New House Speaker John Boehner, R, Ohio, has rejected estimates from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that his plan to kill the affordable health care act would increase the deficit $230 billion in the next nine years.(CBO summary report)
He told the Washington Post in a comprehensive and very fair story "Well, I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health-care law will increase the deficit," he replied. "CBO is entitled to their opinion, but they're locked within constraints of the 1974 Budget Act."
For years, Boehner has used CBO estimates (as does every else because they're legitimate) for his own arguments on the affordable health care bill's initial costs. When CBO reported those costs as too high or raising the deficit, the Obama administration went back and changed things about the law, after which CBO changed its costs estimates.
Everyone, including Boehner, seemed to accept those estimates.
In addition, Boehner and the Republican leadership appear to be doing the same things they decried in the crafting of the affordable health care bill. They are not going to allow any hearings or allow any amendments to their bill to repeal the act. They're basically going to cut off discussion, a curious thing to do in a body of Congress.
That's just hard to defend. Here's what Boehner told the Post. "I promised a more open process. I didn't promise that every single bill was going to be an open bill."
Yikes. That's pretty damning.
I'm not sure I would advise Mr. Boehner to do many of the things he criticized when he was out of power. And if we're going to pick and choose when we believe the CBO, we may as well guess at the numbers.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
If the federal government were a bank, it would be shut down
I came across a press release from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and was quite stunned by its veracity.
Here's the lead sentence.
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations."
It basically says the federal government doesn't have enough internal and external financial controls for an auditing agency like the GAO to even given an opinion (much less a good or bad opinion) about the accuracy of its financial statements.
In other words, if the federal government were a bank, it would likely be shut down. There's not an accounting way to tell if the financial statements are accurate or tell us anything.
Here's the statement.
Read and be amazed. Or scared. Eikes!
Here's the lead sentence.
"The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations."
It basically says the federal government doesn't have enough internal and external financial controls for an auditing agency like the GAO to even given an opinion (much less a good or bad opinion) about the accuracy of its financial statements.
In other words, if the federal government were a bank, it would likely be shut down. There's not an accounting way to tell if the financial statements are accurate or tell us anything.
Here's the statement.
Read and be amazed. Or scared. Eikes!
Monday, January 3, 2011
Cal Thomas misleads on "death panels"
The Cal Thomas column in today's (Tues. Jan. 4) Free Press in unfortunately misleading and should be considered warily by readers as an opinion based on facts.
Thomas fails to mention one or two key facts about the new provision in Medicare rules that allows Medicare to pay for end of life counseling between a physician and patient.
Here's the column in the Washington Examiner.
He doesn't mention anywhere that this discussion is totally voluntary, and the government does not mandate this discussion, though Thomas' column would have you believe so.
In my opinion, Cal Thomas is intellectually dishonest in this argument. I have no problem with him arguing this policy will evolve into his so called "death panel" ( a very inaccurate term for the policy), but to leave out pertinent facts to help readers decide if your opinion is sound is pretty much unconscionable as a columnist.
So, as editor, why do I allow his misleading and unconscionable column to be printed?
Well, I guess that's just my belief that most people will be able to tell misleading when they read it and give him less credibility in the free marketplace of ideas.
I do reserve the right however, at some point, to stop paying for his misleading columns should they become too numerous. Fortunately, he doesn't always act this way. I have even been known to agree with him at times.
So we'll cut him some slack for now.
Thomas fails to mention one or two key facts about the new provision in Medicare rules that allows Medicare to pay for end of life counseling between a physician and patient.
Here's the column in the Washington Examiner.
He doesn't mention anywhere that this discussion is totally voluntary, and the government does not mandate this discussion, though Thomas' column would have you believe so.
In my opinion, Cal Thomas is intellectually dishonest in this argument. I have no problem with him arguing this policy will evolve into his so called "death panel" ( a very inaccurate term for the policy), but to leave out pertinent facts to help readers decide if your opinion is sound is pretty much unconscionable as a columnist.
So, as editor, why do I allow his misleading and unconscionable column to be printed?
Well, I guess that's just my belief that most people will be able to tell misleading when they read it and give him less credibility in the free marketplace of ideas.
I do reserve the right however, at some point, to stop paying for his misleading columns should they become too numerous. Fortunately, he doesn't always act this way. I have even been known to agree with him at times.
So we'll cut him some slack for now.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
"Death Panels" debunked: Bachmann voted for them in 2008
The old "death panel" distortions raised their ugly heads again when President Obama through legal administrative procedure recently included end-of-life planning between doctor and patient as a service that could be covered under Medicare preventive care.
The term "death panel" is a distortion. Media shouldn't even use it just like we would not use the term priest to describe a Lutheran pastor. Death panel is just not accurate. People on both sides of the political aisle have agreed this is a "hyperbolic" term, the most recent was John McCain's advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer speaking on the issue on CNN a few nights ago.
Though she called it hyperbolic she still argues that the provision puts government in control of one's end of life decision or discussion. One can debate that I suppose, but barely. There is no specific language that says government is involved at all, -- it's between doctor and patient -- and even then its totally voluntary.
But as correctly pointed out by numerous sources, the so called "death panel" provision for end of life counseling was put in Legislation passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress in 2008 and put in place by the Bush Administration after that.
Bush vetoed the 2008 bill but mainly because it removed his planned 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors. He was overridden by large margins of both Democrats and Republicans in the House by a vote of 383-41 and in the Senate by 70-26.
The Bush administration later incorporated the end of life provisions into its Medicare regulations and rules.
Here is the exact language from the Congressional bill tracking system.
"(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 24, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 - Title I: Medicare - Subtitle A: Beneficiary Improvements - Part 1: Prevention, Mental Health, and Marketing - (Sec. 101) Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended by the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, to cover additional preventive services."
Here is the specific provision.
"Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations."
Link to entire bill summary for skeptics.
Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of it. It might surprise you. Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the people continually using the hyperbolic term "death panels" and expressing her vehemence against them during the health care reform debate voted with all other state Republicans as well as Democrats to override the Bush veto, and approve the Legislation with end of life voluntary planning.
Here's the House vote
Here's the Senate vote
The term "death panel" is a distortion. Media shouldn't even use it just like we would not use the term priest to describe a Lutheran pastor. Death panel is just not accurate. People on both sides of the political aisle have agreed this is a "hyperbolic" term, the most recent was John McCain's advisor Nancy Pfotenhauer speaking on the issue on CNN a few nights ago.
Though she called it hyperbolic she still argues that the provision puts government in control of one's end of life decision or discussion. One can debate that I suppose, but barely. There is no specific language that says government is involved at all, -- it's between doctor and patient -- and even then its totally voluntary.
But as correctly pointed out by numerous sources, the so called "death panel" provision for end of life counseling was put in Legislation passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress in 2008 and put in place by the Bush Administration after that.
Bush vetoed the 2008 bill but mainly because it removed his planned 10.6 percent cut in Medicare payments to doctors. He was overridden by large margins of both Democrats and Republicans in the House by a vote of 383-41 and in the Senate by 70-26.
The Bush administration later incorporated the end of life provisions into its Medicare regulations and rules.
Here is the exact language from the Congressional bill tracking system.
"(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 24, 2008. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 - Title I: Medicare - Subtitle A: Beneficiary Improvements - Part 1: Prevention, Mental Health, and Marketing - (Sec. 101) Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act (SSA), as amended by the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, to cover additional preventive services."
Here is the specific provision.
"Includes body mass index and end-of-life planning among initial preventive physical examinations."
Link to entire bill summary for skeptics.
Republicans and Democrats voted in favor of it. It might surprise you. Rep. Michele Bachmann, one of the people continually using the hyperbolic term "death panels" and expressing her vehemence against them during the health care reform debate voted with all other state Republicans as well as Democrats to override the Bush veto, and approve the Legislation with end of life voluntary planning.
Here's the House vote
Here's the Senate vote
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Tax cuts and the deficit: This doesn't make economic sense does it?
Congress passed a year-end tax cut deal that will give lots of folks, everyone nearly, a nice tax cut, but it will increase our federal deficit by 27 percent next year and 50 percent in 10 years.
Which leads me to ask: Does that make sense?
Yes and no. It makes sense because it's an attempt to stimulate consumer demand. If we have a few more bucks in our paycheck, we might go out to eat more, or just buy some more stuff. That's what Congress is hoping.
But what about the debt. Shouldn't we be paying that down? In our own minds we've got to say yes, for all the usual reasons: the Chinese will start to control our debt, and maybe us someday. The investors in U.S. stocks will see this craziness for what it is and your 401(k) will become a 201(k).
Seems risky at best.
But someone smarter than me about world markets and the economy once told me the markets never lie. So, if the stock market still seems to be doing well, and credit markets and other investments are also doing well after the news of debt expansion hits, then there maybe aren't a lot of people with lots of money too worried.
But of course, markets get new information and new feelings every day, so stay tuned.
But that's my 30 second analysis, always subject to change and sometimes even wildly off-base.
That's why we've given you a chance to weigh in on the subject and be a star of The Free Press opinion page. Go here to give us your two cents, or $850 billion worth.
Which leads me to ask: Does that make sense?
Yes and no. It makes sense because it's an attempt to stimulate consumer demand. If we have a few more bucks in our paycheck, we might go out to eat more, or just buy some more stuff. That's what Congress is hoping.
But what about the debt. Shouldn't we be paying that down? In our own minds we've got to say yes, for all the usual reasons: the Chinese will start to control our debt, and maybe us someday. The investors in U.S. stocks will see this craziness for what it is and your 401(k) will become a 201(k).
Seems risky at best.
But someone smarter than me about world markets and the economy once told me the markets never lie. So, if the stock market still seems to be doing well, and credit markets and other investments are also doing well after the news of debt expansion hits, then there maybe aren't a lot of people with lots of money too worried.
But of course, markets get new information and new feelings every day, so stay tuned.
But that's my 30 second analysis, always subject to change and sometimes even wildly off-base.
That's why we've given you a chance to weigh in on the subject and be a star of The Free Press opinion page. Go here to give us your two cents, or $850 billion worth.
Monday, December 27, 2010
I agree with conservative Phil Krinkie and others
Businesses don't create jobs because of tax cuts, and they don't leave the state because taxes are too high.
Thank you, Phil Krinkie, for being a conservative willing to say that. Krinkie, as you may remember, was a longtime conservative member of the Minnesota House, and chairman of the Tax Committee.
He made the comment to MinnPost's Eric Black in a very interesting story on Tim Pawlenty's tenure as governor. It's very much worth reading.
The job creation argument has been the stuff of political rhetoric, says Krinkie. This comes from someone who worked years with dozens of business leaders, one of whom told him he kept his business in the state because his kids were in high school and it had nothing to do with taxes.
Over and over again, this year, we had those running for office saying any tax increase on the wealthy or business would be a "job killer." It's one of the most unproven statements I've ever seen the media let people get away with.
Another longtime businessman, Myles Spicer of Minnetonka, who also wrote a great essay for MinnPost titled "What Small Business Really Wants." And, according to Spicer, it's not a tax cut, really.
Spicer established and owned several successful ad agencies in the Twin Cities and been in business for 40 years.
There is not one study I have seen that shows small businesses cut jobs when their taxes go up or add them when their taxes go down.
But Spicer offers a study of what doesn't happen.
His words:
"A sanctimonious — and detrimental — claim
The most egregious of their useless proposals revolve around the current the tax debate — whether to include the top 2 percent in reversing the Bush tax cuts. The sanctimonious claim is "this would hurt small business" — and this suggestion is incredibly wrong and even detrimental.
It is wrong for many reasons, mostly because it is fiction. It would not affect the huge majority of small businesses, to begin with. In a very cogent recent study, Scott Shane, the A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University, plotted the average of all industries and businesses classified as "small business," with the average revenues at a little over $1.5 million annually, and the average income (on which taxes are paid) is about $100,500. This is far from the $250K target for increasing taxes on the wealthy (or small businesses). Moreover, almost all such businesses are classified as Sub-S corporations, and as such they pay no taxes at all (profits are prorated and passed through to the shareholders, of which there could be several or more, further diminishing the likelihood of $250K taxation)."
His credentials in his own words.
"After serving in the U.S. Air Force for three years of active duty, I was honorably discharged in 1957. A friend of mine owned a small Twin City ad agency, and having gone to flight school, he advised me that his largest account sold communications equipment to the Air Force. He asked me to join him. A few years later I became a partner in my own agency, and owned several more Minnesota agencies over the decades. From that day on I have been entrepreneurial, my own boss, and a quintessential small businessman. Additionally, I have owned small businesses in the aforementioned advertising, Twin Cities real estate, health care — and at 77 still own and operate my own successful local businesses today. That gives me well over half a century of expertise to share with you, and the right to point out that most of the proposals today are irrelevant, or worse, and the right proposals are being ignored."
Thank you, Phil Krinkie, for being a conservative willing to say that. Krinkie, as you may remember, was a longtime conservative member of the Minnesota House, and chairman of the Tax Committee.
He made the comment to MinnPost's Eric Black in a very interesting story on Tim Pawlenty's tenure as governor. It's very much worth reading.
The job creation argument has been the stuff of political rhetoric, says Krinkie. This comes from someone who worked years with dozens of business leaders, one of whom told him he kept his business in the state because his kids were in high school and it had nothing to do with taxes.
Over and over again, this year, we had those running for office saying any tax increase on the wealthy or business would be a "job killer." It's one of the most unproven statements I've ever seen the media let people get away with.
Another longtime businessman, Myles Spicer of Minnetonka, who also wrote a great essay for MinnPost titled "What Small Business Really Wants." And, according to Spicer, it's not a tax cut, really.
Spicer established and owned several successful ad agencies in the Twin Cities and been in business for 40 years.
There is not one study I have seen that shows small businesses cut jobs when their taxes go up or add them when their taxes go down.
But Spicer offers a study of what doesn't happen.
His words:
"A sanctimonious — and detrimental — claim
The most egregious of their useless proposals revolve around the current the tax debate — whether to include the top 2 percent in reversing the Bush tax cuts. The sanctimonious claim is "this would hurt small business" — and this suggestion is incredibly wrong and even detrimental.
It is wrong for many reasons, mostly because it is fiction. It would not affect the huge majority of small businesses, to begin with. In a very cogent recent study, Scott Shane, the A. Malachi Mixon III Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University, plotted the average of all industries and businesses classified as "small business," with the average revenues at a little over $1.5 million annually, and the average income (on which taxes are paid) is about $100,500. This is far from the $250K target for increasing taxes on the wealthy (or small businesses). Moreover, almost all such businesses are classified as Sub-S corporations, and as such they pay no taxes at all (profits are prorated and passed through to the shareholders, of which there could be several or more, further diminishing the likelihood of $250K taxation)."
His credentials in his own words.
"After serving in the U.S. Air Force for three years of active duty, I was honorably discharged in 1957. A friend of mine owned a small Twin City ad agency, and having gone to flight school, he advised me that his largest account sold communications equipment to the Air Force. He asked me to join him. A few years later I became a partner in my own agency, and owned several more Minnesota agencies over the decades. From that day on I have been entrepreneurial, my own boss, and a quintessential small businessman. Additionally, I have owned small businesses in the aforementioned advertising, Twin Cities real estate, health care — and at 77 still own and operate my own successful local businesses today. That gives me well over half a century of expertise to share with you, and the right to point out that most of the proposals today are irrelevant, or worse, and the right proposals are being ignored."
Monday, December 20, 2010
Some facts that are getting lost
News reports I've read would lead the typical reader to believe the recently approved so called Obama-Republican tax deal would had $850 billion to the deficit.
Most people would read that as $850 billion onto the current 2010 fiscal year deficit of $1.4 trillion. So adding $850 billion to current $1.4 trillion, looks like it increases the CURRENT federal deficit by more than 50 percent.
Actually, the projection for the deal adding to the deficit is for the period 2011 to 2020, as this CBO document shows. Go all the way to the bottom and see the recently passed legislation adds about $857.8 billion to the deficit.
So, it's only adding to the debt by about $374 billion next year, only about a 27 percent increase, not the 50 percent the "not exactly" media would have you believe.
Feel better? Well maybe.
Most people would read that as $850 billion onto the current 2010 fiscal year deficit of $1.4 trillion. So adding $850 billion to current $1.4 trillion, looks like it increases the CURRENT federal deficit by more than 50 percent.
Actually, the projection for the deal adding to the deficit is for the period 2011 to 2020, as this CBO document shows. Go all the way to the bottom and see the recently passed legislation adds about $857.8 billion to the deficit.
So, it's only adding to the debt by about $374 billion next year, only about a 27 percent increase, not the 50 percent the "not exactly" media would have you believe.
Feel better? Well maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)