march '11 issue debrief

8/6/2019 March '11 Issue Debrief

1/47

CRNC Research CompendiumMarch 2011

Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

College Republican National Committee 600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Ste. 215 Washington, DC 20003 T 202-608-1411 F 202-608-1429www.collegerepublicans.org
http://www.collegerepublicans.org/http://www.collegerepublicans.org/


2/47

Table of Contents

2012: Buh-bye Barry. Hello Mr. GOP President. ! 1

Goldman Sachs Gets it Wrong, We Can Cut and Grow ! 2

GAO Report Should Stop Dems Dithering on Debt ! 4

President Obama and His Lack of Sound Energy Policies ! 6

Republican Cuts Finally Force Dems to Reason ! 7

In Search of a Long Term Debt Solution, Obama Must Lead ! 8

The Extinction of Incandescent? ! 10

To Invest in Future Generations We Simply Must Spend Less ! 13

Government Budget ObamaCare = A Tighter Fitting Belt ! 15Good Nature Without Prudence is Foolish ! 16

The Spending Blitz Continues ! 17

Razzle Dazzle Part 2- The Sequel ! 18

Obama Still Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth ! 19

America Cant Afford Debt Debate to Be a No-Win Situation ! 21

CBO Says Decit Much Worse than White House Predictions ! 23

$2.3 Trillion is No Joking Matter ! 25

Budget Battle Rewind ! 26

College Republican National Committee

March Compendium ! i


3/47

Investing in Tomorrows Energy Technology Requires Unshackling Resources Today ! 27

Another Entitlement Program Calls for New Economic Policies ! 29

Happy First Birthday to Obamacareand Now for the Terrible Twos ! 30

Huge Obamacare Advocate Now Asking for Waiver for His State ! 31

Dispelling Economic Myths About Republicans Jobs Plan ! 33

Americas Budget Needs a Spring Cleaning ! 36

The Problem of Youth Unemployment and What We Can Do About It ! 38

A Balanced Budget Amendment May be the Right Prescription for Our Spending Sickness ! 40

Census Results Show Low Taxes Key to Recovery ! 42


March Compendium ! ii


4/47

2012: Buh-bye Barry. Hello Mr. GOP President.

The youth vote is now more important than ever. With the continual rise in the deficit, just over $14 trillion as of March 1 st, and the amount of interest the my generation will be paying off for the rest of their and their childrens lives, electing a republican President in 2012 is now moreimportant than ever. However, with prominent GOP leaders such as former Gov. Mike Huckabeeand Sen. John Thune doubting the ability of the GOP to reclaim the Presidency in 2012, what isthe youth of America supposed to think?

With comments like The people that are sitting around saying, Hes definitely going to be aone-term president. Its going to be easy to take him out, theyre obviously political illiterates

political idiots, let me be blunt, said former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Sen.Thune, praising Obama as a very shrewd politician, where is the senior GOP leadership andoptimistic outlook?

Yes, it is true, no one ever said that becoming the President of the United States was easy; butsince when has anything worthwhile been easy? Im pretty sure that it is not easy being unem-

ployed either. Let us also remember folks that unemployment is still around 9% for the general population and around 15% for those of us 18-25. Not to mention oil prices are on the rise andgas is expected to top $5 a gallon! Since President Obamas has taken office, unemployment has

risen 3% and gas prices have been in a context flux. Any sane person would agree that those arenot the terms on which a President should be re-elected. It is imperative that a debt slashingPresident become elected in order for the youth of America to not be burdened with this debt for the next 60-80 years of our lives.

In my opinion one leader did get the situation at hand right. Americans recognize bad policythat has yielded bad results, stated Gov. Haley Barbour noting the countrys skyrocketing debtunder the incumbent. Now here is the positivity and understanding of America that is needed torelinquish our debt and elect a new president. After all, a very similar situation occurred in the1980 election between then, President Carter and his opponent Gov. Ronald Reagan. At thattime unemployment was over 7% and oil prices were rising. Deja vu anyone? Americans real-ized that this was not the leadership they wanted in their country; enter President Reagan.

The College Republican National Committee has been and will always work tirelessly to electRepublican candidates to get the job done right. Do not be fooled by other GOP leaders doubt.The conservative youth movement is very much alive and prospering. Together we can stand


March Compendium ! 1


5/47

strong and stop GOP leaders from waiving the white flag of surrender before the battle has even begun. As a whole we can paint the White House, and its roses, red in 2012.

Goldman Sachs Gets it Wrong, We Can Cut and Grow

This years Oscars were trying to be more hip. All this really meant was that they got twoyounger, good-looking hosts in Anne Hathaway and James Franco, in hopes of jazzing up thefestivities. It was an utter disaster. Literally the only intriguing thing about the entire evening of glitz and glamor was trying to figure out whether James Franco was stoned or not. This all leadsto the question, is young-hip but unbearable and old, stale but watchable really the only tworoads the Oscars can take? I mean, I know we cant have Billy Crystal every year, but I guesswhat Im asking is, can we have Billy Crystal every year? Please?

A similar no-hope situation is playing out with our national debt.

Everyone knows the government must kick its destructive spending habit. The results of big debtand deficits arent exactly a secret. If you have doubts, ask Greece. Speaker of the House JohnBoehner even called the debt a moral threat. It is immoral to bind our children to as leechingand destructive a force as debt, Boehner said. No society is worthy that treats its children soshabbily.

Despite the clear concerns, many people are terrified about the outcome of spending cuts. On theheels of the Republicans proposed plan to cut $61 billion from our budget, an amount that onlytouches the very tip of the debt iceberg, Goldman Sachs issued a report arguing that these modestcuts would result in additional fiscal drag of up to 1 percent of GDP.




6/47

So on the one hand, everyone agrees we must reduce our debt before our economy completelycollapses; but on the other hand, if we reduce our debt well lower economic growth and threaten

the recovery. Its like choosing between Franco and Letterman to host the Oscars. Theres gotta be a Billy Crystal option somewhere in there.

Fortunately, there is.

Weve been presented with a false choice. Just as we werent forced to sit through the JamesFranco led Oscars, or the Black Eyed Peas Super Bowl halftime show, we can change the chan-nel. Just as you control the remote, we control our economic fate.

We just need to change the channel from the bafflingly bad data that Goldman Sachs is spewing.Its not that Goldman Sachs is wrong, its that the formula they use to calculate the costs and

benefits of government spending is as broken as Blockbusters business model.

A post by Stanford economist John Taylor points out the serious flaws of the studies liberals aretouting as evidence that the government must keep buying our way to prosperity. He finds thatthe Goldman-Sachs report is using the same large multiplier theory that predicted the stimulus

package would win the Oscar for Best Thing Ever. Instead, it won a Razzie, and will go down inhistory as one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer dollars in history.

To decode some of the mumbo jumbo a multiplier is the measure of how much a dollar of government stimulus translates into an increase in demand. The theory is that if the governmentspends $100 to create a job, a laborer will get paid $100 salary, and then hell go out and buygoods which will create more jobs. The only problem is, that theory is mostly bunk. In a researchstudy conducted earlier this year the International Monetary Fund found that the multiplier isaround .7 (meaning for every 1% of GDP increase in government purchases, GDP rises by amaximum of .7% of GDP, then fades). This is quite different than the economic multiplier be-tween 1.0 and 2.5 that the CBO, and others, use to determine the effectiveness of governmentspending.

Secondly, Taylor points out that the Goldman Sachs report confuses budget authority. . . with budget outlays. Using this rubric we can see that total budget outlays would increase 6.7 percentfrom 2010 to 2011. In other words, were still spending more money than we were last year, evenif we pass the Republicans proposal of spending cuts. Given that fact, it is disingenuous to arguethat H.R. 1 is too draconian for the economy. Using that logic, our government would have to




7/47

spend more money each year, forever, if it wanted to keep promoting economic growth. Some-thing tells me our lenders wouldnt quite go for that.

So change the economic channel and forget Goldman Sachs. We must begin the difficult task of

getting our budget under control. Dont believe me, or John Taylor for that matter? Well wevegot some back-up. A new survey of 47 top economists by the National Association of BusinessEconomics found that the federal deficit was the gravest threat facing our economic recovery. Asof that wasnt enough, state and local budget deficits were their second biggest worry!

Were not faced with a choice that inevitably leads to economic decline. Reducing spending and paying down our deficit is the way to short term growth and long term prosperity. I guess whatIm trying to say is, weve found our economic Billy Crystal the best of both worlds.

GAO Report Should Stop Dems Dithering on Debt

It makes us all look like jackasses. . .

That was Senator Tom Coburns (R-OK) assessment of a report released today by the Govern-ment Accountability Office (GAO).

I know what youre thinking, and yes, there really is an accountability office in this govern-ment. Given the blatant lack of accountability over the last few years, I can see why there wouldhave been confusion. The only thing I can figure is that upon taking the Speakers gavel, NancyPelosi told them to take a four-year vacation. No really, you guys need some time off. Im seri-ous. I totally got this. Dont worry, what could go wrong. If our $1.65 trillion deficit is any indi-cationa lot went wrong.

Nevertheless, the GAO came out swinging today. Their report was aimed at finding highlightingduplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the federal governmentand boy did they find it. As

it turns out waste is to the government what Justin Bieber is to pop culture. Namely, everywhere. No matter where you turn, you just cant escape him, er, I mean government waste.

The report found that there was $100-$200 billion worth of duplicative services in the offices andagencies studied. To show you the depth of the problem the U.S. government has more than 100

programs dealing with surface transportation, 82 that ensure teacher quality, 56 for financial lit-




8/47

erally, 47 for job training, 15 that deal with food safety, and apparently ZERO devoted to study-ing duplicative programs.

And if you didnt notice from that list, the government isnt exactly doing a bang-up job at any of

the areas mentioned. Which brings up the question, how many government agencies does it taketo screw in a lightbulb? Thats not a joke, I really wonder.

Not only do we have dozens of programs that do the same thing, nobody even knows if theyredoing that thing. In almost every section of the report youll find sentences like, Little is knownabout the effectiveness of most programs. Or, only five of the 47 job training and employment

programs GAO surveyed had an impact study completed since 2004 to evaluate whether out-comes resulted from the program and not another cause. Or, little is known about the effec-tiveness of [food assistance programs] because they have not been well studied.

No wonder are government keeps growing and our deficit keeps exploding. Congress after Con-gress keeps solving the same problem by just adding another agency, never bothering to check up on whether there have been any previous attempts to fix the issue.

Despite the infuriating nature of the report (after all, seeing $200 billion of your dollars isenough to make you go off the deep end faster than Charlie Sheen) there is one positive to comeout of the GAOs findings. Hopefully well put to bed any of these silly attempts by Democratsto stop Republican attempts to cut the deficit. I dare them to call $4 billion in cuts extreme or draconian after this report. After all, its hard to be more clear that the Comptroller General of the GAO who said, Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap or fragmentation could poten-tially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and ef-fective services.

So wait, we can spend less and get more? Count us in. Such a notion should put a stop to theDemocrats plan to politick and demagogue the need to maintain government spending at currentlevels or else essential services will be cut. Something tells me that wont happen though. Some-thing tells me Democrats will somehow act as if this report never happened. Which is pretty sad,

because if we cant agree to cut this $100-200 billion in pure waste, what will we be able to cut?




9/47

President Obama and His Lack of Sound Energy Policies

Since the new unrest in the Middle East, and particularly in Libya, gas prices have gone up for the past 7 days straight. Currently, the average price for a gallon of gasoline is $3.375, up 0.7cents from last week. Compare those numbers to where we were last year, when in February2010 the average gallon of gas was only $2.65.

Times are already tight for the average American, where most people are spending wisely on es-sential goods only. The rise in gas prices has a domino effect on all aspects of our lives and our wallets. Not only does it cost more to fill up our cars, but to heat our house, to buy food at thegrocery store, and taking that long awaited and well deserved spring break trip.

The Obama administration has done nothing to secure future oil and energy supplies for the U.S., but instead has only slowed down American production. Libya is the 15 th largest oil exporter inthe world, and the U.S. does not even import from them. They export almost exclusively toEuropean markets and emerging Asian markets such as China. So with a large spike in pricesdue to the unrest in Libya, what were to happen if the current unrest in the Middle East spread toother countries such as Saudi Arabia, which exports 20% of its resources to the United States?

We can only assume that oil prices would simply spike even more, possibly reaching levelshigher then what we saw in July 2008 when a gallon of gas averaged $4.11.

I applaud Secretary of the Interior Salazar for reopening the Gulf of Mexico to deep water drill-ing again by rewarding its first new contract yesterday. This will hopefully get the ball rolling onadditional wells being opened, maintained, and operated by American companies and workers.For far too long oil, rig workers were left without jobs because of the ban, hurting the fragileGulf Coast economy even more.

But what the President needs to do is expand our energy production here within the UnitedStates. It will add needed jobs to an industry that is already down on its knees, and will help our national economy grow as well by securing safe and reliable oil resources here at home. There isno need to rely on foreign oil sources when we have the people, the technology, and the re-sources to enjoy something that is made here in the U.S.A.




10/47

Many across the country already believe in energy independence such as Governor Bob McDon-nell (R) of Virginia. Gov. McDonnell has proposed to open vast areas of the ocean off Virginiascoast to offshore drilling. McDonnell conservatively projects that 130 million barrels of oil and1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be located off Virginias coast. Lets not forget thethousands of new jobs the industry would create, as well as revenue produced from the oil leases

to cash strapped states. The fact of the matter is, as Gov. McDonnell and many across the countyalready agree with, using energy resources that are already found here in America is a win-winsituation. It provides us with more energy independence so we no longer have to rely onsometimes-volatile foreign producers; it creates more jobs here in the U.S., and it will keep gas

prices down so that our struggling economy can continue to grow.

Republican Cuts Finally Force Dems to Reason

It appears the Federal government is about to do something unheard of in recent years.. Cutspending.

Yes, I said CUT.

It looks like $4 billion dollars will be cut in federal spending beginning next week. The Demo-cratic majority in the Senate just approved the House Republicans motion to continue financingof the government for the next two weeks.

With the 2011 Federal deficit reaching in upwards of $ 1.4 TRILLION, a measly four billiondoesnt seem like much, does it? Well, looking at the increase in federal spending since PresidentObama took office, and the release of his budget this year, Americans should feel for now, atleast a little better.

This sure has been a battle though; President Obama and his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hillhave done pretty much everything they can to nix these cuts. Cut cuts? With threat of a govern-ment shutdown looming, Democrats were forced to agree to the Republicans plan of a short term

funding measure. The $4billion in cuts is a pro-rated amount based on their budget approved inthe House two weeks ago. Democrats had remained mostly silent on this matter, offering the oc-casional statements of how cuts werent necessary, and how the Republicans were reaching toofar. The always campaign ready Democrats however, realized the repercussions of a governmentshutdown, and appear finally ready to make the right move. President Obama on the other hand,has done a lot, while doing nothing. The President has remained silent on the threat of govern-ment shut down, and according to Speak John Boehner (R-OH) could have helped tremendously.




11/47

If we had had a conversation about this 10 days ago or two days ago, we might have hadsomething to talk about. The fact is that we were forced to move on our own. I think were taking the responsible path forward to keep the government open and to meet our commitments to cut spending.

President Obama has apparently taken on the idea, that saying nothing, is saying everything.

The next step in continuing these cuts will be seen over the next few weeks, as both parties onceagain, step to the plate and argue over whos right and wrong. This victory for Republicans isgoing to stick with Democrats throughout these negotiations, and you can bet they wont benearly as ready to give in next time. Harry Reid (D-NE) made hint of his partys stance saying

We need to work our way through this. But the sooner we get this short-term funding of

the government done, the quicker we can move to a long-term [funding measure]. That iswhere were headed.

Deciphering this statement can help us see Reids real motive: SPENDING. Democrats are con-ceding this battle, but the war of spending is far from over. I guess $4 billion cant really meanmuch to President Obama and those in his fellow party; they seek to spend more than a $ trillionover the next year.

Though this cut in federal spending is a start, President Obama, Democrats, and Republicans

need to ensure they will continue doing what is best for the American people in our unstableeconomy; stop this outrageous spending, and stop it now.

In Search of a Long Term Debt Solution, Obama Must Lead

Did anyone happen to see this weeks Top Chef? Whats that? Some of you dont watch it? For shame. Its really the best reality show on TV. Which is a bit like saying its the best movie in the

Big Mamas House trilogy (yesthey just came out with a third). Nevertheless, its entertaining.

In this weeks episode, the five remaining chefs went to Ellis Island where they were taskedwith cooking a meal based on their heritage. In true reality-show fashion, one of each of the con-testants family members showed up to cheer them on and eat their food. The problem with theconcept was it quickly became clear that none of the judges were gonna rip any of the food in




12/47

front of their mothers. After all, not one, but two of the moms were pure blooded Italian. Goodluck criticizing their child.

What we were left with is a pat-on-the-back-fest. Lets put it this way, in the course of this one

meal the judges each had the best risotto, okra, gnocchi, and glasswort of their lives. Yea, I dontknow what that last one is either. It was like an episode of Leave it to Beaver, everything was justa little too perfect. Not a single negative, or even critical, comment to be found. The result was a

bland mix ofmeh. Wheres Anthony Bourdain when you need him!

The show ended just as lamely. Typically each week a chef gets the boot. Not this week. Nobodywas eliminated. It was supposed to be a happy joyous moment, it felt like a cop out from a bunchof judges who couldnt judge . One was left wondering, was the food really all that terrific, or didthe judges just not have the stones to send someone home in front of their family.

Obama is pulling a similar cop out. Just like the Top Chef judges hes unable to tell a good dish(Republicans proposed $61 billion in cuts) from a bad dish (Democrats, er, $0 in proposed cuts).So what does he do? Tosses out some bland praise and continues to wait for the next episode tomake a decision.

Obama said today, Im pleased that Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together and passed a plan that will cut spending and keep the government running for the next two weeks.But we cannot keep doing business this way. Living with the threat of a shutdown every fewweeks is not responsible.

Hes right, its not responsible, its patently ridiculous. What Obama doesnt say is that Republi-cans have already cooked up a plan. Released weeks ago, the Republicans plan trims $61 billionin discretionary spending from a budget with a $1.65 trillion deficit. As Steve Chapman wrote,thats like rounding up everyone on The Biggest Loser and putting the trainers on a diet. The

payoff is likely to be small and certain to be irrelevant.

Thats not to say that cutting $61 billion is unimportant. In fact, its a vitally important first stepto getting our fiscal train back on track. Unfortunately, Democrats are pushing us further off therails. They have presented no plan. The liberal-leaning N ew York Times begrudgingly reportedtoday that while House Republicans had presented their budget package for the rest of the year,the Democratic-controlled Senate had not produced any legislation beyond passing the tempo-rary budget measure drafted by the House. The reason, according to the Times is that Democratsare contending with sharp internal splits about how far to go in cutting spending and a reluc-tance to show their hand.




13/47

Oops! Pelosi may have just tipped hers. When asked today how much Democrats would be will-ing to cut from the federal budget, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Im not going tosay that number because Im not approximating or conceiving or stipulating to any number.

Translation, for all of you still unaccustomed to Beltway-speak: ZERO. In an ideal world shewould cut zero dollars, and would most likely want to spend more

In what is perhaps an even bigger slap in the face to Americas largest challenge: PresidentObama offered to slash an additional $6.5 billion in an effort to gain Republican support. Really?Thats the best you can do? As one GOP staffer quipped, Thatll pay for two months of intereston the stimulus bill.

Obama should be the decision maker. He was elected to make the difficult choices necessary tokeep this country headed in the right direction. Instead, hes looking around nervously, clearlylacking the cuts to say were gonna start cutting because his family of Democrats is lookingon, giving him the stink-eye.

This isnt a reality show. Top Chef can use this type of manufactured drama to build up to a fi-nale where there will be only one winner. But the budget crisis is real. We cant afford to makeeveryone feel good, build any dramatic tension, or refuse to make the difficult choices. If we do,there will certainly be a finale, but only in the sense that this Great American Experiment has

come to and end.

The Extinction of Incandescent?

Im sure many of us have seen these CFL light bulbs popping up in numerous stores, and Imsure none of you are thinking what Im thinking whenever I see these lights. Curly fries! Thatsright I said it, these light bulbs look like curly fries! Which only makes me wonder the follow-ing: how similar is the process of making curly fries to that of making CFL bulbs. Well whatever the similarities may be, I do know this: these curly mercury filled bulbs probably arent as deli-cious as Arbys signature curly fries.




14/47

Understandable, as time passes it will be harder and harder to find the oh so beloved incandes-

cent light bulbs that we have grown so accustomed to. Back in 2007 Congress pass an energy bill that would essentially begin phasing out incandescent bulbs starting in 2012 and eventually by 2014 completely replace them with the new curly fry bulbs, which they say are supposed to be energy efficient, thus eco-friendly.

Now, while some Americans welcome these bulbs, others detest these new bulbs and are fightingto bring back incandescent bulbs through in-state only sales. Recently in South Carolina, sixRepublicans and one Democratic lawmakers are fighting to introduce a bill to keep incandescent

bulbs on the market. Well, you might be asking, whats the big deal? Why anyone fight againstnew energy efficient light bulbs?

For starters, according to bill sponsor Representative Bill Sandifer the federal government hasoverstepped the Tenth Amendment and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lightingwe can have in our homes [and] people just dont want to be forced into buying a specific kindof bulb

I can already see where many would probably make the case that the government is urging the public to buy these new CFL bulbs because it would reduce US spending on energy. Now, this isa valid point, but I would like to remind everyone the following. These bulbs are subsidized bythe government! In California a $78 million (to be spent between 2010 and 2012) incentive

budget was approved by state regulators back in 2009. And each year, millions more dollars aredumped into subsidies to goad consumers into switching to CFL bulbs. Now dont you think itshould be the market that helps regulate the buying of light bulbs and not the government? Thatis to say, if consumers want more CFL bulbs and they find them very useful, they will buy moreof them and increase the sales. Theres no need for the government to guard over them, spendingtheir tax dollars to convince people to purchase the product.


http://speakout.crnc.org/files/2011/03/Untitled2.pnghttp://speakout.crnc.org/files/2011/03/Untitled2.pnghttp://speakout.crnc.org/files/2011/03/Untitled2.png


15/47

Now, lets assume that these new bulbs are as efficient as they are marketed to be. There are stillmany factors that are overlooked and should be considered other than the initial governmentsales subsidies.

As with all green technology, the claim is that the environment will be better off and we will savemoney by switching to green. Im sure many of us aware that the primary difference in the con-tent of the bulbs is the presence of mercury, a neurotoxin. And for those of you who fell asleepin chemistry class like me, Ill just give you a quick warning on the 80 th element of the periodictable, mercury. Being exposed to mercury vapor is far more dangerous than touching it becausethe body absorbs mercury much faster into the blood stream through the respiratory system. Sowhat does this mean? Should you break a light bulb, youve got more to worry about than justsimply broken glass. Oh and yes, all you mothers to be, you best be careful not to be exposed tothis stuff.

The amount of mercury, 5mg, thats contained in CFLs may not seem like much, but on a mas-sive industrial scale, the levels of mercury could definitely be something to be concerned about.Once again, unlike our old fashion bulbs that Mr. Edison invented, CFLs need to be disposed of in a particular way. Incandescent bulbs when they were broken could basically be tossed into thetrash. However, since CFLs contain that tricky little neurotoxin, we cant easily toss it and forgetit.

There is a special process that is involved in disposing of these bulbs. Pause! Ill let you catch

your breath before I tell you this next catch. Theres more government spending! Surprised?Well, you shouldnt be. It turns out that the recycling of CFLs is subsidized. The EPA has esti-mated the cost of properly recycling a bulb to be anywhere from $0.50 to $2.00. So, it wouldseem that whatever amount of money that we are supposed to be saving from switching to theseCFLs might actually be negated by all these government subsidies and spending.

Thus, the government needs to take a step back and let us decide. Chances are if were oldenough to be buying light bulbs, were old enough to decide for ourselves what kind of bulbs wewant. We dont need the government hovering over us like some nagging mother reminding usto eat our broccoli, well in this case mandating which bulbs we should purchase. To put it sim-

ply, if consumers prefer to purchase the CFLs over the incandescent bulbs the market will showit. There is no need for the government to force consumers to buy something they do not neces-sarily need.




16/47

To Invest in Future Generations We Simply Must Spend

Less

This is a post about societys investment in the elderly versus the youth. Originally, when doingresearch for this article I intended to highlight the odd evolution in American society where older generations are, on the one hand, given much less respect and deference than in the past, and yet,receive inordinately more public resources.

That was what I intended to research, and then, by the wonders of Yahoo! search engine, I foundTHIS. Now before you get all excited and believe that link to be the Holy Grail of internet surf-ing, its not, its a question I found on Yahoo Answers, an interactive forum that allows users to

both ask and respond to questions.

The question was, Do the elderlely (sic) have any value to society or are they just a burden for families to have to take care of. All they do is move slow and drive slow and walk all hunchedover. Why do we need them they contribute nothing to the future.

Yes. Someone actually asked that. And if youre looking to add some comedy to your day I en-courage you to read the answers he received. Now, I cant be sure if the author of that questionwas being serious, but I can nevertheless provide a serious response.

The short answer is, of course the elderly have value! They contribute much more than simplywalking slow and driving slow. After all, if there were no elderly, what would the workers at theRascal scooter factory do for a living! Jokes aside, theyve spent the entirety of their lives work-ing, earning, spending, fighting, and countless other verbs to achieve and maintain this countrys

place as a military and economic power.

The longer answer is that blaming the governments deficit on them is a ridiculous notion. Theycontributed to Social Security all their lives and yet they are meant to feel as if they are the rea-

son it is growing insolvent. Similar sentiments abound with programs like Medicaid and Medi-care. The fact is, it wasnt older generations that caused financial imbalances in any of these

programs.

It was generation after generation of politicians, who were all too happy to promise more bene-fits with no concomitant taxes, that should bear the brunt of the blame. Take Social Security. Inthe 22 years spanning 1950 to 1972, Congress increased benefits nine times, including doubling




17/47

them in the early 1950s. Every chance they got politicians saw the opportunity to win the affec-tion of voters by raising benefits, thereby securing a solid voting bloc in the process. What dothey care of future generations? As the famous Keynesian rejoinder goes, in the long run we areall dead. Unfortunately, that long run has arrived. And we are it.

The result of years this age-old scam of politicians overpromising benefits in return for votes isnow playing old. In a column in todays Washington Post, Fareed Zakaria, writes,

As countries get rich, you might assume that they focus greater attention on their children. Not in the United States. The federal governments expenditures on children haveshrunk as a share of the budget over the past 30 years. In 1960, about 20 percent of thefederal budget went to programs dedicated to the health, development and education of Americans under the age of 18. Today its 10 percent and falling.

By contrast, spending on the elderly has skyrocketed, doubling as a percentage of the budget dur-ing that time. Spending on Social Security and Medicare alone makes up close to 40 percent of the budget. In a decade, that share will rise considerably, perhaps to as much as half the federal

budget. Whatever the exact percentages are what you define as programs for children and theelderly can vary the conclusion is clear: The federal government spends between $4 and $5 onelderly people for every dollar it spends on children.

Is that the correct balance? It doesnt strike me as very sustainable.

Now dont get me wrong, Im not calling for foolish investment as Obama likes to call it inthings like infrastructure, green technology, or the like. Rather, I see that, as an extension of the

problem in which we have buried future generations beneath a mound of debt. You see, debtdoesnt care the purpose for which it was spent. It doesnt matter if it was racked up in order to

build high speed internet to rural areas or to provide subsidized healthcare for a retiree, it allshows up on the books just the same.

What our government needs to do is stop investing the futures money at all in order so that wemay have some to invest in ourselves. Lets find a way to rebalance the out-of-whack ratio of investment in elderly versus investment in children. But lets not kid ourselves that this will beaccomplished by spending more on children until the fraction looks more seemly. That will in-evitably lead to a spending race which politicians will be all too happy to engage in. To truly fixthe ratios we must reform entitlements. Not in a way that cheats those who have already paid into the programs, but that ensures their existence does not harm future generations.




18/47

I began this column by pointing out that most civilizations treat their older generations with ahigh level of deference and respect. My hope is that they in turn will provide the same for futuregenerations.

Government Budget ObamaCare = A Tighter Fitting Belt

Birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays; all joyous, celebratory occasions correct? In the words of the Grinch, Wrongo! As the grass is turning green and flowers are popping up welcomingspring, the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare is also looming.

With the initial enactment of the law, there were groans about the cost and implementation of it. Now, one year later, the same fiscal questions arise except this time there is data to back up thegrievances.

Currently, 28 out of the 50 states are filing to repeal ObamaCare on the premise of the law beingunconstitutional to its citizens. I would hope that the fact that over half of the states in Americaare against the law would spur the government to see the bigger, flawed picture. In a recentstudy put out by the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce Committee , as aresult of ObamaCare, budget-strapped states face at least $118 billion in unfunded mandates dur-ing the first 10 years after the law takes effect.

To make matters worse the CBO states that by 2016 the cost per family for health insurance willrise $2100 annually because of the health care law. The further funding of ObamaCare will alsoforce some doctors to file for bankruptcy. The doctors that are seeing heavy loads of medicare

patients will not be able to make a profit under the new healthcare law and will be forced to stopseeing those patients or forego their practice completely. So in addition to the rise in health carecoverage costs there will also be fewer doctors to go around. Which in turn means longer waittimes to get in to see a doctor if you are sick.

To put an number on it, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Holtz-

Eakin, says that the costs of ObamaCare are set to explode when employers opt to drop coverageand send their workers to the new, federally subsidized health exchanges for coverage. He esti-mates that this will drive up the cost of the law by $1 trillion or more in the first 10 years.

To continue the numbers game, Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) noticed that the rather large sum of $500 billion was dedicated to both sustaining Medicare and funding ObamaCare.




19/47

When he asked Sebelius which destiny awaited those five hundred billion claims, she replied,Both.

In another estimate, the new healthcare system will cost Americans more the 800,00 jobs. When

the government forces employers to pay a certain amount and give certain benefits to their em- ployees, the amount of money that is needed to make a profit drastically increases. So not onlyis ObamaCare costing taxpayers money out of pocket, it is also costing Americans jobs.

America is once again jet setting toward an already enumerating amount of entitlement programsunder its belt. Lets stop the debt pile up on the youth. Instead of loosening our belt another notch, lets trim the entitlements and tighten it once and for all.

Good Nature Without Prudence is Foolish

Im sure most of us have seen on that news lately the conflict in Libya. Theres much strife rav-aging the lands of this North African country. With non-military civilians sandwiched betweenrebel forces and the government militia, the situation is very grim.

As with all issues, whether the topic is terrorism, economics, education, or anything else politicalthere is always disagreement as to what the right course of action should be. It should be no sur-

prise to many of us that when an issue as volatile as the conflict in Libya erupts, there is muchdissension between the left and right as to what ought to be done. Certainly a decision needs to

be made, but what exactly should it be?

Well, before spilling the beans and blurting out to you how the US is considering dealing withthe situation, Id like for you remember that we also have a great deal of internal crises tomanage. For starters, we are recovering from the worst recession since the great depression.According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 13.7 million Americans out of work and the unem-

ployment rate still dragging at 8.9% (little changed from before). Not to mention at the begin-ning of this year our debt crossed the $14 trillion mark.

Over the last week some have advocated imposing a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent Gaddafifrom bombing innocent civilians, the general consensus in Washington is that even a limitedWestern intervention in Libya may not be the best idea. According to Defense Secretary RobertGates setting up a no-fly zone might require a large-scale attack to destroy Libyas air defense.Such a military maneuver most definitely has the risky potential of pulling the US into yet an-other Middle Eastern war. And right now, another war is something we could all do without.




20/47

With the US economy barely limping along, and the debt spiraling out of control, the US should be prudent of diving head first into another Middle Eastern conflict. After all, the Iraq War ended up costing the US economy roughly $3 trillion, which is roughly equivalent to 21% of our current debt, we are still recuperating our economy and morale. I think that we should keep awatchful eye on Libya, but not jump in just yet. However, dealing with the quandaries at homesuch as the balancing the national budget and debt, must be a matter we unquestionably need totackle immediately.

The Spending Blitz Continues

Many people are in denial around here, said Senator McCaskill as she addressed her col-

leagues. Any plan to tackle our fiscal crisis must make a material difference in reducing thedeficit, said Senator Bennett. What do these two Senators have in common? They are bothDemocrats who voted against their partys spending bill. They know that the unsustainablespending that has plagued Washington is no longer acceptable and that it must stop.

So why is it that other members of the Democratic party cannot get the point that their fellowmembers are trying to get across- the spending blitz in Washington needs to end.

Yesterday, Democrats in the Senate blocked a Republican backed spending bill that would havereduced spending for the remainder of the fiscal year by $57 billion dollars. Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid described the GOP bill as one of the worst pieces of legislation in the historyof Congress. Why is it then that his bill failed by a worse ratio that the Republican alternative?

Democrats countered the GOP offer by trying to pass a spending bill that cut the annual appro- priations by a measly $6 billion from President Obamas budget. Lets not forget that every daythe U.S. government adds on $4 billion to our national debt. So in the grand scheme of things, $6

billion dollars worth of cuts is an absolutely ridiculous figure, especially when compared next tothe $1.6 trillion deficit that the U.S. is expected to rack up this year.

What we can expect to see over the next month is a compromise between competing spending bills that target cuts in specific areas that President Obama has allowed for. However, the areasthat Obama has targeted are still very small and do not put a dent in our debt. Time and timeagain, they have failed to fix the three cash cows of the American government, Social Security,Medicare, and Medicaid.




21/47

It is obvious that the Democratic leadership in the Senate has failed to take the lead on this issue,and we still dont know if President Obama will either. But given his track record it is unlikelythat he will hunker down to make the real tough decisions. We must keep our hope up and givesupport to the members of Congress who will actually fix what has often been called the thirdrail of politics, the Entitlement Programs. If no one in Washington takes these issues seriously,

the debt burden will only grow and be left solely on the taxpayers shoulders.

Razzle Dazzle Part 2- The Sequel

Cue the rhinestone top hat and cane because Obamas razzle dazzle is at it again and just in timefor 2012. Apparently President Obama has realized that there is a disconnect between hiscampaign in 2008 and today. According to the Washington Post, the youth have soured some-

what on the president since (2008). To remedy the loss of luster surrounding the youth vote,Obama has decided to make surprise visits to colleges and universities in important voting statesaround the country.

In these so-called roundtable discussions, the President is asking for input from collegians. Weare so interested in figuring out how to get your ideas, your input, your energy, Obama told agroup of student leaders from Cleveland State and nearby schools. He then proceeded to pose inmultiple photos with them. No amount of handshaking and photo opps will allow for the polish-ing cloth to shine up the youths shoes again. Weve had it. We are smarter than we look and therazzle dazzle may have worked in 2008 but watch out, 2012 is a whole new musical production.

The American population now realizes the ramifications and realities of the ObamaAdministration. College tuition rates are skyrocketing, education programs are being cut, andthe best kicker is that graduates are being thrust into a worse job market than in 2008. A rise inthe 20-24 year-old unemployment rate from 11% in 2008 to 15.4% currently, does not lend itself to Obama rekindling the fire in the youths eyes.

I am glad that the President has all of this free time to gallivant around the country holdingroundtable discussions with the youth. Shouldnt he be I dont know, leading? Or meeting withmembers of Congress about the budget? In theory it is a nice idea to rally the brainstorming

power of the youth. A roundtable discussion participant, Michael Mclean, President of the Har-vard Republican Club, said It was a very cool, a very awe-inspiring experience, said McLean.But there wasnt a lot of substance. There you have it, another theme to the Obama presidencyand his current campaign.




22/47

I would hope that everyone sees that this is little more than an act of campaigning. Proof is in thefact that some of the discussions have already been posted on the White House website to showthe world that the President is reaching out. Let the spotlights shine through the facade.

The truth finally comes out, between teeing off at the golf course and flashing his pearly whitesfor the camera, Obama is not leading a country he is merely campaigning to be the shining faceof American youth once again. Dont fall back into the sparkle cycle; Fool me once, shame onme. Fool me twice, we wont get fooled again.- George W. Bush.

Obama Still Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

Just yesterday at Kenmore Middle School in Arlington, VA, President Obama announced his re-form plan to the No Child Left Behind Act that was started in 2001 by the Bush Administration.While the speech lacked specificity, the general aim, the subject matter if you will, of the Presi-dent was spot on. With the fast-paced prolific advancements in science, technology, math, andliterature, there is no doubt that the president is right. We need to improve our education system.

USA Today reported in December of last year that in 2009 a Programme for International Stu-dent Assessment (PISA) was released and the scores revealed

15-year-old students in the U.S. performing about average in reading and science, and

below average in math. Out of 34 countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math. [And] between 1995 and 2008the United States slipped fromranking second in college graduation rates to 13th, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], the Paris-based organization that develop[ed] and administer[ed] the PISA exam.

We have fallen behind, but this should by no means be a discouragement from improving. In-stead, what we should do is take this as a sign to improve our education system. If we are tokeep up with the changing times, then we need to keep up with other advanced nations and im-

prove our education system.

However, in order to improve the education system and reform the No Child Left Behind Act,the US will need money. And this matter the president blatantly laid out for us in his speech.

Fixing our failing schools costs money. It requires reform, but it costs some money.




23/47

Yes sir, Mr. President, you are absolutely right. Fixing the school systems will indeed costsome money, and right now as the president acknowledges, after a decade of deficits, thereisnt a lot of money going around.

Obama: We have fallen in our global standings in terms of our education.

My thoughts: Correct, it seems we have slipped.

Obama: We need to fix education.

My thoughts: Yes, we do.

Obama: We dont have a lot of money going around after a deficit.

My thoughts: You are absolutely right, Mr. President.

Obama: We have to cut whatever spending we can afford to do without. We cannot cut educa-tion. We cant cut the things that will make America more competitive.

My thoughts: I could not agree with you more, Mr. President. We most definitely need to cut

whatever spending we can afford to do without.

So far, so good! Everything the president has said thus far, I completely agree with. However,what confuses me is the following: democrats refuse to cut government spending. This seems a

bit inconsistent. On one hand, our President is telling us that we need to allocate more moneyinto education, this is good, to cut spending that we can afford to do without, this is fine too.However, on the other hand, he turns around and refuses to cut excessive government spending.

Yesterday, Obama announced that he would veto the Republican bill for spending cuts.

Wait. Pause Im going to let you think about that for a moment Confused? Me too! Un-derstandably, the president wanted to allocate more money to the education system, but it seemswildly confusing when he is unwilling to reducing the big spending in Washington in order to doso.




24/47

It seems to me that the president is about to make some more wild promises that he will not beable to keep. Therefore, it will be interesting to see in the upcoming months how the Presidentreally plans to reduce the deficit, improve education, and not cut government spending.

America Cant Afford Debt Debate to Be a No-Win Situation

In the fight over todays spending there seems to be no correct answers. Proposed solutions shotdown for being too big, cutting essential services and leaving vast swathes of America in ruins,or they are too small, not even deserving of a vote given the $1.6 trillion deficit. Sadly each of those criticisms is being leveled against the same pieces of legislation at the same time . You justcant win!

The scenario reminds me of this years Miami Heat. The Heat were doomed since The Decision.If you dont follow the NBA, and really, who does anymore, The Decision was the uber-

pretentious name given to LeBron James televised pronouncement that he would be playing basketball for the Miami Heat. Or in James-speak he would be taking his talents to SouthBeach.

Another supposed All-Star, Chris Bosh, joined James in Miami, forming what seemed to be anunbeatable trio. But in reality, there was no way they could win.

Some pundits immediately determined that this team rivaled the Jordan-era Bulls, declaring thata season that didnt include 70 wins and a championship would be a failure. Other pundits saidthere was no way this mash of all-star caliber talent would gel this year and they would probably

be good, but probably not great.

As it turns out, the Heat are average. They beat the teams they should and lose to just about eve-ryone who is sniffing a winning record. Now that weve found them to be average, the criticswho predicted this outcome have slumped into invisibility, while the boo-birds who foresaw 70wins have taken their place in the spotlight. And every single time they lose, they are made to

hear about it from every possible outlet imaginable. Heck, an offhand comment by the coachabout one of the players crying turned into media fodder for 48 hours.

No matter what would have happened, critics would have found an angle of attack. So it goeswhen you must fill the news cycle.




25/47

The debt is suffering from the exact same overexposure. Now dont get me wrong, the debt de-serves every minute it gets in the spotlight. The debt has reached $14 trillion and this years defi-cit is $1.6 trillion. Last month saw the government post its largest monthly deficit in history at$223 billion, a feat they managed to accomplish in the shortest month of the year! If spending isan art, Washington is Picasso. But the debt deserves better than incessant gamesmanship in

which the loudest, edgiest opinions win out over reasoned argument.

The problem is clear, the solutions are not. Republicans, like the critics who foresaw the Heatschemistry problems and decided to not anoint them champions before ever playing a game, Re-

publicans foresaw the debt problem. Theyre also the only party that chosen to do somethingabout it.

Their 2011 continuing resolution (CR), which funds the government for the remainder of the fis-cal year, trims a modest $57 billion from the federal deficit. If were to believe Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid, even that small amount has no chance of passing in the Senate. Hes offeringan alternative CR that would cut about $5 billion. Thats the fiscal equivalent of using an X-actoknife to chop down a forest of red woods.

Fortunately, some Democrats agree with that sentiment. Eleven Democrats voted against their Partys meager proposal, saying that it does not cut enough. The most vocal, Sen. Joe Machin(D-WV) said the package utterly ignores our fiscal reality.

From Congress perspective why should they care about fiscal reality when the political reality issending the exact opposite signals? Literally every cut has been demagogued as a disaster for oneinterest group or another, leaving the vast majority of us doomed to a future of debt.

To solve our enormous debt problem well need to escape the idea that this is a no-win situation.To do that we should take an every cut deserves a chance approach. Remember the book,Dont Sweat the Small StuffAnd Its All Small Stuff? Well, in this case the author waswrong. We absolutely must address entitlements and the biggest drivers of spending, but we needto look in every nook and cranny for solutions. We must also stop rewarding those on the other side of the aisle who are using every trick up their sleeve to portray the most modest of cuts as a

draconian nightmare. After all, its important to remember that in 2010 we spent $3.46 trilliondollars. In 2011 were projected to spend $3.82 trillion. Republican proposals wouldnt even re-duce the budget to the previous years levels yet liberals would have you believe this to be somesort of apocalyptic scenario.




26/47

The Heat couldnt win, not because they werent a good team, but because the spotlight wouldinevitably burn a hole straight through them. The same reality is threatening our ability to solveour debt.

Critics will always exist. Those who say the most ridiculous things the loudest will get the mostcoverage. Those who present reasoned opinions get covered up. The Heat may not win the play-offs, which would only serve as a disaster to the championship-starved Lebron James. Our gov-ernment may be unable to solve its debt problem, which threatens the entire future of our nation.Its time we ignore the critics, the pundits and the politics, and come up with some a solution.

CBO Says Deficit Much Worse than White House

Predictions

Another year, another completely busted bracket. If youre anything like me youre NCAA Tour-nament bracket is already in the recycling bin, just so you dont have to go through the frustra-tion of having to see another of your predictions go wrong. It brings an entirely new meaning tothe term March Madness.

But nothing much happens when my predictions are wrong. Im pretty sure Notre Dame didntlose because they really wanted to mess up my Final Four just as Im sure the University of Richmond didnt fight their way to the Sweet 16 just to spite me. But when our leaders in Wash-ington get their predictions wrong it can be a fiscal disaster.

Take Medicares hospital insurance program as an example. The House Ways and Means Com-mittee estimated that it would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. It actually cost $67 billion. Infact, the entire Medicare program was supposed to cost just $12 billion in 1990. The true pricetagwas nearly 10 times that amount $110 billion. Or take the case of Medicaid. In 1987, the Medi-caid budget for relief payments to hospitals was scheduled to cost less than $1 billion in 1992. Inreality it cost $17 billion, a 1,700 percent increase.

When Congress guesses wrong on things like that, it throws the entire budget out of whack.Since Washington is loathe to pinch any pennies, spending every dollar and more before it evencomes in the door, any cost overruns immediately get tacked on to the deficit.




27/47

Today, the Congressional Budget Office called out President Obama for his too-rosy assumptionsabout the growth of our deficit. In a detailed analysis of his 2012 budget proposal the CBO foundthat 10 year deficit would likely total $2.3 trillion more than White House predictions. The CBOalso said that debt held by the public would equal a staggering 87% of GDP by 2021, a full 10%higher than Obamas predictions.

Senate Finance Committee member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said it best, Even using their own es-timates, the Administration couldnt hide how bad our nations deficit and debt are, but today theCBO has 100 percent proven that Presidents budget is nothing but an air ball.

In the NCAA tournament an air ball earns you some serious scorn from the crown who is all toohappy to remind you of your poor shot for the rest of the game. But in the world of politics, willObamas $2.3 trillion air ball be forgotten?

Lets hope not. After all, even liberal blogger Ezra Klein notes that doing nothing yes, nothing would do more to cut the deficit than anything that the Obama White House proposed.

We are not in a position to do nothing. Democrats recent spending binge has made sure of that.In fact, a few Democrats who have removed their head from the sand are willing to admit wehave a problem. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said today, We cannot ignore the fiscal Ti-tanic of our national debt and deficit. . . There are some in Washington who believe we can sim-

ply ignore the fiscal peril we face as a nation. They are wrong.

Hopefully, the tide is beginning to turn and well stop simply rearranging deck chairs on the Ti-tanic. There are some hopeful signs. A letter written by Sens. Michael Bennet, Mike Johanns, and62 colleagues from both sides of the aisle to President Obama asking him to support a broadapproach to solving the problem of [deficit reduction.] that includes discretionary spending cuts,entitlement changes and tax reform.

The question is, will Obama listen? His top lieutenant in the House, Nancy Pelosi, isnt showingencouraging signs. Just today she was spouting patently false statistics about how health insur-ance reform creates 4 million jobs and reduces the deficit more than $1 trillion. Statistics,which the Washington Post pointed out as bogus.

Its time for President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid to admit that neither their budgetnor their healthcare bill will live up to their lofty predictions. In reality its more of the spendingand deficit denial that got us into this mess.




28/47

My NCAA tournament predictions were terrible, but harmless. Obamas spending and deficit predictions are worse, and disastrous. Ive thrown my bracket away so I can enjoy the tourna-ment from a fresh perspective. President Obama should scrap his plans and start over with afresh approach to spending cuts.

$2.3 Trillion is No Joking Matter

At least someone in the Obama administration can tell the truth. Last week, during a confirma-tion hearing, the nominee for Deputy Director of Office and Budget Management (OMB) madesome surprising statements for a political appointee. They admitted that their boss had lied.

Heather Higginbottom faced some very tough questions from ranking members of the SenateBudget Committee including Senator Jeff Sessions. Senator Sessions grilled Higgenbottom and

bluntly asked her whether or not President Obama and Director of the OMB Jacob Lew had liedto the American people when they stated that the current administrations budget would not add tothe deficit.

President Obama and Director Lew had sugar coated their spending plan, claiming that it wouldnot raise the deficit at all. That was a gross understatement. What Senator Sessions was alludingto was that the interest payments on the debt, would obviously increase our deficit. Higgenbot-tom reluctantly told the Senate Committee that the interests payments on our debt will add to

our debt. Her comments during the hearing completely contradict those of President Obamasaying that he would not add on to our debt. That was obviously a lie.

In addition to Obama misleading the public about his budget proposal not adding to the nationaldeficit, his predictions were also completely wrong about how large the national deficit would

beby $2.3 trillion. Im no math genius, but being off by over two trillion dollars is ridiculous.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), made these statements last week duringthe release of a report on the Presidents budget for fiscal year 2012. In the report, Senator Ses-

sions also found that this past year President Obama increased the deficit by $26 billion, and willraise it again next year by over $80 billion. He stated during the hearing This confirms theWhite House isnt serious about the budget, there are no cuts and his budget makes the problemsworse.

What the CBOs report really demonstrates to the American people is that the Obama administra-tion is still not taking our mounting deficit seriously. President Obama and OMB Director Lew




29/47

mislead the nation when they said that the White Houses budget proposal for 2012 would notraise the deficit when its obvious it will, especially after Higgenbottoms comments. It alsoshows their complete disregard for the staggering dollar signs American taxpayers are facing byunderestimating the deficit by $2.3 trillion, and that is no joking matter.

Budget Battle Rewind

With the recent intervention in Libya, GOP gains in the budget battle are indefinitely recedingfaster than a middle-aged mans hairline. On Monday, in briefings by the White House and De-fense Department, it was announced that no number has been put on the cost of action in Libya.In other words, the spending allotment has not been capped yet. Oh boy Mr. President I hope

you have fun with the credit card this time.

Over the course of the past few weeks, GOP leaders have been able to reduce daily spending by$285 million per day. However, with the new intervention in Libya, those budget savings arealready being burned through over at the Pentagon, which is spending roughly $100 million per day to squelch what amounts to a massive temper tantrum from a billionaire, fashion-disaster dictator.

Currently, the Defense Department and White House are still collecting, or should we say mas-

sively compiling the costs attributing to Libyan intervention. In the words of Sen. RichardLugar, We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many peoplelike, Lugar said. So here comes an open-ended military action with no-end game envisioned.

To continue the open ended spending spree, The Center for a New American Security (CNAS)has estimated that the Pentagon is likely to spend more than $81 million alone on the 110Tomahawk missiles that were fired on the first day of the operation. The implementation of ano-fly zone in only the northern portion of Libya is estimated to cost between $30 million and$100 million per week according to the CSBA. If the no-fly zone in Libya continues to the year mark, cost could rise to $1 billion or 1.5 billion according to Gordon Adams with American Uni-versity and the Stimson Center.

Easily the intervention in Libya will completely undo the cuts already made to the federal budget. Stop being kind. Dont rewind the budget cuts by adding more spending to the deficit.




30/47

Investing in Tomorrows Energy Technology Requires

Unshackling Resources Today

If youve been to the pump recently youll likely notice your wallet was a little lighter than nor-mal when you left. In fact gas prices have jumped 75 cents higher than this time last year. Thatsan additional $11.25 each fill-up for an average 15 gallon tank. Even if you drive relatively little,only filling up your tank every other week, youre paying around $300 extra dollars in gas over the course of a year. That may not sound too much on a personal level, but when you consider there are around 250 million cars in the U.S. that adds up to $75 billion in wasted purchasing

power.

Thats unquestionably a big problem. Fortunately, there are some easy solutions. Unfortunately,President Obama isnt pursuing them.

In fact, President Obamas energy policy is beginning to look a lot like his foreign policy. Namely, he doesnt have one. Or alternatively, if he does, it stinks.

So far from the White House weve seen a mishmash of contradictory energy policies, counter- productive taxes, and reactionary knee-jerk legislation. The result is that Americans are payingmore for their energy than they need to.

A perfect example of Obamas broken policy came yesterday when President Obama traveled toBrazil to announce a Strategic Energy Dialogue. During his visit he said that the United Stateswould be investing billions of taxpayer dollars in Brazil in order to help them develop their oilreserves.

We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to developthese oil reserves safely, and when youre ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.

Nevermind the fact that earlier this year Obama said that he would work to end Americascentury-long addiction to fossil fuels and now he wants to be an oil producers best customer.The truly baffling part is that he completely ignores that he could make those same investmentsin the United States.




31/47

His reasons for going to Brazil are clear. Our traditional oil suppliers in the Middle East and North Africa have, shall we say, a history of instability. This not only threatens enormous priceswings in times of unrest, but also served to foment much of that unrest. Brazil is certainly asafer gamble than Libya. During his trip Obama even pointed out that the United States couldnot be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy. But the glaring question in

all of this is, why not the U.S?

If were shopping for oil, and given President Obamas words, its hard to argue we arent, whynot attempt to spur domestic production? Dont be fooled into thinking that America doesnthave vast reserves of energy. Consider these statistics:

Economic Analyses done by the American Energy Alliance found that oil in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) alone could sustain 1.2 million new, full-time jobs per yearand contribute more than $8 trillion to GDP

The federal government estimates that Alaskas OCS holds 27 billion barrels of oil and132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which could sustain 5,700 new jobs through 2057and add $145 billion in payroll

Analysis from Arctic Power shows that its oil and gas reserves could sustain 730,000 jobsand generate more than $200 billion in government revenue

All told, according to the Congressional Research Service the U.S. contains the largestenergy endowment in the world

Despite these enormous reserves there is no doubt that we must pursue new energy technologies.The worlds energy needs will continue to grow and new, more efficient, and cost effectivesources will need to be found. Currently, the Obama Administration is attempting to force theswitch to green technologies by brute force and bad economics. He is simultaneously mandatingan increase in certain green technologies while at the same time subsidizing their use to makethem cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Not only are we guaranteeing a market for their goodswere ensuring them a level of profit!

Sadly, though well intentioned, Obamas policies are simply picking political winners when themarket should be the one driving innovation. A must-read presentation by lifelong environmen-talists Ten Norhaus and Michael Shellenberger explains the fallacy of Obamas approach.

We will not regulate or price our way to a clean energy economy. Regulatory and pricingsolutions tend to succeed when we have good, low cost alternatives . . . We dealt withacid rain once we had access to low sulfur coal from the western United States and




32/47

reached an international agreement to phase out CFCs only once DuPont demonstratedthat they could produce a cheap alternative at scale.

To succeed, Norhaus and Shellenberger argue, we will need to make clean energy technologies

much cheaper. As of now they still require vast public subsidies which is simply not a recipefor bringing those technologies to scale. They argue that rather than subsidizing more of thesame old technologies which still wont bring costs down far enough to compete with fossilfuels at a rate sufficient to have much impact on emissions we need technological innovationon a vast scale.

Of course, technological innovation isnt cheap. The pricetag becomes even more daunting con-sidering the budget deficit that the U.S. government is currently doing battle with. Nevertheless,if we truly want to invest in the next great energy technology what better place to start than withthe increased tax revenue derived from utilizing our enormous domestic energy capabilities.

Sounds like a recipe for success that both parties could get behind. Coincidentally it also soundslike cheaper gas.

Another Entitlement Program Calls for New Economic

Policies

Entitlement programs are usually thought of as Social Security and Medicare not to mention ahost of others. However there is one entitlement program soaring under the radar: U.S. interest

payments to foreign governments to finance out $14 trillion national debt.

For a short recap, every time government expenditures exceed its income, a deficit is created. Inorder to allow for the government to continue spending, the Treasury Department must give thego ahead for the use of Treasury securities. However, the use of Treasury securities flips theswitch and turns our deficit into debt. Not to mention that if the U.S. were to forego payment oninterest, the economic results would be disastrous.

The government is continually charging its spending to our plastic and only paying off theminimum balance on the bill each month. That leaves all Americans, yes children are included,to pay a $2,500 lump sum a piece just to pay off the current interest due. Just a reminder that the$2,500 would not take an ax at the deficit, it would only cover the costs the debt is accruingyearly! And the interest payments for the national debt are rising. According to the Presidents




33/47

budget, interest payments for the national debt will quadruple from $186.9 billion in 2009 to$768.2 billion in 2020.

Instead of continuing to add to our national debt and pay off the minimum balance each month,

lets revert back to the simple yet powerful economic policies that were enacted during the Rea-gan administration. These ideas included a free market unencumbered by barriers, governmentregulation and taxation that created the most growth-friendly economic environment. As well assupply-side economics: lower taxes, less regulation, and less government spending, as well as amonetary policy focused on ridding us of the seemingly incurable disease of ever-risinginflation. These economic ideas allowed the U.S. to ricochet out of recession and spring into aneconomic boom.

Reagans simple economic policies were able to pull America out of a greater recession than weare in currently. Higher unemployment, catastrophic interest rates (18% for mortgages) and astock market that in real terms had fallen 60% from its mid-1960s levels. It is necessary thatwe revert back to these economic policies so Americans do not drown in debt. Mr. Obama needsto take a lesson from his predecessor and stop the exponential grown of the U.S. government. Inthis case less is really more.

Happy First Birthday to Obamacareand Now for the

Terrible Twos

Well, it has been one full year since President Obama signed into law his healthcare plan, andlets just say that things have not been going smoothly for the President. Last year, when the billfinally passed Congress, it had a favorable support, 46% of Americans supported the bill, and40% did not according to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. One year later, things have changed agreat deal. This past week in the same poll issued by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 40% of Americans supported the Presidents legislation while 46% opposed it.

And there is good reason why so many people in America who once supported the Presidentsmain policy initiative are now changing sides. The reason is that many things that PresidentObama promised us are not coming to fruition. Here are just a few:

President Obama claimed that under his healthcare plan, premiums for citizens would bereduced $2,500 by 2012. However, according to data released by the nonpartisan Con-gressional Budget Office (CBO) this past week, that in fact will not happen. Instead, ac-




34/47

cording to the CBO, premiums will be raised $2,100 for families over the next five years.For middle class families already struggling to meet basic needs, an increase in healthcarespending over the next several years will break the bank for many across the U.S.

Many Americans already have existing coverage through their employers, and many likethe doctors they have gone to for years. The President claimed that under his new law,you could keep your existing coverage and doctor. However, one year in we see that thiswill not be the case according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Theyestimate conservatively that 51% of small businesses in the U.S. will be forced to changehealth insurance providers. In turn, they believe this will mean that 80% of employeesworking for small businesses would lose their current coverage. Well there goes keepingthe doctor you and your families have been going to for over 25 years.

President Obama also promised the American people that his health care proposal wouldONLY cost $1 trillion over the next decade. The CBO while reporting on the Presidentsannual budget believes that the President and his administration are completely lowball-ing the actual figure by billions of dollars. They figure that over the next decade, Oba-macare will instead cost taxpayers $1.45 trillion, $40 billion higher than what the Presi-dent had originally stated.

By looking at these three points, its no surprise then why so many people in America are finallyseeing the huge burden that Obamacare will have on our already deficit sicken country.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is one of those people. He originally supported PresidentObamas healthcare overhaul as his company spent hundreds of millions of dollars on health in-

surance costs. However, now he is singing a different tune. He was quoted recently as sayingthat Obamacare requirements will place too great pressure on small businesses across thecountry.

Let us not forget that Obamacare is still in its infant stages, and has a lot of growing to do. Sowhat does that mean for the next several years? We will most likely see burgeoning costs associ-ated with the law, which will add to our already massive deficit. This will in turn force us to bor-row more money from foreign countries like China, and to increase taxes here in the UnitedStates. Neither of those options sounds good to me.

Huge Obamacare Advocate Now Asking for Waiver for His

State




35/47

Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has been one of healthcare reforms biggest advocates.

He spent Obamacares second birthday telling Democrats who have shied away from the un- popular bill to buck up. I dont represent the hide-under-the-desk wing of the Democratic Party.

I believe weve got to lean into this fight.

Then he got personal. He said Pelosis defense of the bill has been inartful. President Obamahas failed to provide air cover for Congressional Democrats. He called the nonpartisan Con-gressional Budget Office propeller-heads (yea, I dont know what it means either). And finally,he pushed for his Democratic colleagues to stop cowering and start selling the law every sin-gle day.

The brash, head-on, never retreat, never surrender style has endeared the New York representa-

tive to many liberal ideologues. After his day-long outburst, the normally staid liberal commen-tator Dana Milbank wrote, Democrats would be better off if more of them acted like Weiners.

Despite the poor attempt at middle school humor, I agree with Mr. Milbank. Not because I think that Democrats should become more forceful advocated of Obamacare. Although given thesteady disapproval ratings of the law, I think the strategy would backfire to Republicans advan-tage. No, the real reason I agree with Milbank is because the same day he was boo-hooing the

bills lack of support, he discussed the possibility of asking for a waiver from the healthcare lawfor his home state of New York.

We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employnurses. We have a lot of uninsured people[Setting up] exchanges is the one piece of the

puzzle that would be difficult for us to do, Rep. Weiner said. Im just looking internallyto whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny .

So in one breath he urges Democrats to push the bill more forcefully and in the next he says helikely wont be participating. Gee, what a ringing endorsement. Its a wonder all these Democratsarent sticking their necks out for a bill Rep. Weiner believes isnt good enough for his own state.

Liberals are arguing that Weiner was not attempting to back off of his support for Obamacare butinstead was trying to highlight one of its strengths, namely, its flexibility. I call bull. True, thatmay have been what Rep. Weiner thought he was doing, but in reality he was making the bestargument yet that this bill is too flawed to work on a national scale.




36/47

The fact is, many state leaders want to opt out in order to save money and have more controlover their destiny. Indiana Governor and conservative icon Mitch Daniels showed just howharmful Obamacares mandates are to states budgets in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Dan-iels argued,

For state governments, the bill presents huge new costs, as we are required to enroll 15 million to20 million more people in our Medicaid systems. In Indiana, our independent actuaries have

pegged the price to state taxpayers at $2.6 billion to $3 billion over the next 10 years. This is ahuge burden for our state, and yet another incremental expenditure the laws authors declined toaccount for truthfully.

Perhaps worse, the law expects to conscript the states as its agents in its takeover of health care.It assumes that we will set up and operate its new insurance exchanges for it, using our currentwelfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for itssubsidies, how much each person or family is eligible for, redetermining this eligibility regularly,and more. Then, we are supposed to oversee all the insurance plans in the exchanges for compli-ance with Washingtons dictates about terms and prices.

Its not hard to see why Rep. Weiner would ask for a waiver from the harsh realities of Oba-macares costly mandates. In fact, he would join a long list of entities asking for waivers fromthe laws provisions. In 2010 alone more than 1,000 businesses were granted waivers from Oba-macare, a number that has surely risen since. In an attempt to throw a lifeline to states, PresidentObama recently told state governors that he supports a proposal to allow states to opt out begin-

ning in 2014, the year the law supposedly goes into effect.

Given his recent words, Rep. Weiner appears ready to take President Obama up on his offer. Thequestion now becomes, with so many asking for waivers, is it really a testament to Obamacaresflexibility or the fact that its just a bad bill? Id guess the latter.

Dispelling Economic Myths About Republicans Jobs Plan

Lets play a little game. Were going to see how many liberal economic fallacies we can find in just one sentence of a recent Ezra Klein post. OK, so its probably not the funnest game youveever played, but its necessary. Ready? Klein writes,




37/47

The [Republicans] plan, it seems, is to create a bunch of unemployed public workerswholl create more competition for the few open jobs in the private sector and thus drivewages down for everybody.

How many did you find? I found three. Pretty impressive for a single sentence. Lets break themdown:

1. The Republicans planis to create a bunch of unemployed public workers

No. Or at least not in the sense that Klein intends. The goal is not to create a bunch of unemployed anything, its to reduce the burden on taxpayers by finding those workers private sector jobs.

To make his point Klein relies on the age-old political trick of using the negative inverse of agiven political position in order to undermine it. The problem is, it can be done with almost anystatement. Heres a far-flung example that should illustrate the point: The College Republicanshave a plan to find jobs for more young adults, lowering the growing problem of youth unem-

ployment. In response, College Democrats immediately begin a campaign to demonize our plan,arguing that it will take away the critical free-time that has allowed so many college students toenjoy the NCAA basketball tournament without the stress of work.

I know it sounds ridiculous, but it is essentially what Klein is arguing. Sure, young adults may prefer not to have to work, but this ignores the economic burden this has on their parents. It also

completely ignores the impact on their future in which they will lack the experience and skills tostart their career. In the same way, government workers may prefer to keep their stable job in the public sector, but this ignores the enormous economic burden this has on taxpayers, who are es-sentially responsible for paying their wages. It also ignores the enormous debt burden they arecontributing to, which will negatively impact future generations through higher taxes, reducedgovernment services, and possibly depressed GDP growth.

2. who will create more competition for the few open jobs in the private sector

Ah, the old, lets-conflate-public-sector-employment-with-private-sector-employment-and-hope-nobody-notices trick. Essentially what Klein is arguing for here is a quasi, highly ineffi-cient, but highly hidden stimulus package. He argues that the worst thing for an unemployed

person is another unemployed person, being careful not to mention whether we the governmentneeds to employ those people.

What this argument fails to grasp is that the public sector and its workers are markedly differentthan the private sector and its workers. Public sector workers create no good that can be sold in




38/47

the marketplace. Their wages are necessarily not borne out of the profitable nature of their work but out of the work of private sector taxpayers.

Now, that is not to say that a vast majority of public sector workers are critical to ensuring the

smooth running of the nation. After all, a government has legitimate purposes and it will needworkers to be able to fulfill them. But by never differentiating between necessary and unneces-sary government workers, Klein shows his true purpose for the government to maintain em-

ployment solely for the sake of maintaining employment.

If not for the fact that taxpayers are funding that empl

march '11 issue debrief

Documents