Stumped: Axelrod Can’t Explain Why Senate Dems Won’t Pass A Budget

Video: Stumped: Axelrod Can't Explain Why Senate Dems Won't Pass A Budget

Maybe he should have talked to Jeff Sessions before the interview?

Video:  Dem Leaders Run From Budget Deadline As Health Law Threatens Nation's Finances

WASHINGTON, March 18--Appearing on FOX News' "America's News HQ" today, Sen. Sessions discussed the nearing legal deadline for Senate Democrats to produce a budget (the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Senate Budget Committee to complete action on a resolution by April 1, and requires passage by the full Senate by April 15). Despite this unambiguous statutory requirement, the Budget Committee has taken no action to even begin work on a budget. In fact, it has now been 1,054 days--nearly three years--since Senate Democrats have produced a budget at all.

This stands in sharp contrast to the record of House Republicans, which passed a budget last year and which is set to introduce this year's budget next week.

Rather than confront the nation's debt threat, Senate Democrats have resorted to political tactics on unrelated matters, as well as attacks on the House Republican budget even in the absence of a plan of their own.

Sessions also addressed new cost projections for the president's health law, which the Congressional Budget Office last week found will cost nearly twice what the president originally promised, or nearly three times the promised amount once the law is fully implemented.

Charles Krauthammer: The "Preventive Care" Myth

WASHINGTON -- In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Senator Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion. The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy -- yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.

Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama's idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House's income tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes.

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."

Reform proponents repeat this like a mantra. Because it seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway." And this costs society money that would not have been spent otherwise.

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality in the United States today? A study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. Elmendorf additionally cites a definitive assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive care and found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But in medicine, as in life, there is no free lunch. The idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment -- that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them -- is simply nonsense.

Prevention is a wondrous good, but in the aggregate it costs society money. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole premise of medicine: Treating a heart attack or setting a broken leg also costs society. But we do it because it alleviates human suffering. Preventing a heart attack with statins or breast cancer with mammograms is costly. But we do it because it reduces human suffering.

However, prevention is not, as so widely advertised, healing on the cheap. It is not the magic bullet for health care costs.

You will hear some variation of that claim a hundred times in the coming health care debate. Whenever you do, remember: It's nonsense -- empirically demonstrable and CBO-certified.

by Charles Krauthammer

And Just like there is no way to cover an additional 20 to 47 million people, depending on whose numbers you use, without increasing the cost $1.6 Tillion+, it is naive to think that we can pay for that without increases in taxes and/or rationing healthcare… or both! Add to that a doctor shortage and rampant inflation because of immense government debt and you have a crisis. And when there is a crisis, the rationing will begin out of need… QULY. Ask anyone who lives in Britain, Canada or anywhere else with a socialistic or government-run healthcare system… there are shortages and rationing. And where do you start… with the elderly, the very very young and the handicapped. Just ask the people living in Oregon under a government-run state healthcare system… There is rationing!!!

By the way, there really are only about ‘5’ million uninsured Americans and Legal Aliens that do not qualify for other programs or who do not have the money for insurance but choose to use it for other things, not 47 million!! We could make some simple sensible changes to the system we have… the best medical coverage in the world, and absorb those 5 million without destroying our medical system and turning over our lives to the government. ObamaCare is like “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, a crazy unnecessary idea!

Related Resources:

• Prescription for Truth – Daniel Hannan From England: HealthCare Worse for Elderly
• Woman in Oregon Told Healthcare Would Not Pay for Cancer Treatment But Would Pay for Assisted Suicide… Welcome to Government Controlled Healthcare

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power

It's the Economy, Stupid

Tomorrow will likely bring more bad news for President Barack Obama on the number one issue for voters -- the economy. The Labor Department's monthly job report will almost certainly show unemployment topping 9%, with a couple hundred thousand more jobs lost in May.

It will get worse before jobs get better. Congressional Budget Director Douglas W. Elmendorf recently predicted that unemployment will continue rising into the second half of next year and peak above 10%.

Mr. Obama has an ingenious approach to job losses: He describes them as job gains. For example, last week the president claimed that 150,000 jobs had been created or saved because of his stimulus package. He boasted, "And that's just the beginning."

However, at the beginning of January, 134.3 million people were employed. At the start of May, 132.4 million Americans were working. How was Mr. Obama magically able to conjure this loss of 1.9 million jobs into an increase of 150,000 jobs?

As my former White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto points out on his blog, the Labor Department does not and cannot collect data on "jobs saved." So the Obama administration is asking that we accept its "clairvoyant ability to estimate," and the White House press corps has let Mr. Obama's ludicrous claim go virtually unchallenged.

Still, there are limits to Mr. Obama's rhetorical tricks. Even he cannot turn job losses into real job gains. And he won't be rescued by stimulus spending.

Former National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey made a persuasive case on his blog that the stimulus will be ineffective because the additional economic growth it spurs will come six to nine months later than it could have.

This is partly because, as the Congressional Budget Office estimates, only $185 billion (23% of a $787 billion stimulus package) will be spent this fiscal year. The government will spend an additional $399 billion next fiscal year. The balance -- $203 billion -- will be spent between fiscal years 2011 and 2019, long after the economy has turned on its own power and for its own reasons. In addition, much of the stimulus that went this year for tax cuts and transfer payments has been saved, not spent. (The national savings rate went from less than 0% to about 5%.)

If the Obama administration were more serious about growing the economy than just growing government, the stimulus would have been front-loaded into this fiscal year.

In addition, the claim made by Team Obama that every dollar in stimulus translates into a dollar-and-a-half in growth is economic fiction. The costs of stimulus reduce future growth. No country has ever spent itself to prosperity. The price of stimulus has to be paid sometime.

Any real improvement in the economy so far is more likely the result of the Federal Reserve expanding the money supply and the Fed and Treasury shoring up the financial sector.

But the Fed's actions are risky. Easy money and expansionary policies are not sustainable. We may soon be in for a bout of inflation unless the Fed soaks up much of the money it flooded into the system. The government is also likely to hamper private investment as it uses a vast amount of capital to finance its debt. And when the Fed stomps on its monetary brakes, as eventually it must, we'll get sluggish growth.

The irony for Democrats is that the Fed may hit the brakes in the run-up to the 2010 congressional elections or the 2012 presidential election.

It is becoming clear that the economy is now the top issue. Mr. Obama's presidency may well rise or fall on it. The economy will be his responsibility long before next year's elections. Americans may give him a chance to turn things around, but voters can turn unforgiving very quickly if promised jobs don't materialize.

That's what happened in Louisiana, where voters accepted Democrat Gov. Kathleen Blanco's missteps before Hurricane Katrina but brutally rejected her afterward because she failed to turn the state around.

Until now, the new president has benefited from public willingness to give him a honeymoon. He decided to use that grace period to push for the largest expansion of government in U.S. history and to reward political allies (see the sweetheart deals Big Labor received in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies).

The difficulty for Mr. Obama will be when the public sees where his decisions lead -- higher inflation, higher interest rates, higher taxes, sluggish growth, and a jobless recovery.

By KARL ROVE - former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A13

About Karl Rove:  Karl Rove served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007 and Deputy Chief of Staff from 2004–2007. At the White House he oversaw the Offices of Strategic Initiatives, Political Affairs, Public Liaison, and Intergovernmental Affairs and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, coordinating the White House policy making process.

Before Karl became known as "The Architect" of President Bush's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, he was president of Karl Rove + Company, an Austin-based public affairs firm that worked for Republican candidates, nonpartisan causes, and nonprofit groups. His clients included over 75 Republican U.S. Senate, Congressional and gubernatorial candidates in 24 states, as well as the Moderate Party of Sweden.

Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster.

Posted:  Knowledge Creates Power

Stimulus Verdict: A $3.27 Trillion Porker

The gargantuan stimulus bill Congress has rubber-stamped with virtually no Republican support contains tens of billions of the very spending projects that made the legislation a lightning rod for criticism.

And although the bill is generally described as costing $787 billion, the Congressional Budget Office reports the actual figure is now closer to $3.27 trillion.

That stems from the $744 billion it will take to pay for the additional debt the legislation will create, and $2.527 trillion in increased spending from the new and expanded programs the bill will spawn over the next decade.

To view the letter to Nancy Pelosi, go here.

The bill now spans more than 1,000 pages. While Democrats removed some provisions that fiscal conservatives objected to, most of the pork remains. Among them:

The plan has more than $3 billion in “neighborhood stabilization” and Community Development Block Grant funding, much of which may go to benefit ACORN, a low-income housing and voter registration “community” organization that is under federal investigation for its suspicious voter registration practices.

$1.3 billion to bailout AMTRAK, the perennial money-loser railroad.

$1 billion for educational programs, including courses on sexually transmitted diseases.

$30 million for restoration of wetlands to be spent in the San Francisco Bay Area – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district. The money will go in part to protect the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

$200 million for a low-pollution, coal-fired power plant in President Barack Obama’s home state of Illinois.

$45 million for ATV four-wheeler trails, and government office renovations, according to RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

$200 million to provide computers to community colleges.

$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts.

Over $650 million in coupons to help consumers buy digital TV converter-box coupons.

A reported $300 million for hybrid vehicles and electric-powered cars. According to the Washington Times, this item will include buying golf carts for federal workers.

GOP Sen. John McCain summed up his view of the bill: “This measure is not bipartisan. It contains much that is not stimulative.”

Some of the criticisms of the bill, however, center on policy rather than cost.

The Heritage Foundation, for example, reports the bill reverses the bipartisan welfare reforms achieved during the Clinton administration.

Also, opponents have slammed the bill for being “anti-religious,” because it expressly prohibits the use of stimulus funds for faith-based schools, schools of divinity, facilities used for “sectarian worship,” or places of religious worship.

Saturday, February 14, 2009 9:40 AM
By: David A. Patten © 2009 Newsmax

The Dems rushed the vote on this bill pushing the urgency button.  Then we find out that Pelosi and 7 other Dems virtually immediately headed to the airport to board military taxpayer paid planes to Italy... on a so called working trip?!?  We also see that after not allowing the members of either the House of Senate to read "the Bill" because of the "so-called" urgency, President Obama waits four days to sign "The Bill" today, Tuesday, so that the White House can make it another media event...  Sounds a bit odd... or maybe not!?!

Hmmm... are we being had?  You betcha!  $3.27 trillion that will put our children and grandchildren into debt... for a bill that nobody really knows what it contains and that experts are saying more and more will give us... Main St or the little guy, very little for the cost... and probably won't work.  And all the while after incurring a $3.27 trillion dollar debt the President has asked the military, fighting two wars, to cut their budget by 10% when they have projects stacked up and needs that would produce immediate jobs that could stimulate the economy.

"They" also don't want us to be side-tracked by the facts... like both John McCain and Mitt Romney had actual 'Stimulus Bill" options that would have cost us half the money and created double the jobs and quicker  Wow, what a concept.