Freedom Line Blog

“Health Care Bill Gets Green Light in Cost Analysis”

That is the gift proponents of government-run health care received this morning in the form of a New York Times headline.  That headline, however, along with its accompanying story about the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost analysis of the Baucus bill, is about as deceptive as the ObamaCare sales job Washington politicians have been employing for months.

CBO’s preliminary cost analysis is just that – a preliminary estimate based on a theoretical framework of ideas approved by the Senate Finance Committee.  It’s preliminary because the actual bill hasn’t been written yet, much less been combined with at least five other, more expensive versions of “reform” circulating in the House and Senate.  As Chris Frates of Politico.com noted yesterday:

While the media and lawmakers often shorthand a CBO letter as a ‘score’ or ‘cost estimate,’ today’s CBO letter is neither. Because the bill is still in ‘conceptual,’ or layman’s terms, CBO’s letter today was a ‘preliminary analysis.’  For it to be an official cost estimate, the bill has to be translated into legislative language.

“And CBO goes to great pains in its letter to make the distinction:

“‘CBO and JCT’s analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman’s mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language,’ the letter says.”

In other words, is anyone prepared to believe that the most recent CBO cost estimate will even come close to resembling reality once the Baucus bill is combined with the budget-busting provisions of the various other versions of ObamaCare?  After Reid and Pelosi are through with their parliamentary tricks outlined here and here?

Yet liberals and the mainstream media today are giddy with excitement.  Why?  Because regardless of the fact that the CBO letter means nothing in the grand scheme of things, something at which the CBO itself hints, for the first time in this debate they have something – anything – that supports their dream of government-run health care.   Reality be damned. 

Our guess is that the large majority of Americans are still not ready to join their party.  Even taken at face value, CBO’s preliminary claim that the Baucus bill will actually reduce the budget deficit by $81 billion over 10 years simply means that the legislation raises taxes on businesses and individuals and cuts benefits only slightly more than it increases spending, while still leaving 25 million people uninsured.  And the more expensive the final bill gets – don’t believe for a moment that it won’t get more expensive – the greater the tax increases and benefit cuts will become in order to square with the President’s pledge to not sign a bill that adds “one dime” to the deficit.

Isn’t “change” grand?

CFIF has written about and commented on the crushing blow that forced expansion of Medicaid, as called for in the health care reform bills making their way through Congress, will have on state budgets.

But don’t take our word for it.  Here is what Democrat Governors are saying about the issue, as compiled by the Senate Republican Communications Center:

Dem Health Care Angst Beyond The Beltway

Democrat Governors Say Their States Can’t Shoulder Burden Of New Democrat Health Care Mandates

GOV. TED STRICKLAND (D-OH): “The States, With Our Financial Challenges Right Now, Are Not In A Position To Accept Additional Medicaid Responsibilities.” “Still, Strickland warned on a recent visit to Washington that ‘the states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities.’ Strickland said that he wants ‘a health-care package that is inclusive and provides for all citizens,’ but he added that if Medicaid is expanded, he hopes to ‘see the federal government assume the greater portion of the costs, if not the total costs.’” (“Expansion Of Medicaid Could Impose Costs On Ohio,” Columbus Dispatch, 10/7/09)

GOV. JOHN LYNCH (D-NH): Did Not Sign A Letter Supporting Health Care Reform Because It Failed To “Address Concerns Regarding Potential Cost Shifting To The States.” “Last week, Democratic governors sent a letter to congressional leaders proclaiming that ‘the status quo is no longer an option’ and urging passage of a healthcare bill this year. Six Democratic governors did not sign the letter for various reasons. In the case of New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, he did not sign because the letter failed to ‘address concerns regarding potential cost shifting to the states,’ said Colin Manning, a spokesman for the governor. ‘And this concern has been shared by a number of governors that Gov. Lynch has spoken to across the country,’ Manning said.” (“Obama Finds Support Outside Party And Washington For Healthcare Plan,” Los Angeles Times, 10/7/09)

GOV. PHIL BREDESEN (D-TN): “My Guess Is That Most Other States Would Face A Similarly Painful Situation If These Costs Are Passed Down.” “In his letter to Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Bredesen also urged the senator and his fellow lawmakers to temper down their proposed changes to the low-income healthcare entitlement — an expansion Corker later described as an ‘unfunded mandate’ that could overburden states at a time when many are struggling to manage the recession. ‘My guess is that most other states would face a similarly painful situation if these costs are passed down,’ Corker explained in his own statement on Tuesday.” (“Tenn. Gov Bredesen: Medicaid Expansion Could Cost State Millions,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 10/6/09)

Govs. Mike Beebe (D-AR), Jay Nixon (D-MO), Bev Perdue (D-NC), John Lynch (D-NH) And Dave Freudenthal (D-WY) Held Out From Signing A Letter On Health Care Reform With Other Democrat Governors. “It’s a standard letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner, telling them states ‘will only achieve the health care security and stability they need if we succeed in working together with the Congress and the President to achieve health care reform.’ But missing from the signatures at the bottom are six governors: Mike Beebe (AR), Jay Nixon (MO), Bev Perdue (NC), John Lynch (NH), Dave Freudenthal (WY) and Brad Henry (OK).” (“Six Dem Governors Hold Out On Health Care Letter,” TPMDC, 10/5/09)

GOV. DAVE FREUDENTHAL (D-WY):“Freudenthal Said Expanding Medicaid May Be A Quick Way To Get Coverage For The Uninsured, But It’s Far From The Most Cost- Effective Or Efficient.He added that any health-reform plans must include steps to hold down costs. ‘That’s why I think you find governors interested in cost savings, reform and wellness activities,’ Freudenthal said. … ‘You know, you only have so much money, and this is the basic math: If you have 47 million people who don’t have coverage in the country, and your goal is to get coverage for those people, you can’t come to us and say that it’s not going to cost society anything.’” (“Medicaid Expansion May Be Budget Buster,” Wyoming Tribune Eagle, 7/27/09)

GOV. BEV PERDUE (D-NC): “The Absolute Deal Breaker For Me As Governor Is A Federal Plan That Shifts Costs To The States.” “We are all hungry for a solution, but the absolute deal breaker for me as governor is a federal plan that shifts costs to the states.” (“Perdue: Don’t Give States The Bill,” [Raleigh, NC] News & Observer, 7/21/09)

GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA): “I Don’t Think It’s An Accounting Trick, I Think It’s An Unfunded Mandate … We Just Don’t Have The Wherewithal To Absorb That Without Some New Revenue Source …” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 9/3/09)

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM):  “We Can’t Afford That, And That’s Not Acceptable.” (“Govs Resist Added Federal Expenses From Congress,” The Associated Press, 7/19/09)

GOV. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE (D-WA): “As A Governor, My Concern Is That If We Try To Cost-Shift To The States We’re Not Going To Be In A Position To Pick Up The Tab.” (“Governors Fear Medicaid Costs In Health Plan,” The New York Times, 7/20/09)

GOV. BILL RITTER (D-CO): “Our Only Point Was That A Significant Medicaid Expansion Should Not Operate As An Unfunded Mandate For The States.” (“Ritter Fears Federal Expenses May Hit Colorado,” The Denver Post, 7/20/09)

GOV. BRIAN SCHWEITZER (D-MT): “The Governors Are Concerned About Unfunded Mandates, Another Situation Where The Federal Government Says You Must Do X And You Must Pay For It. Well if they want to reform health care, they should figure out what the rules are and how they are going to pay for it.” (“Many Governors Against Health Care Bill, Label It Unfunded Mandate,” Fox News, 7/19/09)

GOV. JOE MANCHIN (D-WV): “They Thought The Best Way, The Federal Government Thought The Best Way Is By Expanding Medicaid To Make That Happen. But We Have Said, ‘Under No Conditions Can We Take Unfunded Mandates.’ You can’t raise the eligibility of Medicaid 133% and put a $100 billion back on the states to pick up.” (“Governor Manchin Joins Counterparts In Mississippi,” [West Virginia] Metro News, 7/20/09)

###

SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
202.228.NEWS

Below is the latest from Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.

When it comes to reducing carbon emissions to avoid what Al Gore and others refer to as Environmental Armageddon, we thought we had heard it all.  
 
The big bad oil companies, soccer moms and their SUVs, incandescent light bulbs, Al Gore himself… heck, even cows and pigs are contributing to the apparent destruction of mankind. 

But a story out today just may take the cake.  According to eTurboNews:

Sure, one person’s deposits into an airplane toilet don’t weigh much, but what about the pee from 200 people? Japanese airline ANA thinks full bladders lead to airplanes being weighed down by excrement, so it is implementing a wacky new policy: pee before you fly.

“The airline is putting up signs at airport gates asking passengers to go to the bathroom. So-called ‘loo attendants’ stand guard as well, asking potential pee-ers if they need to take a trip to the restroom. Bathrooms will still be on the plane, of course, in case of bathroom emergency. But ANA hopes that its shaming tactics will cut down on passengers’ overall weight, in turn reducing the weight of the plane and lowering fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions.”

Any bets on how long it will take Sen. Barbara Boxer or Rep. Henry Waxman to propose legislation requiring Americans to pee before driving?

It’s Monday.  And, why not start the week off with another, check that, several new charges and allegations of fraud and corruption against everyone’s favorite community organizing group, ACORN.

For starters, Breitbart has this video of a Fox News interview with Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller (a Democrat), whose office uncovered a paper trail implicating ACORN, the organization, of voter fraud.   This is significant as most of the ACORN voter fraud investigations and prosecutions to date have focused solely on the group’s employees.  

Specifically, Ross’ office found evidence that ACORN illegally used prisoners to canvass for voters during the 2008 presidential election, among other things.  Read more on the story here.

Then yesterday, The Washington Examiner ran an editorial in which it highlights more ACORN shenanigans from Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. 

In Louisiana, an investigation by the Pelican Institute revealed that a local ACORN Housing Corp. office received contracts worth $625,000, paid for by HUD Community Development Block Grants, to repair and develop low-income housing in New Orleans.   There’s only one problem:  According to the Examiner, the Pelican Institute “found that no work was actually performed to fulfill the contracts” and “the office address listed on the contracts for ACORN turned out to be a vacant lot.”

In Oklahoma City, documents from a vacant ACORN office included a memo detailing the organizations “five-year plan” to elect progressive legislators.  Those documents, many of which are now in the possession of OklahomaWatchdog.org, also revealed information about an ACORN project in Houston for “hiring Outreach Workers to remind people to get out and vote for Barack Obama in the upcoming election.”   As the Examiner noted:

As a tax-exempt nonprofit, ACORN is barred from participating in partisan election activities, and its national spokesmen have insisted throughout the 2008 presidential race that their organization was not working to elect Obama.”

With the mountain of evidence suggesting widespread fraud and other illegal activities growing by the day, to steal from the title of the Examiner editorial, “Now will Congress investigate ACORN?”

Last week, CFIF ran a commentary piece discussing the budget-busting effects that an expansion of Medicaid, as called for in the health care reform bills making their way through Congress, will have on state budgets.

With many state budgets deep in the red and governors scrambling to find more places to cut due to the economic downturn, we warned:

The principal (but far from only) problem for the states [with health care reform] is forced expansion of Medicaid, a shared expense with the federal government, but already coming apart at the seams in many states, which must, on average, pay about 43 percent of Medicaid costs.”

Shailagh Murray of The Washington Post has a piece today with the sub-title “Governors Fear For Their Budgets” that addresses the issue, and which reads in part:

Whether Medicaid can absorb a huge influx of beneficiaries is a matter of grave concern to many governors, who have cut low-income health benefits — along with school funding, prison construction, state jobs and just about everything else — to cope with the most severe economic downturn in decades.”

The issue is getting some attention in Congress, particularly by Majority Leader Harry Reid who cut a sweetheart deal with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to, as Murray notes, “ensure that the federal government would pay the full cost of expanding Medicaid in Reid’s state, Nevada.” 

Some governors, notably Rick Perry (R-TX), Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Mitch Daniels (R-IN), are already speaking out on this issue.  Is yours?

CFIF has commented extensively on the imprudent push by Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Chairman Julius Genachowski and others in the Obama Administration to impose “Net Neutrality” regulations on Internet network providers.  We’ve discussed how Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem that will stifle private investment in high speed networks and work counter to the President’s goal of universal broadband access.

But in addition to the policy arguments against Net Neutrality, the question remains whether the FCC even possesses the statutory authority to impose such regulations without Congress’ consent.

Barbara Esbin, Senior Fellow & Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, analyzes that question in a recent paper titled, “The Audacity to Hope Regulatory Restraint Will Prevail.”  Her conclusion: “[N]o, it does not, at least not for the reasons the agency has advanced to date.”

Esbin writes:

The question of regulatory jurisdiction is not so directly implicated when the FCC propounds broad, but unenforceable, policy principles, as it did with its 2005 Internet Policy Statement. But legally binding ‘rules of the road,’ such as those envisioned by the agency’s Chairman, must rest on a convincing factual predicate and must come within the scope of the regulatory powers delegated to the FCC by Congress. And it is the latter that is called into question by the FCC’s reliance on the doctrine of ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ in its Comcast P2P Order, currently on review before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court not especially hospitable to such claims. If the FCC’s jurisdictional theory falls before the D.C. Circuit, the most it may be able to achieve with its new rulemaking is an expanded set of policy principles. Well, one can hope.

Read the full paper here (.pdf).

This week’s installment of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who haven’t had a chance to read it, below is a summary of its contents:

Senik:  Iran, Infelicitously
Lee:  Barack Obama – the Rooster Who Claimed Credit for the Economic Sunrise
CFIF Staff Commentary:  It’s 10 p.m. Do You Know Where Your Governor Is?
Batkins:  Gun Rights on Trial

Freedom Minute Video:  The Staying Alive Tax
Podcast:  The Real Threat of Iran’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Activity– Interview with The Heritage Foundation’s Ted Bromund

Jester’s Courtroom:  “Hot Dogs,” Get Your Lawsuit
Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week 

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update by e-mail, sign up here.

The New York Times reports:

COPENHAGEN — The International Olympic Committee delivered a stunning blow to Chicago’s bid for the 2016 Olympics, knocking it out of the voting in the first round Friday, leaving Rio de Janeiro and Madrid waiting for the announcement which city will host the Games. Tokyo was eliminated in the second round.

I.O.C. president Jacques Rogge made the announcement as the first round concluded, a surprisingly early exit, especially because of President Barack Obama’s whirlwind trip to boost the bid of his adopted city. Mr. Obama was the first American president to make an in-person appeal for a bid city and first lady Michelle Obama had also come earlier this week to lobby I.O.C. members for votes. Chicago’s bid leaders had worked for nearly four years and spent close to $50 million to bring the Olympics to the United States for the first time in 20 years. Chicago had been considered among Olympic insiders as a favorite to win the Games, along with Rio.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are still waiting on Obama to make a decision on whether he will send reinforcements, Iran has nuclear weapons, U.S. unemployment hit 9.8% today, the stimulus isn’t working, deficit spending is through the roof, your neighbor just lost his job… do we really need to keep going?

Below is the latest from Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez.

View more of Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website.

Despite the Senate Finance Committee voting twice this week to reject a government-run public health insurance option, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today on a phone call with constituents:

We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president’s desk.”

This, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino discusses the massive tax hike on life-saving medical devices that Senate Democrats wish to pass as part of health care reform legislation.

In these tough economic times, most American families have been forced to tighten belts and pinch pennies to make ends meet.  And with rising deficits and an exploding national debt, we would expect our lawmakers in Washington to do the same when it comes to spending our tax dollars.  That is, if Americans didn’t know any better. 

Nu Raju of Politico.com reports:

Under a House-Senate conference measure, approved by the House last week and poised for passage in the Senate on Wednesday, spending for the legislative branch will increase 5.8 percent this year, boosting Capitol Hill’s annual budget to $4.7 billion.

“The measure includes a hodgepodge of new funding for lawmakers: a $500,000 pilot program for senators to send out postcards about their town hall meetings, $30,000 for receptions for foreign dignitaries and $4 million for consultants…”

The measure also includes a 128% increase in funding for House office buildings and a 155% spending increase for the Government Printing Office’s revolving fund, among other goodies.

In a column published today, CFIF Contributing Editor Troy Senik argues that the Administration’s response to a nuclear Iran must be more definitive.

Below are some highlights of the piece:

The die has yet to be cast, but when the history of the momentous changes that beset Iran (and with it the world) in the early 21st century is written, this may go down as the first time in our history when Americans – who often wait too long to respond to a crisis – failed to react whatsoever.
 
“Last week, as President Obama gathered with world leaders at a United Nations session in New York, Iran announced the existence of a second nuclear site on its soil, this one’s location obscured deep beneath one of the country’s mountain ranges.  For the second time in less than a year, a rogue nation was showing off its weapons capacities as the President held court about the need for a nuclear-free world.  The net effect was something like holding a gun control rally in the middle of a gang fight.”

Red the full column here.

Following last week’s General Assembly meetings at the United Nations, former Arkansas Governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee gave his impressions of the world body during a speech at the How To Take Back America Conference in St. Louis.

“It’s time to say enough of the American taxpayer’s dollar being spent on something that may have been a noble idea, but has become a disgrace,” said Huckabee to the cheering audience. “[The U.N.] has become the international equivalent of ACORN.”

The more Americans learn about what Congress is doing to reform the nation’s health care system, the less the American people support it.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey, support among nationwide voters for the reform plan(s) being pushed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats has shrunk to 41%, with 56% of voters opposing it.  “That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured,” writes Rasmussen.

Other notable numbers revealed by the survey:

• Only 33% of senior citizens support the plan compared to the 59% who are opposed.
• A mere 16% of voters over the age of 65 ”Strongly Favor” the legislation, while 46% are “Strongly Opposed.”
• 75% of Democrats support the reform being considered by Congress.
• 79% of Republicans are opposed.
• 72% of independent voters — those who don’t affiliate with either major political party — are opposed.
• Among all voters surveyed, 23% “Strongly Favor” the plan vs. 43% who are “Strongly Opposed.”

FoxNews.com reports:

Already facing the loss of federal government funding, the community-organizing group ACORN also has run afoul of one of its big corporate partners, Bank of America Corp. 

“In response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, a spokesman for the banking company said it has ’suspended current commitments’ to ACORN Housing, an affiliated group, and ‘will not enter into any further agreements with ACORN or any of its affiliates,’ pending assessments by the bank of the organization’s operations. …”

Read the full story here.

The Washington Post, in an editorial published this morning titled “The FCC’s Heavy Hand,” takes a surprising but welcome position on the issue of Net Neutrality.  Surprising because of the predictable and consistent pro-regulation stance to which readers of WaPo’s editorial page are accustomed.  Welcome because it rightly points out that “federal regulators should not be telling Internet service providers how to run their businesses.”

The editorial begins:

In a speech at the Brookings Institution last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski promised that his agency’s plan for regulating Internet service providers (ISPs) will be ‘fair, transparent, fact-based and data-driven.’

“That’s nice. But Mr. Genachowski failed to convincingly answer the most important question of all: Is this intervention necessary?”

The answer is “No!”  As the Post noted, Net Neutrality regulations “will jeopardize [‘an unfettered platform for competition, creativity and entrepreneurial activity’] — and stifle further investments by ISPs — with attempts to micromanage what has been a vibrant and well-functioning marketplace.”

“Stick a fork in it.  The public health insurance option is dead!”

That’s what the so-called “experts,” commentators and junkies have been saying for weeks.  Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.  Jeffrey Young, in The Hill today, writes:

The spotlight this week will continue on the Senate Finance Committee, where amendments to add the public insurance option will be offered by Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.) and Chuck Schumer (N.Y.).

“The issue will also continue to be a battle in the House, where liberal and centrists Democrats are fighting over whether it should be included in a House healthcare bill.”

Despite the public furor, town hall meetings and taxpayer marches — all focused, at least in part, in opposition to a government-run insurance plan — the politicians in Washington are not debating whether there should be a government takeover of health care.  Rather, they are fighting over how how much of a government takeover of your health care they can get away with.

Quick question:  If the election were held today, would you vote for your current representative and Senators?

After chairing a United Nations Security Council meeting on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, President Obama gets a nuclear reality check from CFIF’s Renee Giachino.  Watch this week’s Freedom Minute below: