun healthcare, which would crowd out existing plans, increase costs, and stick taxpayers with a bill they can’t afford.”
ATR Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis appeared on CNBC to debate health care, and Obama’s central campaign promise to not raise taxes on the middle-class, with Howard Dean. ...
Starting Thursday, the Club will air television ads highlighting the dangers of government-run healthcare in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, and North Dakota aimed at Senators Harry Reid, Michael Bennet, Mark Udall, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Byron Dorgan, and Kent Conrad as well as Representatives Marion Berry, Vic Snyder, Mike Ross, Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, John Salazar,
3
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
5 August 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Stossel’s 20/20 Take on Health Care Reform [The Club for Growth]
Shazam! [The Club for Growth] AUG 04, 2009 10:51A.M. Here’s Jim DeMint talking about the “Cash for Clunkers” program with CBS News:
AUG 04, 2009 11:53A.M. “If we give away free money, people will buy cars,” said DeMint. “But what about appliances, and heat pumps, and TVs? The problem here is instead of across-the-board tax cuts that would have the same effect on our whole economy, the federal government is trying to run a particular business by targeting just the auto industry here with this bill. That’s not what the federal government is all about.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Tuesday’s Daily News [The Club for Growth]
“And for us to rush through $1 billion and then say, ‘Well, we don’t know exactly what happened, but it’s out of money after one week, so let’s have $2 billion more!’ this is just an out-ofcontrol government at the federal level now, and we need to stop and see what we’ve done.
AUG 04, 2009 11:28A.M. THE DAILY NEWS MoveOn Copies Club for Growth - Carolyn Lochhead, San Fran Chronicle The President Faces His Steel Tariff Moment - Wall Street Journal Editorial Since When Is Plunging Trade ‘Good News’ for GDP? - Dan Griswold, Cato Membership Has Its Privileges - John Stossel, ABC News Soaking the Middle Class - Detroit News Editorial Utopia Versus Freedom - Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politics Seven Myths About Taxing the Rich - Curtis Dubay, Heritage Foundation 5 Reasons Why Obama Will Hike Middle-Class Taxes Jimmy P., Reuters The Regulatory Wreckage of ”Cash for Clunkers” Richard Epstein, Forbes Binding Arbitration Is Now Front And Center -
“It just doesn’t make any sense to keep rushing through bills, borrowing money from our children, and then saying, ‘Shazam, we’ve sold some cars!’”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Senator Specter Under Pressure [Americans for Tax Reform]
Justin Wilson, LaborPains Cubs 4, Reds 2 - Associated Press
AUG 04, 2009 09:35A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Specter were shouted down at a Philadelphia town hall meeting. Senator Specter sought to console one
Obama is not a Doctor, But He Plays One on TV [Americans for Tax Reform]
consti...
AUG 04, 2009 11:00A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office has just released this funny but somewhat unnerving video. It’s worth remembering what is
Lobbying: A Booming Business in a Politicized Economy [Cato at Liberty]
at stake. Bureaucrats who know lit...
AUG 04, 2009 09:29A.M. Lobbying expenditures are up in the second quarter of the Obama administration, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. Wellconnected Democratic lobbyists like former House majority leader Richard Gephardt and Tony Podesta, the brother of Obama transition
4
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
director John Podesta, did especially well. Given the administration’s focus on nationalizing health care and energy, it’s no surprise that health care and energy companies were the biggest spenders. Businesses don’t have unified interests, of course; some health care companies and industry sectors lobby against a government-run insurance plan while they support a federal mandate that every American purchase health insurance. Other firms may just work to get their own members onto the gravy train.
5 August 2009
brainpower to influencing decisions made in Washington rather than to developing better products and delivering them to consumers. The tragedy is that the most important factor in America’s economic future — in raising everyone’s standard of living — is not land, or money, or computers; it’s human talent. And an increasing part of the human talent at America’s companies is being diverted from productive activity to protecting the company from political predation. With every spending program and every new regulation, the parasite economy sucks in another productive enterprise. Do we really want the best brains at companies from General Motors and General Electric (this quarter’s biggest lobbyist) to Google and Goldman Sachs focused on working
As Craig Holman of the Nader-founded Public Citizen told Marketplace Radio the last time such a report was issued, “the amount spent on lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government intervenes in the private economy.”
Washington rather than serving consumers?
Marketplace’s Ronni Radbill noted then, “In other words, the more active the government, the more the private sector will spend to have its say…. With the White House injecting billions of dollars into the economy, lobbyists say interest groups are paying a lot more attention to Washington than they have in a very long time.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
A Deregulation That Could Reduce Foreclosures [Cato at Liberty]
Of course, this is not a new story. I pointed out in the Wall Street Journal in 1983 that Hayek had told us what to expect back in 1944:
AUG 04, 2009 09:28A.M. If more money can be made by investing in Washington than by drilling another oil well, money will be spent there.
One of the obstacles to reducing mortgage foreclosures is that so many of the homes being foreclosured upon are not occupied by their owners. Approximately 20 percent of homes are vacant investor-held properties, while according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition another 20 percent are occupied by renters.
Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek explained the process 40 years ago in his prophetic book The Road to Serfdom: “As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power.”
Addressing the issue of renter occupied foreclosures has been one of the harder nuts to crack. We should have no sympathy for vacant homes purchased purely for speculative gain - the best course of action for those homes is foreclosure, or even better, speculators should be expected to continue paying those mortgages even in the face of losses. Where homes are currently rented however, it may be in the interest of both the bank and the renter to continue that relationship. Unfortunately, there is one larger barrier: the very same bank regulators who are pushing lenders not to foreclose.
In a graphic on page A6 of the February 13 edition, not available online, the Washington Post reported that “A Washington Post analysis found that more than 90 organizations hired lobbyists to specifically influence provisions of the massive stimulus bill.” The graphic showed that the number of newly registered lobbying clients had peaked on the day after Obama’s inauguration and continued to grow as the bill worked its way through both houses of Congress. More on the frenzied efforts to get a piece of the taxpayers’ money in the spending bill here and here.
As banks are not in the business of property management, their regulators strongly discourage banks from keeping foreclosured properties on their books. In fact bank regulations generally prohibit lenders from entering into long-term leases with tenants. Legislation (HR 2529) introduced by Republican Gary Miller and Democrat Joe Donnelly would allow banks to do so for up to five years. While the bill is sure to have some flaws - it merits a closer look.
And the beat goes on: The congressional newspaper The Hill reports, “Lobbyists lining up for shot at climate bill.” And that of course is why Patrick Appel reports at the Andrew Sullivan blog that Washington is the hottest city for job-seekers these days. If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then all these spending and regulatory bills may accomplish something. But we should all recognize that we’re taking money out of the competitive, individually directed part of society and turning it over to the politically controlled sector. Politicians rather than consumers will pick winners and losers.
Although most banks are unlikely to want to become property managers, allowing some to do so, even on an interim basis could reduce both the unnecessary eviction of renters and foreclosures on rental properties. And unlike proposals that would force banks to make uneconomical modifications, or prohibit lenders from taking ownership of a renteroccupied home, relaxing regulations governing bank management of foreclosured properties could keep some families in their homes without
Just as important, businesses will devote their time, money, and
5
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
5 August 2009
having to violate contracts or re-distribute wealth.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama’s Tax Pledge [The Club for Growth] AUG 04, 2009 09:07A.M.
Transparency: Obama’s Waterloo? [Cato at Liberty]
From the Chicago Tribune:
AUG 04, 2009 09:26A.M.
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama’s top economic advisers that new taxes for middle-income Americans cannot be ruled out, the White House insisted Monday that the president’s “commitment” to a campaign pledge to avert new taxes for those earning less than $250,000 a year holds firm.
“When congressmen scoff at the notion of reading legislation because they aren’t qualified or they aren’t competent to understand it, how can we be confident that those congressman are competent to reengineer the entire health care system?”
[...]”The president’s clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year,” [Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs told reporters pressing for an explanation about apparent discrepancies in the White House’s message.
So asked a citizen at a town hall meeting where Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) held forth before a cantankerous crowd. It’s a fair question. And President Obama offered an answer during his campaign. He promised that he would post bills coming to him from Congress online for five days before signing them. Rather than relying on Congress, the public should have more oversight of it.
“I hope you’ll take my reiteration of this clear commitment... in the clearest terms possible, that he is not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year,” Gibbs said. The House bill already taxes people making less than $250,000 a year so they’re already off to a bad start.
(Alas, it’s a promise he has violated thirty-nine forty-one times. He signed two more bills into law last week within a day of receiving them.)
HT: Steve Bartin Under President Obama’s “Sunlight Before Signing” pledge or the 72hour-hold in Congress preferred by the Sunlight Foundation, members of Congress and senators would be more reticent to introduce potentially controversial amendments, and they would be more obliged to know and defend what is in the bills they vote on. President Obama set the standard—if not the precedent—by which lawmaking practice will be judged. He will have to rise to that standard as the public has more leisure to take the measure of his presidency. Congress will too. (It’s not the president’s Waterloo, of course. I just put that in the title to attract your attention.)
6
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
What If Cash for Clunkers Was a Tax Credit? [Tax Foundation]
Obama Not Delivering on Promise [Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 05, 2009 12:00A.M. Critics of the “Cash for Clunkers” program are out in full force, claiming that its problems are evidence that government is inefficient and that it is further proof that government shouldn’t get involved in something as important as health care.
AUG 04, 2009 05:24P.M. Gibbs is certain there will be no middle-class tax hikes, but President Obama’s economic advisors Geithner and Summers aren’t so sure. On a repeated basis, the two advisers declined to c...
But suppose that instead of the government providing $4,500 in outlays per qualifying car in a program that is being administered by the Department of Transportation, the Congress instituted a $4,500 nonrefundable income tax credit (that was allowed to carry-over 10 years until it was exhausted for a given taxpayer) that met the exact same qualifying criteria as the current program, yet was administered by the IRS. Would the tax credit be good fiscal policy merely because it’s classified as a tax cut as opposed to an “outlay?”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Who Knows What Will Happen? [Americans for Tax Reform] AUG 04, 2009 04:07P.M.
The economic difference between these two scenarios is zero (except for possibly differences in administrative costs). Both policies would be financed by deficits, leading to either lower spending in the future or higher taxes in the future.
NotSoSure.org has another video out about government health care. Government health care is a leap of faith. Once health care is defined by
Despite this fact, it’s likely that many of these same critics of the $4,500 cash for clunker outlay who are citing its problems as proof government doesn’t work would have supported such a $4,500 cash for clunker tax credit merely because it would have been classified as a “tax cut” instead of an “outlay.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
bureaucrats, there is no guarantee tha...
It Takes Weeks to Post a Bill Online. Really?!? [Americans for Tax Reform]
For these people, Washington is all about semantics instead of understanding the economic effects of differing fiscal policies.
AUG 04, 2009 03:09P.M. It takes weeks to post a bill that has already been passed out of committee online? REALLY?!? The Examiner has a great op-ed today discussing the author’s attempts to convince the House E...
1
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
5 August 2009
I previously blogged about this case here and here.
President Obama On Abolishing Private Health Insurance [Americans for Tax Reform]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama Care To Cost $2 Trillion [Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 02:57P.M. The truth is finally out there. A recently surfaced video clip demonstrates President Obama’s long-standing committment to destroy
AUG 04, 2009 02:45P.M.
our free market health ccare system, and create a socialised mo...
Michael Cannon, The Cato Institute’s Health Care guru, has just completed his analysis of the cost of President Obama’s Health Care Proposal, and the results are even more frightening than we thought....
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Sarbanes-Oxley’s Harms Are Magnified by the PCAOB’s Unconstitutional Structure [Cato at Liberty]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Government Employment Up or Down? [Cato at Liberty] AUG 04, 2009 02:13P.M.
AUG 04, 2009 02:48P.M.
The New York Times editorialized today about the supposed “brutalizing” effects of state and local government spending cuts. They claim that “most states also have cut their public workforces.”
Passed with scant deliberation amid a stock market panic, the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 vastly expanded the federal government’s role in regulating corporate governance and the accounting industry. As part of that effort, Congress created a new agency to “audit the auditors.” Known as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the agency has broad rulemaking and enforcement powers to set accounting standards, investigate accounting firms, punish criminal violations, and make whatever rules “may be necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Yet USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon takes a look at the actual data, and he finds that state and local governments added 12,000 workers in the latest quarter, while the private sector cut 1.3 million jobs. Thus, it appears that “brutal” restructuring is going on in the private sector, but not in the government sector. Indeed, Cauchon finds that “a huge influx of federal stimulus money to state and local governments more than offset a sharp drop in tax collections” this quarter. The article shows that state and local government spending rose quickly in the first three quarters of 2008, then dropped for two quarters, but is now rising again quite quickly. That doesn’t sound very brutal to me.
Remarkably, the PCAOB (pronounced “peek-a-boo”) also has the power to fund its own budget by levying taxes on publicly traded companies. Despite giving the PCAOB all this power, however, Congress insulated it entirely from presidential oversight. Unlike with an ordinary “independent agency,” the president has no power whatsoever to appoint or remove PCAOB officials. Those officials may be removed only “for cause” by the SEC, not the president; and SEC officials may themselves be removed only for cause.
Too often editorial boards and columnists seem to write economics articles based on their preconceived notions about what they think is going on, without looking at any solid data. Cauchon’s columns at USA Today are a refreshing alternative to the sort of impressionist writing on economics we see in the NYT editorial today.
The Free Enterprise Fund challenged the constitutionality of the PCAOB and appealed to the Supreme Court. Cato’s supporting brief focuses on the PCAOB’s practical policy consequences, illustrating how the PCAOB’s unconstitutional structure has created incentives for out-of-control spending, agency aggrandizement, and lack of coordination between regulators. Our brief also highlights the PCAOB’s efforts to impose American accounting standards abroad, which has caused confusion and invited retaliation from foreign regulators.
2
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
5 August 2009
Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and Earl Pomeroy.
Not So Sure - Part 2 [The Club for Growth]
The ads (shown below) focus on the crushing financial burden of government-run healthcare, as well as the horrors of the Orwellian-named N.I.C.E. agency in England, which has broadly the same powers over healthcare decisions that would be delegated to the U.S. government under current proposals in Congress.
AUG 04, 2009 01:42P.M. Here’s Part 1. I assume Part 3 is in the works and will be released later.
The Club’s ad campaign will run throughout the August recess and could be expanded to other states and districts as the debate over healthcare reform unfolds.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Club Launches Healthcare Ad Campaign [The Club for Growth]
“Members of Congress who would support a plan that raises taxes and involves the government in some of the most important and personal decisions in our lives will hear from us,” added Chocola. “It’s time for President Obama and congressional leaders to scrap their costly takeover of the healthcare sector and focus on solutions that empower patients not government bureaucrats.”
AUG 04, 2009 12:44P.M.
Club for Growth Launches $1.2 Million Ad Campaign
Want to help us pay for these ads? Club members can donate here. Non-Club members can donate by
TV blitz to highlight the dangers of government-run healthcare
first joining the Club here. It’s quick and easy.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Washington – The Club for Growth will launch a $1.2 million ad campaign this week aimed at Members of Congress who may be persuaded to reject a government-run health insurance program, as well as members with leading roles in the healthcare debate.
CNBC: Ryan Ellis vs. Howard Dean [Americans for Tax Reform] AUG 04, 2009 12:07P.M.
“We need to reform our healthcare system with patient-centered, free-market solutions that bring down costs and ensure more Americans have access to quality care,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “But some in Congress are pushing for governmentrun healthcare, which would crowd out existing plans, increase costs, and stick taxpayers with a bill they can’t afford.”
ATR Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis appeared on CNBC to debate health care, and Obama’s central campaign promise to not raise taxes on the middle-class, with Howard Dean. ...
Starting Thursday, the Club will air television ads highlighting the dangers of government-run healthcare in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, and North Dakota aimed at Senators Harry Reid, Michael Bennet, Mark Udall, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, Byron Dorgan, and Kent Conrad as well as Representatives Marion Berry, Vic Snyder, Mike Ross, Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, John Salazar,
3
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
5 August 2009
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Stossel’s 20/20 Take on Health Care Reform [The Club for Growth]
Shazam! [The Club for Growth] AUG 04, 2009 10:51A.M. Here’s Jim DeMint talking about the “Cash for Clunkers” program with CBS News:
AUG 04, 2009 11:53A.M. “If we give away free money, people will buy cars,” said DeMint. “But what about appliances, and heat pumps, and TVs? The problem here is instead of across-the-board tax cuts that would have the same effect on our whole economy, the federal government is trying to run a particular business by targeting just the auto industry here with this bill. That’s not what the federal government is all about.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Tuesday’s Daily News [The Club for Growth]
“And for us to rush through $1 billion and then say, ‘Well, we don’t know exactly what happened, but it’s out of money after one week, so let’s have $2 billion more!’ this is just an out-ofcontrol government at the federal level now, and we need to stop and see what we’ve done.
AUG 04, 2009 11:28A.M. THE DAILY NEWS MoveOn Copies Club for Growth - Carolyn Lochhead, San Fran Chronicle The President Faces His Steel Tariff Moment - Wall Street Journal Editorial Since When Is Plunging Trade ‘Good News’ for GDP? - Dan Griswold, Cato Membership Has Its Privileges - John Stossel, ABC News Soaking the Middle Class - Detroit News Editorial Utopia Versus Freedom - Thomas Sowell, Real Clear Politics Seven Myths About Taxing the Rich - Curtis Dubay, Heritage Foundation 5 Reasons Why Obama Will Hike Middle-Class Taxes Jimmy P., Reuters The Regulatory Wreckage of ”Cash for Clunkers” Richard Epstein, Forbes Binding Arbitration Is Now Front And Center -
“It just doesn’t make any sense to keep rushing through bills, borrowing money from our children, and then saying, ‘Shazam, we’ve sold some cars!’”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Senator Specter Under Pressure [Americans for Tax Reform]
Justin Wilson, LaborPains Cubs 4, Reds 2 - Associated Press
AUG 04, 2009 09:35A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Specter were shouted down at a Philadelphia town hall meeting. Senator Specter sought to console one
Obama is not a Doctor, But He Plays One on TV [Americans for Tax Reform]
consti...
AUG 04, 2009 11:00A.M. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office has just released this funny but somewhat unnerving video. It’s worth remembering what is
Lobbying: A Booming Business in a Politicized Economy [Cato at Liberty]
at stake. Bureaucrats who know lit...
AUG 04, 2009 09:29A.M. Lobbying expenditures are up in the second quarter of the Obama administration, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. Wellconnected Democratic lobbyists like former House majority leader Richard Gephardt and Tony Podesta, the brother of Obama transition
4
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
director John Podesta, did especially well. Given the administration’s focus on nationalizing health care and energy, it’s no surprise that health care and energy companies were the biggest spenders. Businesses don’t have unified interests, of course; some health care companies and industry sectors lobby against a government-run insurance plan while they support a federal mandate that every American purchase health insurance. Other firms may just work to get their own members onto the gravy train.
5 August 2009
brainpower to influencing decisions made in Washington rather than to developing better products and delivering them to consumers. The tragedy is that the most important factor in America’s economic future — in raising everyone’s standard of living — is not land, or money, or computers; it’s human talent. And an increasing part of the human talent at America’s companies is being diverted from productive activity to protecting the company from political predation. With every spending program and every new regulation, the parasite economy sucks in another productive enterprise. Do we really want the best brains at companies from General Motors and General Electric (this quarter’s biggest lobbyist) to Google and Goldman Sachs focused on working
As Craig Holman of the Nader-founded Public Citizen told Marketplace Radio the last time such a report was issued, “the amount spent on lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government intervenes in the private economy.”
Washington rather than serving consumers?
Marketplace’s Ronni Radbill noted then, “In other words, the more active the government, the more the private sector will spend to have its say…. With the White House injecting billions of dollars into the economy, lobbyists say interest groups are paying a lot more attention to Washington than they have in a very long time.”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
A Deregulation That Could Reduce Foreclosures [Cato at Liberty]
Of course, this is not a new story. I pointed out in the Wall Street Journal in 1983 that Hayek had told us what to expect back in 1944:
AUG 04, 2009 09:28A.M. If more money can be made by investing in Washington than by drilling another oil well, money will be spent there.
One of the obstacles to reducing mortgage foreclosures is that so many of the homes being foreclosured upon are not occupied by their owners. Approximately 20 percent of homes are vacant investor-held properties, while according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition another 20 percent are occupied by renters.
Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek explained the process 40 years ago in his prophetic book The Road to Serfdom: “As the coercive power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this directing power.”
Addressing the issue of renter occupied foreclosures has been one of the harder nuts to crack. We should have no sympathy for vacant homes purchased purely for speculative gain - the best course of action for those homes is foreclosure, or even better, speculators should be expected to continue paying those mortgages even in the face of losses. Where homes are currently rented however, it may be in the interest of both the bank and the renter to continue that relationship. Unfortunately, there is one larger barrier: the very same bank regulators who are pushing lenders not to foreclose.
In a graphic on page A6 of the February 13 edition, not available online, the Washington Post reported that “A Washington Post analysis found that more than 90 organizations hired lobbyists to specifically influence provisions of the massive stimulus bill.” The graphic showed that the number of newly registered lobbying clients had peaked on the day after Obama’s inauguration and continued to grow as the bill worked its way through both houses of Congress. More on the frenzied efforts to get a piece of the taxpayers’ money in the spending bill here and here.
As banks are not in the business of property management, their regulators strongly discourage banks from keeping foreclosured properties on their books. In fact bank regulations generally prohibit lenders from entering into long-term leases with tenants. Legislation (HR 2529) introduced by Republican Gary Miller and Democrat Joe Donnelly would allow banks to do so for up to five years. While the bill is sure to have some flaws - it merits a closer look.
And the beat goes on: The congressional newspaper The Hill reports, “Lobbyists lining up for shot at climate bill.” And that of course is why Patrick Appel reports at the Andrew Sullivan blog that Washington is the hottest city for job-seekers these days. If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and powerful congressmen, then all these spending and regulatory bills may accomplish something. But we should all recognize that we’re taking money out of the competitive, individually directed part of society and turning it over to the politically controlled sector. Politicians rather than consumers will pick winners and losers.
Although most banks are unlikely to want to become property managers, allowing some to do so, even on an interim basis could reduce both the unnecessary eviction of renters and foreclosures on rental properties. And unlike proposals that would force banks to make uneconomical modifications, or prohibit lenders from taking ownership of a renteroccupied home, relaxing regulations governing bank management of foreclosured properties could keep some families in their homes without
Just as important, businesses will devote their time, money, and
5
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR [email protected]
5 August 2009
having to violate contracts or re-distribute wealth.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama’s Tax Pledge [The Club for Growth] AUG 04, 2009 09:07A.M.
Transparency: Obama’s Waterloo? [Cato at Liberty]
From the Chicago Tribune:
AUG 04, 2009 09:26A.M.
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama’s top economic advisers that new taxes for middle-income Americans cannot be ruled out, the White House insisted Monday that the president’s “commitment” to a campaign pledge to avert new taxes for those earning less than $250,000 a year holds firm.
“When congressmen scoff at the notion of reading legislation because they aren’t qualified or they aren’t competent to understand it, how can we be confident that those congressman are competent to reengineer the entire health care system?”
[...]”The president’s clear commitment is not to raise taxes on those making less than $250,000 a year,” [Press Secretary Robert] Gibbs told reporters pressing for an explanation about apparent discrepancies in the White House’s message.
So asked a citizen at a town hall meeting where Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) held forth before a cantankerous crowd. It’s a fair question. And President Obama offered an answer during his campaign. He promised that he would post bills coming to him from Congress online for five days before signing them. Rather than relying on Congress, the public should have more oversight of it.
“I hope you’ll take my reiteration of this clear commitment... in the clearest terms possible, that he is not raising taxes on those who make less than $250,000 a year,” Gibbs said. The House bill already taxes people making less than $250,000 a year so they’re already off to a bad start.
(Alas, it’s a promise he has violated thirty-nine forty-one times. He signed two more bills into law last week within a day of receiving them.)
HT: Steve Bartin Under President Obama’s “Sunlight Before Signing” pledge or the 72hour-hold in Congress preferred by the Sunlight Foundation, members of Congress and senators would be more reticent to introduce potentially controversial amendments, and they would be more obliged to know and defend what is in the bills they vote on. President Obama set the standard—if not the precedent—by which lawmaking practice will be judged. He will have to rise to that standard as the public has more leisure to take the measure of his presidency. Congress will too. (It’s not the president’s Waterloo, of course. I just put that in the title to attract your attention.)
6
Related Documents
August 5. 2009
May 2020 0
5 August 2009
May 2020 0
Auburn Trader - August 5, 2009
May 2020 8
August 2009
June 2020 14
August 2009
May 2020 23