This week President Obama’s bipartisan debt commission revealed hints about its long awaited recommendations for reducing the national debt. Since the commission was appointed by President Obama, a president who has increased spending to record levels, conservatives expected the worst.
In reality the debt commission recommendations include many things that conservatives can applaud. According to the Wall Street Journal, the recommendations include many spending cuts as well as tax reform. Many entitlement programs, the largest part of the federal budget, are on the chopping block. The federal workforce would also be reduced under the plan. Social Security would see a gradual increase to age 69 in the retirement age as well as an increase in taxes and cuts in benefits for upper income taxpayers. The plan would also permanently ban the controversial practice of earmarking. The defense budget would also see cuts.
Many conservative groups, such as Americans for Tax Reform, oppose the plan because it raises some taxes. The commission’s proposals would eliminate many tax breaks, such as the home mortgage deduction, in exchange for lower base rates for both individuals and businesses. The gas tax would also be increased incrementally.
While the plan is not perfect, it is a start. One glaring omission is the tremendous costs of the new health care legislation. However, conservatives need to realize that we are entering an era of divided government. A plan originating in the House that focuses on spending cuts will never pass the Democratic Senate and President Obama’s veto pen. Republicans should negotiate for as few tax increases as possible; both out of principle and for the practical reasons that tax increases hurt the economy.
The report of the debt commission is something that Republicans can work with. Starting from this point, conservatives, including those members of the Georgia delegation, should use their newly won political capital to rescue the country from the brink of insolvency.
Doubtless, there will be opposition to entitlement cuts, but the question is not if, but when. Either we can act responsibly now, or we can make even more draconian cuts in the future when the government can no longer sell its debt to finance its overspending.
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Health care cover-up
When the House of Representatives voted to pass President Obama’s health care reform bill on March 21, 2010, it was opposed by a majority of Americans. In addition to opposing the bill itself, many Americans objected to the manner in which the bill was passed. To avoid the stronger Republican opposition after the election of Scott Brown from Massachusetts, the house passed a previously passed senate bill and then both houses voted on a separate bill containing fixes for the first bill. This was unprecedented.
Now it seems that there was even more political chicanery involved in the passage of the bill. Several weeks after the passage of the health care bill, on April 22 Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released a report that was full of bad news for President Obama and the Democrats [1]. This report from a nonpartisan office stated that the reform bill will actually increase health care costs, in spite of President Obama’s repeated assurances that the bill would control costs.
Further, the report stated that the bill’s cuts in Medicare could drive up to 15% of hospitals and health care providers into the red [1]. These losses could lead to fewer health care providers as demand increases. This would lead to more limited access to health care, especially for seniors who depend on Medicare. Cuts to Medicare’s Advantage program would also mean that many seniors will face higher out-of-pocket costs.
The one bright spot in the report for Democrats was that the percentage of Americans with health insurance is estimated to increase. However, even the White House admits that the bill still won’t cover all Americans.
In addition to the bad news contained in the report, it was also revealed that the report had been submitted prior to the health care vote. Reports are that the report had been submitted to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius more than a week prior to the vote [2]. Sebelius’ staff reportedly refused to review the report until after the vote. Conflicting reports [3] are that the report was received only three days before the vote, which was not enough time to review it.
In either case, it looks bad for the Democrats. It is now apparent that the rush in getting the bill passed was related directly to the HHS report. In either case, the vote was pushed through on a Sunday so that the contents of the report would not be made public before the bill became law. The Democrats knew that bad news was coming and delayed it.
In fact, one HHS staffer said as much: "The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote, which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think" [2].
He goes on to say that the contents of the report were widely known in Democratic circles: "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff, and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report" [2].
After years of Democratic complaints about governmental lies, here we have a black-and-white case of intentional deceit. While President Obama and congressional Democrats were claiming that the health care bill would reduce costs, they were aware that actuaries within their own administration were pointing out the flaws in their plan. Even now, more than a month after the vote, are still claiming that the obscenely expensive bill will actually decrease the federal deficit.
All of this points to the fact that the intent of the Democrats is to mislead. They know and have known the truth about their bill for a long time. They concealed the truth in order to deceive the American people and their elected representatives into passing the bill.
We can only hope that the American people will remember this deceit and the arrogance of the Democratic leadership in November.
Repeal – Replace – Reform
Notes:
1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
2. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/what-lies-beneath
3. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212303032885376.html
Kansas City MO
April 29, 2010
Now it seems that there was even more political chicanery involved in the passage of the bill. Several weeks after the passage of the health care bill, on April 22 Medicare’s Office of the Actuary released a report that was full of bad news for President Obama and the Democrats [1]. This report from a nonpartisan office stated that the reform bill will actually increase health care costs, in spite of President Obama’s repeated assurances that the bill would control costs.
Further, the report stated that the bill’s cuts in Medicare could drive up to 15% of hospitals and health care providers into the red [1]. These losses could lead to fewer health care providers as demand increases. This would lead to more limited access to health care, especially for seniors who depend on Medicare. Cuts to Medicare’s Advantage program would also mean that many seniors will face higher out-of-pocket costs.
The one bright spot in the report for Democrats was that the percentage of Americans with health insurance is estimated to increase. However, even the White House admits that the bill still won’t cover all Americans.
In addition to the bad news contained in the report, it was also revealed that the report had been submitted prior to the health care vote. Reports are that the report had been submitted to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius more than a week prior to the vote [2]. Sebelius’ staff reportedly refused to review the report until after the vote. Conflicting reports [3] are that the report was received only three days before the vote, which was not enough time to review it.
In either case, it looks bad for the Democrats. It is now apparent that the rush in getting the bill passed was related directly to the HHS report. In either case, the vote was pushed through on a Sunday so that the contents of the report would not be made public before the bill became law. The Democrats knew that bad news was coming and delayed it.
In fact, one HHS staffer said as much: "The reason we were given was that they did not want to influence the vote, which is actually the point of having a review like this, you would think" [2].
He goes on to say that the contents of the report were widely known in Democratic circles: "We know a copy was sent to the White House via their legislative affairs staff, and there were a number of meetings here almost right after the analysis was submitted to the secretary's office. Everyone went into lockdown, and people here were too scared to go public with the report" [2].
After years of Democratic complaints about governmental lies, here we have a black-and-white case of intentional deceit. While President Obama and congressional Democrats were claiming that the health care bill would reduce costs, they were aware that actuaries within their own administration were pointing out the flaws in their plan. Even now, more than a month after the vote, are still claiming that the obscenely expensive bill will actually decrease the federal deficit.
All of this points to the fact that the intent of the Democrats is to mislead. They know and have known the truth about their bill for a long time. They concealed the truth in order to deceive the American people and their elected representatives into passing the bill.
We can only hope that the American people will remember this deceit and the arrogance of the Democratic leadership in November.
Repeal – Replace – Reform
Notes:
1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100423/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_law_costs
2. http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/what-lies-beneath
3. http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212303032885376.html
Kansas City MO
April 29, 2010
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Verdict On Iraq
There has been much debate and second-guessing of the decision by President Bush and the Congress to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein’s regime. Claims have been made that US intelligence was mistaken about Saddam’s attempts to create weapons of mass destruction as well as Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups.
In reality, the Duelfer Report, issued in 2004, revealed that although Saddam did not have militarily significant stockpile of WMD, his production and procurement networks were intact and would have been able to resume production after UN sanctions were lifted. The report also detailed how Saddam used the UN Oil-for-Food program, which was meant to provide humanitarian relief for Iraqis, to instead rearm Iraq and bribe government officials around the world.
Often forgotten is the fact that UN inspectors found banned missiles in Iraq prior to the Coalition invasion. Iraq’s al-Samoud missiles had a range greater than allowed by UN resolutions, and thus were a violation of international agreements. Similarly, few remember that US forces were attacked with IEDs made from artillery shells containing the nerve gas sarin in 2004. The shell was determined to be from Saddam’s era and proves that Iraq did possess some stockpiles of chemical weapons. Saddam had used sarin in the past to attack both Iraqi Kurds and Iranian troops.
Clearly, Saddam’s WMDs were a legitimate justification for war, and now a new report reveals that Saddam’s ties to terror groups were also real. Conventional wisdom in some quarters has been that Saddam’s secular regime would never support religious fanatics. That assumption, however, turns out to be much in error. The report is based on 600,000 captured Iraqi documents and provides “strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.”
There were many examples of Saddam’s cooperation with radical Muslim groups. In 1993, while the US was bringing humanitarian aid to Somalia, Saddam formed a “group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” Al Qaeda was working against Americans in Somalia at the same time, culminating in the Mogadishu battle described in Black Hawk Down. The Iraqi military also trained Sudanese fighters in the 1990s. This was the same time that Osama bin Laden resided in Sudan. The Sudanese government offered bin Laden to President Clinton, but the offer was never accepted.
The report states that Saddam’s “regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda – as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term version.” One example is how an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent was told to support the Army of Muhammad, a group “under the wings of bin Laden” in Bahrain, according to “priorities previously established.”
Two other notable groups to receive Saddam’s support were Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Afghani Islamic Party. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri who is now bin Laden’s second-in-command. In 1989, Zawahiri was a founding member of al Qaeda and EIJ played a major role in al Qaeda’s early days. The Afghani Islamic Party was headed by Gulbiddin Hekmatyr. Peter Bergen, a skeptic of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, said that bin Laden and Hekmatyr “worked closely” in Afghanistan. IIS documents now show that Hekmatyr relied on Iraqi funding and that the relationship went back to 1989.
An Iraqi memo from 1993 proclaims support for a Palestinian group “dedicated to armed jihad against Americans and Western interests.” For over twenty years, training camps around Iraq turned out Islamic radicals into jihadists. The Iraqis offered “financial and moral support” to terror groups operating in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq.
Saddam’s support for terrorism continued up until the fall of Baghdad. In 2002, the Iraqi government hosted a series of thirteen conferences for terrorist groups and issued hundreds of Iraqi passports to terrorists trained in Iraqi camps. The Iraqis developed, constructed, certified and provided training for the use of car bombs and suicide vests. The Iraqi government even developed a complex bureaucracy dedicated to recruiting, training, and financing terror groups. Baath Party leaders provided recruits to Saddam’s “Martyrdom Project” while the IIS began to build IEDs “designed to be used in civilian areas.”
This report, “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” will ultimately help to vindicate President Bush for his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The Iraqi documents show that Bush’s claims that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism under Saddam Hussein were accurate. As with al Qaeda, Iraq was at war with the United States long before we were at war with them.
Sources:
“Saddam’s Terror Links,” Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2008
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/3879_4509.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14889&R=139C4175A0
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/08-13_Digest/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
In reality, the Duelfer Report, issued in 2004, revealed that although Saddam did not have militarily significant stockpile of WMD, his production and procurement networks were intact and would have been able to resume production after UN sanctions were lifted. The report also detailed how Saddam used the UN Oil-for-Food program, which was meant to provide humanitarian relief for Iraqis, to instead rearm Iraq and bribe government officials around the world.
Often forgotten is the fact that UN inspectors found banned missiles in Iraq prior to the Coalition invasion. Iraq’s al-Samoud missiles had a range greater than allowed by UN resolutions, and thus were a violation of international agreements. Similarly, few remember that US forces were attacked with IEDs made from artillery shells containing the nerve gas sarin in 2004. The shell was determined to be from Saddam’s era and proves that Iraq did possess some stockpiles of chemical weapons. Saddam had used sarin in the past to attack both Iraqi Kurds and Iranian troops.
Clearly, Saddam’s WMDs were a legitimate justification for war, and now a new report reveals that Saddam’s ties to terror groups were also real. Conventional wisdom in some quarters has been that Saddam’s secular regime would never support religious fanatics. That assumption, however, turns out to be much in error. The report is based on 600,000 captured Iraqi documents and provides “strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.”
There were many examples of Saddam’s cooperation with radical Muslim groups. In 1993, while the US was bringing humanitarian aid to Somalia, Saddam formed a “group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.” Al Qaeda was working against Americans in Somalia at the same time, culminating in the Mogadishu battle described in Black Hawk Down. The Iraqi military also trained Sudanese fighters in the 1990s. This was the same time that Osama bin Laden resided in Sudan. The Sudanese government offered bin Laden to President Clinton, but the offer was never accepted.
The report states that Saddam’s “regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda – as long as that organization’s near-term goals supported Saddam’s long-term version.” One example is how an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) agent was told to support the Army of Muhammad, a group “under the wings of bin Laden” in Bahrain, according to “priorities previously established.”
Two other notable groups to receive Saddam’s support were Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Afghani Islamic Party. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was led by Ayman al-Zawahiri who is now bin Laden’s second-in-command. In 1989, Zawahiri was a founding member of al Qaeda and EIJ played a major role in al Qaeda’s early days. The Afghani Islamic Party was headed by Gulbiddin Hekmatyr. Peter Bergen, a skeptic of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection, said that bin Laden and Hekmatyr “worked closely” in Afghanistan. IIS documents now show that Hekmatyr relied on Iraqi funding and that the relationship went back to 1989.
An Iraqi memo from 1993 proclaims support for a Palestinian group “dedicated to armed jihad against Americans and Western interests.” For over twenty years, training camps around Iraq turned out Islamic radicals into jihadists. The Iraqis offered “financial and moral support” to terror groups operating in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Iraq.
Saddam’s support for terrorism continued up until the fall of Baghdad. In 2002, the Iraqi government hosted a series of thirteen conferences for terrorist groups and issued hundreds of Iraqi passports to terrorists trained in Iraqi camps. The Iraqis developed, constructed, certified and provided training for the use of car bombs and suicide vests. The Iraqi government even developed a complex bureaucracy dedicated to recruiting, training, and financing terror groups. Baath Party leaders provided recruits to Saddam’s “Martyrdom Project” while the IIS began to build IEDs “designed to be used in civilian areas.”
This report, “Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents,” will ultimately help to vindicate President Bush for his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The Iraqi documents show that Bush’s claims that Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism under Saddam Hussein were accurate. As with al Qaeda, Iraq was at war with the United States long before we were at war with them.
Sources:
“Saddam’s Terror Links,” Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2008
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iraq/Missile/3879_4509.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=14889&R=139C4175A0
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/08-13_Digest/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/pa032008.html
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)