Pages

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Uncovered: New $2 billion bailout in Obamacare


Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.  At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire.
The discovery came on the eve of an oversight hearing focused on the workings of an obscure agency known as CCIO -- the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  CCIO, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the implementation of Section 1102 of the Affordable Care Act, which created something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 -- shortly after Obamacare was passed -- and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.
The idea was to subsidize unions, states, and companies that had made commitments to provide health insurance for workers who retired early --  between the ages of 55 and 64, before they were eligible for Medicare. According to a new report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services, "People in the early retiree age group…often face difficulties obtaining insurance in the individual market because of age or chronic conditions that make coverage unaffordable or inaccessible."  As a result, fewer and fewer organizations have been offering coverage to early retirees; the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program was designed to subsidize such coverage until the creation of Obamacare's health-care exchanges.
The program began making payouts on June 1, 2010.  Between that date and the end of 2010, it paid out about $535 million dollars.  But according to the new report, the rate of spending has since increased dramatically, to about $1.3 billion just for the first two and a half months of this year. At that rate, it could burn through the entire $5 billion appropriation as early as 2012.
Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.
The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.
But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.
Republican investigators count the early-retiree program among those that would never have become law had Democrats allowed more scrutiny of Obamacare at the time it was pushed through the House and Senate.  Since then, Republicans have kept an eye on the program but were not able to pry any information out of the administration until after the GOP won control of the House last November.  Now, finally, they are learning what's going on.

No Deal: House GOP Continues to Push for Largest Spending Cuts Possible



At a press conference yesterday, Speaker Boehner squashed any notion that an “agreement” has been struck to fund the government through September, and vowed that Republicans will continue to fight for the largest spending cuts possible to help end economic uncertainty so businesses can start hiring again.  Video is included below courtesy of ABC News:



Boehner says:

“There is no agreement on numbers.  Nothing will be agreed to until everything is agreed to.  House Republicans only control one half of one third of government, but we’re going to continue to fight for the largest spending cuts we can get.”
It’s been 41 days since House Republicans passed a bill to cut spending and keep the government running through September.  It’s time for Washington Democrats to get to work.

Republicans target left's pet causes


House Republicans unveiled a report on AARP’s alleged abuse of its tax status. | John Shinkle/POLITICO


“The committee will of course conduct rigorous oversight, but it does not ‘target’ any group and does not target anyone based on their political views. AARP came under the microscope because they inexplicably (at the time) endorsed over one-half trillion dollars in cuts to seniors’ Medicare benefits,” Ways and Means deputy staff director Sage Eastman said in an email. “We now have a better idea of why they may have done so; as the report suggests, they stand to reap over $1 billion in profits from cuts to the very seniors they claim to represent.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has devoted much attention to internal abuses by federal agencies. But spokesman Frederick Hill said the panel will also be eyeing another favorite conservative target: public and private unions.
Hill noted internal reviews of allegedly excessive compensation packages for federal employees and favoritism to the pensions of union members of the bankrupt Delphi Corp.
When the House approved Boehner’s school-voucher bill Wednesday, debate fell on the broader context of the influence of teachers unions. Despite earlier GOP expectations for bipartisan support, Illinois Rep. Daniel Lipinski was the only Democrat who voted for the bill, which his party viewed as “anti-union.”
Other examples of longtime liberal allies that have recently come under scrutiny by the House GOP have been pursued for years by individual members. When Indiana Rep. Mike Pence in February won nearly party-line approval of his amendment to end last year’s $317 million in federal support for Planned Parenthood, he said it was the fourth time he had attempted such a cutoff. The controversy over his amendment looms as one of the “policy” issues that could thwart a final deal between the House and Senate to meet the April 8 deadline to extend federal spending.
Likewise, when the House rescinded funds for NPR in the spending bill, internal meltdowns by top officers at the public radio network facilitated the opposition of longtime conservative foes.
Meanwhile, two Republicans — Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah — have proposed a bill to curtail environmental groups’ access to federal funds to reimburse legal fees for nonprofits that successfully sue the federal government. Such a move would cut off groups like Defenders of Wildlife and Friends of the Earth.
Waxman said Republican attacks on these programs have been politically motivated as part of the GOP’s efforts to silence opponents.
“They want to stay in power. They don’t want criticism, so they make ad hominem attacks. As with all bullies, they only want silence,” he said. “They are doing it for their base.” In the final deal cutting on the budget bill, he worried that “Republicans are trying to blackmail the Senate and the president” on the so-called policy riders.
Republicans dismiss such attacks or suggestions that they have an overarching game plan to punish groups on the left.
“The Democratic majority in the House again and again protected liberal special interests,” Steel said. “We are addressing the oversights of their oversight.”


The GOP's True Intentions
April 1, 2011, Matthew Cochrane


  Uh oh. They’re on to us. The mainstream media has finally figured out what the newly energized GOP is all about. Politico has the scoop:

If Republicans break through the spending gridlock that has seized Capitol Hill, the rest of their agenda is starting to come into focus: defunding, investigating and otherwise beating up on liberal causes.At every turn, the GOP is attacking sacred cows of the left. The party has already voted to kill all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a longtime conservative nemesis. NPR may lose its federal support. Republicans have targeted the Environmental Protection Agency for investigation and are moving to kill a federal program that benefits environmental activist groups like Defenders of Wildlife.

Even AARP — once untouchable because of its political and demographic power — is being targeted.This week, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans unveiled a 34-page report on AARP’s alleged abuse of its tax status in health care reform. The GOP has also gone after teachers unions, which were a target in the House-passed bill to encourage school vouchers in the District of Columbia.
Republican attacks on some of these well-known names in the liberal brand are only beginning, aides and lawmakers say. And nevermind that few of these initiatives stand a chance at becoming law, conservatives are getting in their whacks and sending a message.“Each of these initiatives is designed to save taxpayers’ money or create jobs or help needy children. The goal is better public policy for the American people,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. “When conservative policy goals are opposed by liberal special interests, our goal is to break their rice bowls.”
Those dastardly Republicans! When they’re not busy cutting billions of dollars from the federal budget, they’re busy fighting public broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, and out-of-control unions! What will they think of next! 



Republicans target left's pet causes
By: Richard E. Cohen
April 1, 2011 04:39 AM EDT
If Republicans break through the spending gridlock that has seized Capitol Hill, the rest of their agenda is starting to come into focus: defunding, investigating and otherwise beating up on liberal causes.

At every turn, the GOP is attacking sacred cows of the left. The party has already voted to kill all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a longtime conservative nemesis. NPR may lose its federal support. Republicans have targeted the Environmental Protection Agency for investigation and are moving to kill a federal program that benefits environmental activist groups like Defenders of Wildlife.

Even AARP — once untouchable because of its political and demographic power — is being targeted.

This week, House Ways and Means Committee Republicans unveiled a 34-page report on AARP’s alleged abuse of its tax status in health care reform. The GOP has also gone after teachers unions, which were a target in the House-passed bill to encourage school vouchers in the District of Columbia.

Republican attacks on some of these well-known names in the liberal brand are only beginning, aides and lawmakers say. And nevermind that few of these initiatives stand a chance at becoming law, conservatives are getting in their whacks and sending a message.

“Each of these initiatives is designed to save taxpayers’ money or create jobs or help needy children. The goal is better public policy for the American people,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner. “When conservative policy goals are opposed by liberal special interests, our goal is to break their rice bowls.”

But House Democrats, who have been mostly powerless in stopping the GOP attacks, contend that Republican attacks on liberal targets undermine their stated goal of job creation as a top priority.

“There is a tendency for the Republican majority to demonize their opposition, as they did with Red-baiting in the 1950s or questioning people’s patriotism,” said California Rep. Henry Waxman, who himself has been a vigorous lawmaker and investigator in the past. “These groups are being punished for their views. I don’t see the constructive side of the Republican criticism. It’s been punitive.”

And even though Republican leaders insist they aren’t waging a coordinated assault on issues liberals hold dear, GOP attacks continue to crop up individually among various members and House committees. Republican leaders and committee communicators also discuss these types of issues in weekly reviews of their agendas.

This week, when the Ways and Means Committee released its report, “Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know,” Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany (R-La.) suggested that the senior citizen lobby’s commercial activities interfere with its tax-exempt status, and he called for an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service to determine whether the group’s “privileged status ought to be revoked.”

Republicans reject criticisms that their AARP review or other investigations have a partisan motive. The 18-month AARP review was spawned by the Democrats’ handling of the health care bill.
“The committee will of course conduct rigorous oversight, but it does not ‘target’ any group and does not target anyone based on their political views. AARP came under the microscope because they inexplicably (at the time) endorsed over one-half trillion dollars in cuts to seniors’ Medicare benefits,” Ways and Means deputy staff director Sage Eastman said in an email. “We now have a better idea of why they may have done so; as the report suggests, they stand to reap over $1 billion in profits from cuts to the very seniors they claim to represent.”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has devoted much attention to internal abuses by federal agencies. But spokesman Frederick Hill said the panel will also be eyeing another favorite conservative target: public and private unions.

Hill noted internal reviews of allegedly excessive compensation packages for federal employees and favoritism to the pensions of union members of the bankrupt Delphi Corp.

When the House approved Boehner’s school-voucher bill Wednesday, debate fell on the broader context of the influence of teachers unions. Despite earlier GOP expectations for bipartisan support, Illinois Rep. Daniel Lipinski was the only Democrat who voted for the bill, which his party viewed as “anti-union.”

Other examples of longtime liberal allies that have recently come under scrutiny by the House GOP have been pursued for years by individual members. When Indiana Rep. Mike Pence in February won nearly party-line approval of his amendment to end last year’s $317 million in federal support for Planned Parenthood, he said it was the fourth time he had attempted such a cutoff. The controversy over his amendment looms as one of the “policy” issues that could thwart a final deal between the House and Senate to meet the April 8 deadline to extend federal spending.

Likewise, when the House rescinded funds for NPR in the spending bill, internal meltdowns by top officers at the public radio network facilitated the opposition of longtime conservative foes.

Meanwhile, two Republicans — Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana and Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah — have proposed a bill to curtail environmental groups’ access to federal funds to reimburse legal fees for nonprofits that successfully sue the federal government. Such a move would cut off groups like Defenders of Wildlife and Friends of the Earth.

Waxman said Republican attacks on these programs have been politically motivated as part of the GOP’s efforts to silence opponents.

“They want to stay in power. They don’t want criticism, so they make ad hominem attacks. As with all bullies, they only want silence,” he said. “They are doing it for their base.” In the final deal cutting on the budget bill, he worried that “Republicans are trying to blackmail the Senate and the president” on the so-called policy riders.

Republicans dismiss such attacks or suggestions that they have an overarching game plan to punish groups on the left.

“The Democratic majority in the House again and again protected liberal special interests,” Steel said. “We are addressing the oversights of their oversight.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich Apologizes to Police Officer He Called 'Idiot'

Ohio Gov. John Kasich apologized Thursday to the police officer he called an "idiot" during a speech last month.

The governor met briefly at his office with Officer Rob Barrett, extending an apology to him and to law enforcement as a whole for his comments, according to WCMH-TV, the NBC affiliate in Columbus.

Kasich "apologized for using the term and said it was a wrong choice of words and a bad example," said Jim Gilbert, head of Columbus police union, who was also in the meeting. "The governor looked at me and apologized and said that he holds law enforcement in high regard."


The meeting, closed to media and the public, lasted only a few minutes.

In a YouTube video that has made the Internet rounds, Kasich is seen last month repeatedly describing a police officer who ticketed him for a traffic violation as "an idiot." Kasich was cited for passing too close to an emergency vehicle.

Officer Barrett told the Republican governor he could face an arrest warrant if he didn't show up in court.

"He's an idiot," Kasich said in the speech to state workers. "You just can't act that way."

The governor initially tried to apologize to Barrett over the phone, but the officer requested that Kasich meet with him in person, Gilbert told the Columbus Dispatch.

Also Thursday, Columbus Police released an official statement saying cruiser video shows that Barrett acted professionally during the traffic stop.

"Officer Barrett's actions were consistent with the division's core values of professionalism, respect, integrity, discipline, and enthusiasm, and reflect positively on himself and the Division of Police," the statement said.

Barrett has been ordered not to speak publicly about the incident.

Kasich paid an $85 fine for his infraction.

Watch portions of the Kasich speech last month:




Encounter with the Ancient Mariner

Last week our in-house astrophysicist Summer Ash got her geek on about NASA's MESSENGER spacecraft, which was just beginning to orbit around the planet Mercury after a nearly eight-year, circuitous journey.
On Monday, MESSENGER took its first pictures of the surface of Mercury from its new vantage point in orbit, and today, msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle shares the news of NASA's surprise discovery of decades-lost spacecraft Mariner 10, last heard from in 1975.
Suspiciously absent from NASA's coverage of this chance passing is the presence at the time of celebrated tourist-photo mimicker (and TRMS intern), Henry Melcher.
Henry was in space, gathering material for his Posing With Friends blog when MESSENGER captured its shot of Mariner 10 posing with Mercury. The truth revealed:
Release Date: April 1, 2011
Topics: WAC

Date acquired: April 1, 2011
Image Mission Elapsed Time (MET): 209890197
Image ID: 65110
Instrument: Wide Angle Camera (WAC) of the Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS)
WAC filter: 7 (749 nanometers wavelength)
Center Latitude: 3.1°
Center Longitude: 352.3° E
Resolution: 1.5 kilometers/pixel
Scale: The radius of Mercury is 2440 km

Of Interest: MESSENGER captured this image while taking one of its first pictures from orbit around the planet Mercury. The frame shown is one of several images obtained of the same view through the different color filters of the Mercury Dual Imaging system (MDIS) Wide Angle Camera (WAC).

The first reaction of some on the MESSENGER team was that the feature to the left of Mercury’s limb must be an imaging artifact. “It’s the effect of solar neutrinos on the WAC’s CCD,” pronounced Project Scientist Mack Knott. The imaging team was skeptical of this explanation, however, and all Knott could add was “I could explain it to you, but you’d have to understand Feynman diagrams.”

The imaging team brought the anomalous image to the attention of Mission Systems Engineer E. Finn Again, who immediately called an emergency gathering of the Collision Avoidance Review Board. Fortunately, the unusual object in the image did not appear to be in the immediate path of MESSENGER’s next few orbits, but the fact that earlier and subsequent images of the same scene did not include the object prevented a determination of its trajectory.

One of MESSENGER’s Science Team members, Prof. S. T. Rom, recognized the object immediately as Mariner 10, the only spacecraft before MESSENGER to have visited Mercury. Launched in 1973, Mariner 10 flew by Mercury three times in 1974 and 1975 before communication with the probe was lost. Prof. Rom is the only member of the MESSENGER team to have served on the science team of Mariner 10 as well.

The Science Operations Center was filled at the time with MESSENGER team members, and everyone proceeded at once to theorize on why Mariner 10 might appear in an MDIS image of Mercury.

Professor Rom suggested that Mariner 10 may have remained in place as of the time of its last signal:

“Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.”
The dead albatross hanging from Rom’s neck, however, reduced the effectiveness of his argument.

Mission design lead Mick Adams quickly calculated that Mariner 10 should not be encountering Mercury on this date. “Mariner 10 and Mercury were in a resonant state that brought the spacecraft by the planet once every two Mercury years. By my calculation, this appearance is 23 days early.”

Guidance and control lead E. C. Shaughn offered that the effect of solar radiation should have substantially altered Mariner 10’s orbit over the past 36 years as a result of solar sailing:

“With throats unslaked, with black lips baked,
We could nor laugh nor wail;
Through utter drought all dumb we stood!
I bit my arm, I sucked the blood,
And cried, A sail! a sail!”
Propulsion lead Brecht Engel added that some residual propellant after Mariner 10’s last propulsive maneuver may have outgassed, and that multiple outgassing events may also have contributed to trajectory changes:
“A speck, a mist, a shape, I wist!
And still it neared and neared:
As if it dodged a water-sprite,
It plunged and tacked and veered.”
MESSENGER’s navigation team members, all of whom are named Williams, plugged these suggestions into their codes. Minutes later they were able to announce to all assembled that Mariner 10 appeared to be in a new resonant state, one synchronous with Earth’s period. The ancient spacecraft is locked into an orbit that swings it by Mercury once every Earth year, on April 1st.

As MESSENGER passed into eclipse behind Mercury, Prof. Rom had the last word:
“The sun's rim dips; the stars rush out:
At one stride comes the dark;
With far-heard whisper o'er the sea,
Off shot the spectre-bark.”

Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

 NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington

The drones don't need you anymore

 - 
Hey, remember that time Rachel flew the iPhone camera drone?
Well check this out!




That's right, they're playing catch with each other. I had to triple check but I'm almost positive this is not an April Fool's trick with "quadrocopters" bouncing on strings. 1,220,936 views since March 28, 2011 is hard to fake for April Fool's.
In fact, it's apparently part of a Swiss program called The Flying Machine Arena (explanation video here), which is basically a safe place to play with your flying robot. Even though the video includes people holding remote controls, it seems there's a mix of pre-programming and manual control.
But that's not to say it needs any manual control at all. It can bounce a ball all by itself, not only without any human help, but without the benefit of "eyes."

GOP trying to use tax law to limit abortions

Republicans look to limit tax breaks for insurance policies that cover the procedure

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER
updated 3/31/2011 12:00:18 PM ET
House Republicans are trying to use the tax code to curb abortions by limiting tax breaks for insurance policies that cover the procedure.

The House Ways and Means Committee is scheduled to vote on a bill Thursday that would prevent taxpayers from deducting the cost of an abortion from their taxable income. It would also prevent small businesses and taxpayers from using tax credits in the new health care law to provide or pay for insurance policies that cover the procedure.
If women pay for an abortion using tax-free income that had been set aside in a heath savings account, the money would have to be reported as taxable income. There would be exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or if a physician certifies that a woman's life would be in danger if she doesn't terminate her pregnancy.
Current law bars federal money for abortion, with the same exceptions as those in the bill. The health overhaul creates state marketplaces for insurance and allows participating plans to cover abortions, as long as they collect a separate premium from policyholders and that money is kept apart from federal subsidies.
The abortion language in the new law resulted from a compromise among then-majority Democrats that didn't leave everyone happy. Republicans were united in opposing the overhaul. Now, with their efforts to repeal it stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Republicans now running the House are attacking it piece by piece.
House GOP leaders support the effort to limit tax breaks that help pay for abortions, but the bill faces strong opposition in the Senate.
Supporters say the bill is necessary because current law doesn't go far enough in ensuring that no tax money is used to subsidize abortions.
"We're just trying to have a very clear line of demarcation on where our taxpayer funds may be used for abortion," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. "It's really using the tax code and taxpayer dollars to assist with the procurement of abortion, and we're going to make sure that doesn't happen."
'I will not support this'
Opponents say the bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many women to obtain medical coverage that covers abortions — even if they pay for it with their own money.
"This is overkill plus, and the purpose of it escapes me," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the committee. "We're debating an issue that is so inconsequential to the lives of most Americans. I will not support this. I'm annoyed that we're even taking time on the Ways and Means Committee to do something that's obviously very ideological and has nothing to do with the health care bill, and nothing really to do with taxes or getting people back to work."
By law, taxpayers can deduct medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income, a threshold that increases to 10 percent in 2013. They can also set side tax-free money in health savings accounts, and spend it on approved medical expenses. The Internal Revenue Service currently lists the cost of an abortion as an approved medical expense.
Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she is concerned the bill would cause insurance companies in state exchanges to drop abortion coverage, making it unavailable, even for women who pay their own premiums. She is also concerned the bill would put the IRS in the awkward position of determining whether women who get abortions were sexually assaulted, so it can decide whether the procedure is tax-deductible.
"It would be an alarming new responsibility for the IRS," Crane said.

The Spending Fight

Republicans should realize they are winning the debate.


House Republican leaders and the White House are nearing a deal to finally close the books on the 2011 budget—six months into the fiscal year. The White House says it will accept spending cuts of $33 billion, compared to the $62 billion the House passed earlier this year. If House Speaker John Boehner can bring that number closer to $40 billion, so much the better.
We share the desire of new Members in Congress who want deeper reductions. But Republicans don't hold the Senate or the White House, and even cuts of this magnitude are bigger than anyone could have expected last December. Republicans and tea partiers should pocket the victory and move on to the bigger fights over the 2012 budget and debt ceiling.
The fact that Congress is cutting any spending from the $3.6 trillion budget is a big cultural shift in Washington and an important course correction. In 2008, domestic discretionary spending rose by roughly 8%. The budget for federal agencies then expanded another 24% over 2009 and 2010, not including the $270 billion of stimulus funds for these programs. By contrast, the $10 billion in cuts that Republicans have already won for fiscal 2011 will reduce spending by roughly 1%, and 3% if a $33 billion compromise becomes law.
This has accomplished two valuable goals. First, Republicans have succeeded in preventing the stimulus funding in 2009 and 2010 for discretionary programs from becoming a permanent part of the federal baseline of spending, which was a major goal of unions and liberal Democrats.
Second, because this budget permanently reduces the spending baseline for all future agency expenditures, over the next decade $33 billion savings will grow to about $400 billion. Now we're talking real money.
European Pressphoto Agency
U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (C) delivers remarks to members of the media regarding spending, with U.S. House Republican leadership.SPEND
Democrats grouse that even this is too much to cut from discretionary accounts in one year, especially when the big money is in such entitlement accounts as Medicare and Medicaid. But this is a political bait and switch, since these same Democrats will oppose any entitlement reforms when House Republicans put those on the table next week. It's a shame that some conservatives also fall for the line that the only cuts that matter are in entitlements. When federal spending reaches 25% of GDP, taxpayers should take every cut they can get.
Republicans now need to insist that the cuts come from domestic agencies, rather than from defense or national security. Another danger is that the White House will use the accounting trick of cutting from the "unobligated balances" of programs that wouldn't have spent that money anyway. We hear that Speaker Boehner has told the White House that Republicans will submit their list of $62 billion in specific savings that have already passed the House, and Democrats can pick the cuts they want from that list. That sounds reasonable.
A deal like this would prevent a government shutdown—at least for now—which could jeopardize the GOP's ability to win future budget fights that are more consequential. Next week, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan will release his fiscal 2012 budget, which we are told will contain more than $2 trillion in savings over the next decade. He'll propose much-needed reforms in Medicare and Medicaid, as well as reductions in funding to implement ObamaCare, which would add 30 million more Americans to the government health-care rolls.
Also looming is a vote to increase the debt ceiling. This is an opportunity for Republicans to explain to the public that it isn't enough merely to honor our national debts, as important as that is. It is also crucial to cut up Congress's credit card so we don't have to keep raising the debt limit again and again.
This ought to mean reforming the current budget process that Democrats rigged in 1974 to make it easier to raise spending and taxes. The "current services" baseline builds in inflated spending levels each year. The absence of a cap on entitlement spending puts double-digit increases on cruise control. Tax cuts to grow the economy are scored as budget busters. Republicans should insist on a rewrite of the budget process, including annual spending caps enforced by automatic cuts, in return for raising the debt limit.
We hope freshmen Republicans don't mistake this early budget compromise for Armageddon and refuse to vote for it. That could weaken the final deal by forcing GOP leaders to move left to get Democratic votes. Republicans are winning the spending debate because they have methodically kept their focus on spending issues rather than on extraneous policy riders. They shouldn't weaken themselves by splintering over an early skirmish, because they will need to be unified and determined for the bigger fights ahead.

Balanced Budget Amendment


March 31, 2011

Johanns Touts Balanced Budget Amendment As Strong Step Toward Sustainable Government

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) and Senate Republicans today introduced a consensus Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that would mandate a balanced federal budget. The amendment would require both Congress and the President to commit to a budget limiting federal expenditures to 18 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and would require supermajorities in both houses of Congress to raise taxes or increase the debt limit.
"The Balanced Budget Amendment marks a strong step toward where we need to be as a country, and that's on a path of sustainability," Johanns said. "We can either start making the tough decisions now, or be forced into reactionary measures later when our debt problems inevitably lead to a debt crisis. The American people have been tightening their belts and this amendment would make Congress do the same. If we want to get our economy on track and kick job creation into high gear, then we’re going to have to get spending under control. Our job creators aren’t going to hire until they have confidence we’re on the right path.
The Balanced Budget Amendment would:
  • Require the President to submit to Congress a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP.
  • Require Congress to pass a balanced budget and limit federal outlays to 18 percent of GDP.
    • Exceptions include:
      1. Both houses by a two-thirds vote can provide for a specific excess
      2. Both houses by a majority vote can provide for a specific excess during a declared war;
      3. Both houses by a three-fifths vote can provide for a specific excess for a fiscal year during a military conflict declared to be "an imminent and serious military threat to national security" and the excess be limited to "outlays…made necessary by the identified conflict."
  • Require a two-thirds vote from both houses for any bill that raises taxes or otherwise "increases the statutory rate of any tax or the aggregate amount of revenue."
  • Require three-fifths vote from both houses to increase the debt limit;
    • Only a simple majority would be required during a time of declared war against a specific nation state.  
  • Become effective the fifth fiscal year after ratification.



March 31, 2011

Hatch, Senate Republicans Unveil Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution

Entire Senate Republican Conference Backs Constitutional Amendment to Require Balanced Budgets; Supermajorities for Deficit Spending, Tax Increases, Raising Debt Limit

WASHINGTON – As part of his ongoing effort to restore the nation’s fiscal house, U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, today unveiled S.J. Res. 10, a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that will bring down the nation’s skyrocketing national debt by requiring the government to balance its budget, limiting the growth of government spending, and requiring supermajorities for tax increases.  
Hatch spearheaded negotiations for the proposed amendment which brings together major components of an amendment introduced earlier this year by Hatch and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and a proposal by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). S.J. Res. 10 has garnered the support of the entire Senate Republican Conference, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Senate Republican Conference Chair Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, John Cornyn (R-Texas.), and Chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, John Thune (R-S.D.).
“Under the Obama Administration, federal spending has reached 25 percent of our nation’s economic output. We are spending at a level not seen since World War II and it is clear we cannot afford to sustain this White House’s big-spending, tax-hiking, debt-increasing agenda,” said Hatch.  “Hard-working families across the country have tightened their belts, balanced their budgets, and lived within their means, and the federal government ought to do the same. Regrettably, Washington has proven it won’t solve this crisis on its own. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be the shot in the arm Washington needs to effectively hold down spending.” 

Today, the national debt stands at more than $14 trillion. And, according to Congress’s non-partisan budget score-keeper, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nation’s debt could reach an astonishing 90 percent of GDP in less than a decade with the government spending almost $1 trillion on interest payments alone.  A longtime champion of a Balanced Budget Amendment, Hatch has introduced similar proposals five times throughout his tenure in Congress and has supported or cosponsored proposals more than 20 times.  The Senate came within one vote of approving a similar amendment put forward by Hatch in 1997. 
In addition to 47 Republican cosponsors the Hatch Amendment has garnered the support of Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Limited Government, Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment, 60 Plus Association, National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers Union, American Council for Health Reform, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Grassroot Voices, EndingSpending.com and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Clickhere to see their letters of support.
Specifically, S.J. Res. 10, the Balanced Budget Amendment:
  • Mandates that total budgetary outlays for any fiscal year not exceed total revenues.
  • Caps federal spending at 18 percent of GDP.
  • Requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress every fiscal year.
  • Requires a two-thirds supermajority for any new tax, any increase in tax rates, or any bill that is a net revenue raiser.   Requires a supermajority to raise the debt limit.
  • Allows for waiver of limits if there is a formal declaration of war, if the U.S. is engaged in a military conflict constituting a threat to national security, or if two-thirds of both the House and Senate approve.