What’s news to you today?
How ’bout this.
Remember folks, they had to pass it so we could find out what’s in it.
From AP/Google.
“Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effect.”
“And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who’ll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.”
Which is not what they promised.
Read more here
And now we find out they vastly underestimated the costs of administering it all. Again. Well, to be fair, they only counted the govts cost, which are higher than estimated too, not what it would cost business and people to conform to their still mostly unwritten rules. But underestimated still.
From the WashingtonExaminer
“Current federal regulations plus those coming under Obamacare will cost American taxpayers and businesses $1.8 trillion annually, more than twenty times the $88 billion the administration estimates, according to a new roundup provided to Secrets from the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.”
“Complying with Health and Human Services Department requirements alone, he revealed, costs $184 billion a year, yet regulators are still drafting the rules for the 2,400-page Obamacare law that kicks into gear in 2014.”
“”While OMB officially reports amounts of only up to $88.6 billion in 2010 dollars,” said Crews, “the non-tax cost of government intervention in the economy, without performing a sweeping survey, appears to total up to $1.806 trillion annually.””
Read more here
This is annually. That’s gonna put a huge drag on the economy.
Wandering Views 
AJ
I’ve started to play a guessing game of the morning to see if I can figure out what you’ll post — this one I knew you would post. The reactions here are going to be remarkably similar, so I’d like to posit a different question on gov’t intervention and the economy:
Some analysts say that the defense sequestration would take about a million jobs from the defense industry — how is this kind of spending which awards companies (some of whom have spent more money than Solyndra developing weapons that don’t fill the bill) less pernicious than infrastructure spending? What do modern day conservatives make of President Eisenhower’s warnings on of developing a military-industrial complex? And if you think Ike had a point, how would your propose extracting ourselves from the situation?
LikeLike
CB, As a Confederate, I am somewhat ambivalent about defense spending by the US. However, I will note that when Ike left office, defense spending was 10% of GDP. It is now about half of that.
Having said that, the only way to balance the budget is a combination of defense cuts, domestic cuts and tax reform.
I am no longer as concerned about defense cuts since I believe the most recent uses of our military have made the world less safe. This is a view which I am certain was held by my ancestors who lived 150 years ago.
LikeLike
Coyote says: “…so I’d like to posit a different question on gov’t intervention and the economy:”
Heh. I bet you would. Don’t deflect….
LikeLike
CB, there are some things the government is suppose to do. The main one is protect us. If the government would cut out all things they are not suppose to be doing, there would be plenty for the stuff they are suppose to be doing.
LikeLike
CB, Ricky is right that defense spending as a % 0f GDP is about 5%, a modest amount viewed historically including the Eisenhower years;
Just now the reality is that the West continue to face serious defense threats in the very real war against terror and China’s continued double digit increases in defense spending.
For a decent summary of this see Gary Schmitt’s LA Times article, The West’s ‘hard power’ deficit Shrinking defense budgets among its allies are a warning sign for the U.S. including:
The good news is that this predominance does not require a return to Cold War-era spending levels. Yet, given the uncertain consequences of China’s rise, continued instability in large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia, and a revanchist Putin-led Russia, it does require more than is currently being budgeted. As then-Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said in his farewell address to allies in Brussels a year ago, “This imbalance in burden sharing is not sustainable in a world where projecting stability is the order of the day.”
America’s allies like to tell themselves that they can always spend their defense monies more efficiently, but that is true only up to a point. The fact is that smaller budgets almost always mean less capability and, implicitly, more loaded onto America’s shoulders. Politically, this is getting more and more difficult to sustain in the United States. While the U.S. base defense budget — minus funds for the war in Afghanistan — amounts to 3.4% of GDP, current projections see it falling to less than 3% in the decade ahead.
Schmitt, a rather knowledgeable fellow in national security analysis, is director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
LikeLike
On AJ’s topic, it is extremely frustrating for me to listen to debates about healthcare. Both conservatives and liberals seem to assume that our current system is some sort of free enterprise or market system, which it is not. The biggest consumers of healthcare are the elderly. Their costs are paid for by the Ponzi scheme Medicare tax on current workers. Any poor person can show up at any public hospital and get free treatment paid for by taxpayers. This is socialism! Paul Ryan only suggested converting the Medicare Ponzi scheme to a market approach in the distant future and he was roundly condemned by Democrats and wimpy Republicans like Gingrich. The truth is that our current system is a very expensive, inefficient hybrid system. Any meaningful reforms would require an intelligent and mature populace, which we lack.
LikeLike
Kbells…Amen!
And that would include protecting our borders…
LikeLike
Ricky, I agree that the basic problem is that our healthcare system needs to be a real market system that gives people incentives to shop around for price and quality of service. The Ryan plan would do this well for Medicare. It becomes increasingly clear as AJ points out that Obamacare is another government sponsored train-wreck substantively and fiscally.
Kimberly Strassel has an interesting WSJ today, The Love Song of AARP and Obama that shows how AARP was in cahoots with Obama on the healthcare fiasco including:
When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan address the AARP on Friday, good manners will no doubt keep them from asking this question: How can that lobby claim to speak for American seniors given its partisan role in passing ObamaCare?
Thanks to just-released emails from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, we now know that AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass a health bill that slashes $716 billion from Medicare, strips seniors of choice, and sets the stage for rationing. We know that despite AARP’s awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the “nonpartisan membership organization” chose to serve the president’s agenda.
All of this done against the real interests of AARP members.
LikeLike
Sands, it’s about money for AARP. Always is.
LikeLike
CB,
Just a reminder to start. You folks can add whatever you think is news to the thread. My stuff is just a starter to get things moving. I welcome post like yours that “change” the subject so to speak.
Now to your question.
Everyone who has ever been a govt employee or in the military, knows that one of the biggest drains on spending is waste/fraud/abuse. We’ve all heard about $600 toilet seats and stuff like that. Many times this is caused by inflating contract prices, and yet our govt still signs the contract. That’s a waste of money, fraud by the contractor and govt for approving it, and a waste of taxpayer dollars. I’d start with stuff like that.
Also, it’s a reality that huge amounts are spent on weapon systems that never fully develope, and are often scrapped after millions are wasted. I understand the concept of R+D, it’s a necessaary cost. But only to a point. When it continues simply to make contractors happy and to ensure their donations keep coming in to the politicians, then it becomes wasteful. There is a reasonable point when it’s time to just scrap it. I’d also look here to cut costs.
As far as % of GDP, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable amount. However, that doesn’t mean some cutting can’t, or shouldn’t take place. There’s enough w/f/a that some cuts would be appropriate.
But here’s where I run into a problem. It’s when they want to take those cuts out on the people who have spent large portions of their life in service to, and in defense of, the US. That’s an insult and a slap in the face. Military pay isn’t the greatest, but they knew that going in. But you can’t promise retirement benefits and then yank them away later. That is not how you reward these fine folks, or their dependents, for the sacrifices they’ve made for this country. We should be ashamed for even considering that. But again, I’m kinda biased having spent 10 years active/reserve in the US Army. But I’m not looking to preserve my own benefits, I’m not eligible for most, and I won’t get a retirement benefit. But I still think it’s wrong.
Now I could probably be convinced some benefits cuts are necessary, but when I see Obama being a partisan donkey about it, and protecting his union buddies in the process, I have to question his motivations. This is total you know what.
http://freebeacon.com/trashing-tricare/
“The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.
The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”
If those cuts and increases are necessary, why exclude the unionized civilian workers from them? You know the answer already. That’s disgusting. The combat vets take a hit, the rear echelon workers don’t? Really? That attempt speaks volumes about Obama and what he thinks of the troops.
Now to the proposed cuts. Is Obama stupid? I have to ask because I can’t see how doing this in our present economy would be a good idea at all. Estimates say these cuts could cost another 3/4 of a million workers their jobs. It’s not like they can just go find another one, they ain;t out there. Just a bad idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-across-the-board-defense-cuts-could-cost-1-million-jobs/2012/06/21/gJQAxnTmtV_story.html
“Across-the-board budget cuts set to hit the Pentagon in January would destroy nearly 1 million jobs by 2014, with Virginia, California and Texas absorbing the biggest hits, according to an analysis released Thursday by the National Association of Manufacturers.
The job losses would probably include about 750,000 private-sector positions, including about 100,000 jobs in manufacturing, even as President Obama is promoting manufacturing as key to the nation’s economic recovery.”
“In recent weeks, separate analyses by George Mason University, the Bipartisan Policy Center and the aerospace industry have reached similar conclusions about the impact of the cuts on jobs and unemployment.”
Here’s more. Like I said, BAD IDEA!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/opinion/bennett-sequestration-defense-cuts/index.html
“Without action from Washington, on January 2, 2013, the U.S. defense budget will undergo the most dramatic and dangerous cuts in its history.”
“The results would be nothing short of catastrophic. But don’t take my word for it.
On November 14, 2011, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta wrote a letter to Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham explaining the ramifications of the full sequestration defense cuts. Should these cuts take place over the next 10 years, he said, the United States would be left with its smallest ground force since World War II; the smallest Navy since 1915; the smallest fighter force in the history of the Air Force; and the smallest civilian work force in the Defense Department’s history.”
“Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., the assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on Capitol Hill in May that such cuts would leave the corps without “adequate capabilities and capacities to meet a single major contingency operation.”
National defense is only 20% of the budget, yet the sequester subjects it to 50% of the automatic cuts. The other $500 billion will be cut from domestic programs.”
Now why do you suppose that is? In my opinion it’s because he doesn’t get alot of votes from the military, and he has vast ideologocal differences with them. Social programs however, are another story. That’s his base, the 47%ers. He can’t afford to tick them off. The military? Not so much. And yes, I know that’s a pessimistic view, but he’s shown me nothing to make me think I’m wrong, and plenty to show me I’m right.
Lastly, the military/industrial complex meme. I don’t much buy it. I think too many people, mostly left leaning, use it as a scare tactic to justify nonsense like Obama’s proposals. Just about everybody I ever here talk about it are those who already don’t like the military. This gives them an excuse, and in their mind justification, to treat the miltary and corporations badly. They were gonna do that anyway, so whatever.
LikeLike
Sails, I agree with you about the AARP. It has probably done more harm to the country than Al Qaeda and the ACLU, and that is saying something.
LikeLike
Charles, this happens to be a story of out of control top administrators at AARP who became cosy with the administration on Obamacare in ways contrary to its member’s interests and probably even the AARP board.
LikeLike
CB,
Ha!
😆
I’m laughing because I just took a stroll thru the comment section of the CNN link. If you check it out, you’ll see what I meant by
“I think too many people, mostly left leaning, use it as a scare tactic to justify nonsense like Obama’s proposals. Just about everybody I ever here talk about it are those who already don’t like the military. This gives them an excuse, and in their mind justification, to treat the miltary and corporations badly. They were gonna do that anyway, so whatever.”
It’s on display from posters there, pretty much exactly as I said. People like them is why I don’t buy the whole argument. It just seems like it’s a ploy manufactured by those who don’t much care for the military, or the large corporations that support them. It just doesn’t ring true, at least to me.
LikeLike
Here’s a little updating on some stories we talked about earlier this week.
First the media bias thing. Looks like I’m not the only one who sees it. This election seems to be making obvious to alot of people.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
“Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust is up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004.”
“The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views — 20 percentage points — is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 — as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.”
And this one on the terrorist attack on the Embassy and how we enabled it. I would hope liberals would see that their ideas were wrong, and that this is a consequences of that, but that’s probably wishful thinking. Turns out the head guy was released from Gitmo after much pressure from the left about detainees rights. Happy now libs?
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/09/20/radical-left-wing-center-for-constitutional-rights-represented-abu-sufian-bin-qumu/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
“Longtime readers know that I’ve extensively covered the troublesome conflict of interest at the Department of Justice involving Attorney General Eric Holder and his former law firm, Covington and Burling, which has represented a score of Gitmo detainees. See my archive of posts on the matter here. Many readers have asked whether the firm represented Abu Sufian bin Qumu, the former Gitmo detainee released in 2007 — and now named as the possible lead plotter in the bloody attacks on our consulate personnel, staff, and private security contractors in Benghazi.
The left-wing organization that helped spring Qumu was the Center for Constitutional Rights. Last April, the group issued an indignant press release painting Qumu as a harmless victim and blasting those concerned about his unrepentant jihadi ways. After a trove of Gitmo documents found their way to Wikileaks and were published by the New York Times, CCR rose to Qumu’s defense and parroted jihadi propaganda that the aggrieved Qumu was actually a friend of the U.S.:”
And again, this shows that the new govt of Lybia, which Obama helped install, is powerless to stop these people, and in many cases, in cohoots with them. Wrong horse there Barry. AGAIN!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57516793-503543/prime-suspect-in-libya-consulate-attack-dares-govt-to-arrest-me/?tag=strip
“He calmly denied having anything to do with the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate which killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
“But the President himself, Mohammed Magariaf, told us you were one of the prime suspects,” I told him.
He just smiled.
“If that’s what the President is saying,” replied Boukhatala, “Then he should come to my house and arrest me.”
But that’s something government security forces dare not do.”
“Boukhatala is the chief of a ferocious militia in Benghazi, the Abu Ubaidah Brigades – a sub-group of the larger Ansar al Shariah militia.
These men, armed to the teeth with weapons looted from deposed dictator Muammar Qaddafi’s arsenals, act as both military and police in parts of Benghazi. They are the law – because they say so.
The government’s security forces – official police and army – are simply too weak to push them out.”
Yet another foreign policy failure from Team O.
LikeLike
While channel surfing the other night I came a cross a show called “Rock Center with Brian Williams”. I was prepared to be unimpressed because of things that I’ve read about Brian Williams, but the piece called “War of Words” done by Ted Koppel was actually interesting and well done.
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/
It talked about how news was delivered to the public before the howler monkeys (my term) that we see on cable “news” networks now.
LikeLike
Ouch.
Just finished this.
Don’t hold back Charles, tell the group what you really think.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-collapse-of-the-cairo-doctrine/2012/09/20/72fb7f62-035f-11e2-91e7-2962c74e7738_story.html
“First, he would cleanse by confession. Then he would heal. Why, given the unique sensitivities of his background — “my sister is half-Indonesian,” he proudly told an interviewer in 2007, amplifying on his exquisite appreciation of Islam — his very election would revolutionize relations.”
“It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan. ”
“Islamists rise across North Africa from Mali to Egypt. Iran repeatedly defies U.S. demands on nuclear enrichment, then, as a measure of its contempt for what America thinks, openly admits that its Revolutionary Guards are deployed in Syria. Russia, after arming Assad, warns America to stay out, while the secretary of state delivers vapid lectures about Assad “meeting” his international “obligations.” The Gulf states beg America to act on Iran; Obama strains mightily to restrain . . . Israel.”
“A foreign policy in epic collapse.”
LikeLike
Here’s some breaking news for ya’.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/21/pf/taxes/romney-tax-return/
“Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.
His effective tax rate was up slightly from the 13.9% rate he paid in 2010.”
“In addition, the Romney campaign said Romney’s tax filings from 1990 to 2009 show that the couple paid 100% of the federal and state income taxes they owed and that their overall average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.2%. Annually they never paid an effective rate below 13.66%.
More documents related to Romney’s 2011 tax return and his taxes over the 20-year period will be released at 3 p.m ET.”
And he gave over 4 million, or 30% of his income to charity.
So, much ado over nothing.
LikeLike
Well, an individual making $55,000 (or anywhere close) or a family of four earning more than $100,000 should be able to afford health insurance readily; they might have other issues (such as pre-existing conditions, or maybe in New York that isn’t all that much), but lack of money isn’t one of them. And using proportions of the poverty level seem irrelevant at that level.
But honestly, the point shouldn’t be whether a person or a family can or cannot afford health insurance (or the fine!)–it should be whether government has any business telling you what yuo must buy. A billionaire can afford health insurance, and he can also afford (and should be able to choose) not to buy it.
LikeLike
CB, attempting to answer your question(s). “Military-industrial complex” is not a term that I generally use or think about, except when I see it used by people who usually don’t share my political views. So it’s kinda hard to relate to the big-picture problem or “situation” that you suggest exists, to internalize the concern and have any idea of how to go about “extracting” ourselves from the problem, if it exists. Now, moving on from the big picture of a pernicious “military-industrial complex”, to your more specific concern: I’m sure there are companies that waste money developing weapons that “don’t fit the bill” or that aren’t significantly better than the weapons the military has already. I don’t know if the Joint Strike Fighter force program fits that description for sure, but I’d be willing to replace that program with F-16s and F/A-18s, just for one example. I’m also okay with a troop reduction in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I disagree with the notion that we MUST have more defensive cuts than that in order to get the budget under control, partly for reasons outlined by Sails and Rick already. I’m not okay with reducing the size of the military or the amount of ships in the Navy, or with reducing our influence in the world. I think the resulting power vacuum would be disastrous. I’m firmly opposes to Ron Paul-like noninterventionist utopianism.
If you look at the NY Times interactive budget puzzle game , which I think is a little old but still instructive, Medicare is by FAR the biggest threat to the budget through 2013. Capping Medicare spending at G.D.P. growth plus 1% starting next year has a huge effect on the long-term budget gap. This is why I think reforming Medicare with one of the Ryan plans (there are two – the 2011 plan and the 2012 plan) – is so important. The game requires you to balance the budget in 2015 as well as 2030, so you can see what I did to accomplish that in the link below – although I think in the real world, the best we could hope for is balancing by 2020 or so. I think you’ll find it’s conservative overall, yet rather moderate in some ways. It slashes the size of government, but doesn’t cut aid to states, nor foreign aid. It extends all of the Bush tax cuts, on the one hand, but it raises revenues by adopting the Simpson-Bowles recommendations for closing loopholes while reducing rates in the corporate tax. It allows for a moderate estate tax (the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl plan) and raises the ceiling on the payroll tax. It reduces the mortgage deduction and SS benefits for high-income households. It raises the SS and Medicare ages, but only to 68 rather than 70.
There are some other possible actions that the game doesn’t include, such as the possibility of eliminating the Department of Education and consolidating a few other departments.
LikeLike
Matt Y, thanks for this very thoughtful post.
LikeLike
I agree with Sails. Good work, Matt!
Here is one tiny piece of evidence of rampant media bias. I can’t turn on TV without being told that Grover Norquist (a complete unknown) is responsible for the deficit because of his “no tax hikes” pledge. We never hear that AARP is on TV every day stirring people up against the type of Medicare reform that would produce real deficit reduction.
LikeLike
MiM,
LOL. I asked a different question because I knew what you guys would say on healthcare. Whereas I didn’t know what folks would say on the questions I aked. Healthcare issue has been done and done and done, dead horse.
LikeLike
Matt, I’m incredibly bemused. Have you read Ike’s farewell address? The cautionary is more about balance than about mindless defense cuts. The speech also contains a stout defense of maintaining America’s military might. I’m surprised you would take for granted a ledt-wing reading of the speech.
For me while it is true that military spending is not at an all time percentage high, it also seems to me that we frequntly turn to the military nowadays for foreign policy solutions. It seems somewhat out of balance to me as if we have a hammer so many problems look like a nail. I also worry about the abdication of Congress in deciding on war and about thhe glorification our country has of war. I’m no dove but doesn’t it make you guys stop and think about the situation with over 10 yrs of troops in combat?
Don’t programs like the Osprey concern you at all?
LikeLike
CB, The nation has still not had a serious discussion on healthcare. We spend 17% of GDP on healthcare. Holland, which has about our level of income and care, spends 10% of GDP on healthcare. As noted above we spend 5% of GDP on defense. This suggests we waste more on healthcare than we spend on defense.
There is a difference between remaining strong and constantly being at war. Reagan rebuilt our defenses but seldom put troops in harm’s way. Johnson degraded and used up the military that Ike built. Little Bush and now Obama did much the same to Reagan’s military.
I agree with you that we look too quickly for military solutions. Soon and very soon, budget realities will force us to look for other tools. As Matt predicted there will be a power vacuum and that will be dangerous. However, even the most powerful nation on earth can’t borrow 40% of its budget forever.
LikeLike
Ricky
I actually think we are agreeing there’s not been a serious discussion on healthcare nationally (but its been done to death in discussion with you all — that’s the dead horse) and entitlement costs do need to be reigned in and there will have to be cuts — that seems a given. And of course Matt is right that there will have to be some other domestic cuts (I favor the President’s plan which would consolidate 6 agencies into one — getting rid of Education, probably a pipe dream, President Reagan couldn’t do it and I’d bet it would seem politically unfeasible, but I’d agree it should go)
On defense, I think the key is to be a little smarter on the budget — Congressmen and Senators have fairly powerful incentives for certain kinds of projects — like the joint strike fighter. I’m not sure how we grapple with the desire for defense pork, but we need to just as the nation grapples with the rest of the pork in the budget. There should be nothing sacrosanct about pork in the defense budget simply because it is the defense budget.
LikeLike
CB, I did not mean to imply that Eisenhower’s address was left-wing. I’ve never read it but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t moderate/conservative, and I would expect his comments to be about, as you say, “balance”. I was just commenting on how I’ve seen the term used (I didn’t know, or had forgotten, that Eisenhower used it in his address).
LikeLike