CRNC Research Compendium March 2011: Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

CRNC Research Compendium March 2011
Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director
College Republican National Committee
600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Ste. 215 Washington, DC 20003 www.collegerepublicans.org
T 202-608-1411 F 202-608-1429
Table of Contents
2012: Buh-bye Barry. Hello Mr. GOP President.! Goldman Sachs Gets it Wrong, We Can Cut and Grow! GAO Report Should Stop Dems Dithering on Debt! President Obama and His Lack of Sound Energy Policies! Republican Cuts Finally Force Dems to Reason! In Search of a Long Term Debt Solution, Obama Must Lead! The Extinction of Incandescent?! To Invest in Future Generations We Simply Must Spend Less! Government Budget ObamaCare = A Tighter Fitting Belt! Good Nature Without Prudence is Foolish! The Spending Blitz Continues! Razzle Dazzle Part 2- The Sequel! Obama Still Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth! America Cant Afford Debt Debate to Be a No-Win Situation! CBO Says Decit Much Worse than White House Predictions ! $2.3 Trillion is No Joking Matter! Budget Battle Rewind!
1 2 4 6 7 8 10 13 15 16 17 18 19 21 23 25 26
March Compendium!
Investing in Tomorrows Energy Technology Requires Unshackling Resources Today! Another Entitlement Program Calls for New Economic Policies! Happy First Birthday to Obamacareand Now for the Terrible Twos ! Huge Obamacare Advocate Now Asking for Waiver for His State! Dispelling Economic Myths About Republicans Jobs Plan! Americas Budget Needs a Spring Cleaning! The Problem of Youth Unemployment and What We Can Do About It! A Balanced Budget Amendment May be the Right Prescription for Our Spending Sickness! Census Results Show Low Taxes Key to Recovery!
27 29 30 31 33 36 38 40 42
March Compendium!
ii
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 1st, 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 more important than ever. However, with prominent GOP leaders such as former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John Thune doubting the ability of the GOP to reclaim the Presidency in 2012, what is the youth of America supposed to think? With comments like The people that are sitting around saying, Hes definitely going to be a one-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 and optimistic outlook? Yes, it is true, no one ever said that becoming the President of the United States was easy; but since when has anything worthwhile been easy? Im pretty sure that it is not easy being unemployed 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 and gas 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 are not the terms on which a President should be re-elected. It is imperative that a debt slashing President 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 policy that has yielded bad results, stated Gov. Haley Barbour noting the countrys skyrocketing debt under the incumbent. Now here is the positivity and understanding of America that is needed to relinquish our debt and elect a new president. After all, a very similar situation occurred in the 1980 election between then, President Carter and his opponent Gov. Ronald Reagan. At that time unemployment was over 7% and oil prices were rising. Deja vu anyone? Americans realized 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 elect Republican 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!
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 two younger, good-looking hosts in Anne Hathaway and James Franco, in hopes of jazzing up the festivities. 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 leads to the question, is young-hip but unbearable and old, stale but watchable really the only two roads the Oscars can take? I mean, I know we cant have Billy Crystal every year, but I guess what 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 debt and deficits arent exactly a secret. If you have doubts, ask Greece. Speaker of the House John Boehner even called the debt a moral threat. It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt, Boehner said. No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily. Despite the clear concerns, many people are terrified about the outcome of spending cuts. On the heels of the Republicans proposed plan to cut $61 billion from our budget, an amount that only touches the very tip of the debt iceberg, Goldman Sachs issued a report arguing that these modest cuts would result in additional fiscal drag of up to 1 percent of GDP.
March Compendium!
So on the one hand, everyone agrees we must reduce our debt before our economy completely collapses; 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 James Franco led Oscars, or the Black Eyed Peas Super Bowl halftime show, we can change the channel. 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 are touting as evidence that the government must keep buying our way to prosperity. He finds that the 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 in history 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 government spends $100 to create a job, a laborer will get paid $100 salary, and then hell go out and buy goods which will create more jobs. The only problem is, that theory is mostly bunk. In a research study conducted earlier this year the International Monetary Fund found that the multiplier is around .7 (meaning for every 1% of GDP increase in government purchases, GDP rises by a maximum of .7% of GDP, then fades). This is quite different than the economic multiplier between 1.0 and 2.5 that the CBO, and others, use to determine the effectiveness of government spending. 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 percent from 2010 to 2011. In other words, were still spending more money than we were last year, even if we pass the Republicans proposal of spending cuts. Given that fact, it is disingenuous to argue that H.R. 1 is too draconian for the economy. Using that logic, our government would have to
March Compendium! 3
spend more money each year, forever, if it wanted to keep promoting economic growth. Something 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 weve got some back-up. A new survey of 47 top economists by the National Association of Business Economics found that the federal deficit was the gravest threat facing our economic recovery. As of 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 what Im 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 Government Accountability Office (GAO). I know what youre thinking, and yes, there really is an accountability office in this government. Given the blatant lack of accountability over the last few years, I can see why there would have been confusion. The only thing I can figure is that upon taking the Speakers gavel, Nancy Pelosi told them to take a four-year vacation. No really, you guys need some time off. Im serious. I totally got this. Dont worry, what could go wrong. If our $1.65 trillion deficit is any indicationa lot went wrong. Nevertheless, the GAO came out swinging today. Their report was aimed at finding highlighting duplication, 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 and agencies 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-
March Compendium!
erally, 47 for job training, 15 that deal with food safety, and apparently ZERO devoted to studying 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 take to 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 theyre doing that thing. In almost every section of the report youll find sentences like, Little is known about 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 outcomes resulted from the program and not another cause. Or, little is known about the effectiveness of [food assistance programs] because they have not been well studied. No wonder are government keeps growing and our deficit keeps exploding. Congress after Congress 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 is enough to make you go off the deep end faster than Charlie Sheen) there is one positive to come out of the GAOs findings. Hopefully well put to bed any of these silly attempts by Democrats to 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 potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services. So wait, we can spend less and get more? Count us in. Such a notion should put a stop to the Democrats plan to politick and demagogue the need to maintain government spending at current levels or else essential services will be cut. Something tells me that wont happen though. Something 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?
March Compendium!
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 0.7 cents from last week. Compare those numbers to where we were last year, when in February 2010 the average gallon of gas was only $2.65. Times are already tight for the average American, where most people are spending wisely on essential 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 the grocery 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 15th largest oil exporter in the world, and the U.S. does not even import from them. They export almost exclusively to European markets and emerging Asian markets such as China. So with a large spike in prices due to the unrest in Libya, what were to happen if the current unrest in the Middle East spread to other 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 levels higher 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 drilling again by rewarding its first new contract yesterday. This will hopefully get the ball rolling on additional 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 fragile Gulf Coast economy even more. But what the President needs to do is expand our energy production here within the United States. 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 is no need to rely on foreign oil sources when we have the people, the technology, and the resources to enjoy something that is made here in the U.S.A.
March Compendium!
Many across the country already believe in energy independence such as Governor Bob McDonnell (R) of Virginia. Gov. McDonnell has proposed to open vast areas of the ocean off Virginias coast to offshore drilling. McDonnell conservatively projects that 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas could be located off Virginias coast. Lets not forget the thousands 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 county already agree with, using energy resources that are already found here in America is a win-win situation. It provides us with more energy independence so we no longer have to rely on sometimes-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.. Cut spending. Yes, I said CUT. It looks like $4 billion dollars will be cut in federal spending beginning next week. The Democratic majority in the Senate just approved the House Republicans motion to continue financing of the government for the next two weeks. With the 2011 Federal deficit reaching in upwards of $ 1.4 TRILLION, a measly four billion doesnt seem like much, does it? Well, looking at the increase in federal spending since President Obama took office, and the release of his budget this year, Americans should feel for now, at least a little better. This sure has been a battle though; President Obama and his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill have done pretty much everything they can to nix these cuts. Cut cuts? With threat of a government 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 in the House two weeks ago. Democrats had remained mostly silent on this matter, offering the occasional statements of how cuts werent necessary, and how the Republicans were reaching too far. The always campaign ready Democrats however, realized the repercussions of a government shutdown, 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 government shut down, and according to Speak John Boehner (R-OH) could have helped tremendously.
March Compendium!
If we had had a conversation about this 10 days ago or two days ago, we might have had something 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 once again, step to the plate and argue over whos right and wrong. This victory for Republicans is going to stick with Democrats throughout these negotiations, and you can bet they wont be nearly 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 is where were headed. Deciphering this statement can help us see Reids real motive: SPENDING. Democrats are conceding this battle, but the war of spending is far from over. I guess $4 billion cant really mean much to President Obama and those in his fellow party; they seek to spend more than a $ trillion over 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 unstable economy; 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 tasked with cooking a meal based on their heritage. In true reality-show fashion, one of each of the contestants family members showed up to cheer them on and eat their food. The problem with the concept was it quickly became clear that none of the judges were gonna rip any of the food in
March Compendium!
front of their mothers. After all, not one, but two of the moms were pure blooded Italian. Good luck 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 dont know what that last one is either. It was like an episode of Leave it to Beaver, everything was just a 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. Nobody was eliminated. It was supposed to be a happy joyous moment, it felt like a cop out from a bunch of judges who couldnt judge. One was left wondering, was the food really all that terrific, or did the 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 to make 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 few weeks is not responsible. Hes right, its not responsible, its patently ridiculous. What Obama doesnt say is that Republicans have already cooked up a plan. Released weeks ago, the Republicans plan trims $61 billion in 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 step to getting our fiscal train back on track. Unfortunately, Democrats are pushing us further off the rails. They have presented no plan. The liberal-leaning New York Times begrudgingly reported today 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 temporary budget measure drafted by the House. The reason, according to the Times is that Democrats are contending with sharp internal splits about how far to go in cutting spending and a reluctance to show their hand.
March Compendium!
Oops! Pelosi may have just tipped hers. When asked today how much Democrats would be willing to cut from the federal budget, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Im not going to say 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 she would 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: President Obama 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 interest on the stimulus bill. Obama should be the decision maker. He was elected to make the difficult choices necessary to keep this country headed in the right direction. Instead, hes looking around nervously, clearly lacking the cuts to say were gonna start cutting because his family of Democrats is looking on, giving him the stink-eye. This isnt a reality show. Top Chef can use this type of manufactured drama to build up to a finale where there will be only one winner. But the budget crisis is real. We cant afford to make everyone 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 Im sure none of you are thinking what Im thinking whenever I see these lights. Curly fries! Thats right I said it, these light bulbs look like curly fries! Which only makes me wonder the following: 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 delicious as Arbys signature curly fries.
March Compendium!
10
Understandable, as time passes it will be harder and harder to find the oh so beloved incandescent 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 fighting to bring back incandescent bulbs through in-state only sales. Recently in South Carolina, six Republicans 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 against new energy efficient light bulbs? For starters, according to bill sponsor Representative Bill Sandifer the federal government has overstepped the Tenth Amendment and now are venturing into telling us what kinds of lighting we can have in our homes [and] people just dont want to be forced into buying a specific kind of 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 is a valid point, but I would like to remind everyone the following. These bulbs are subsidized by the 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 are dumped into subsidies to goad consumers into switching to CFL bulbs. Now dont you think it should be the market that helps regulate the buying of light bulbs and not the government? That is to say, if consumers want more CFL bulbs and they find them very useful, they will buy more of them and increase the sales. Theres no need for the government to guard over them, spending their tax dollars to convince people to purchase the product.
March Compendium! 11
Now, lets assume that these new bulbs are as efficient as they are marketed to be. There are still many factors that are overlooked and should be considered other than the initial government sales subsidies. As with all green technology, the claim is that the environment will be better off and we will save money by switching to green. Im sure many of us aware that the primary difference in the content of the bulbs is the presence of mercury, a neurotoxin. And for those of you who fell asleep in chemistry class like me, Ill just give you a quick warning on the 80th element of the periodic table, mercury. Being exposed to mercury vapor is far more dangerous than touching it because the body absorbs mercury much faster into the blood stream through the respiratory system. So what does this mean? Should you break a light bulb, youve got more to worry about than just simply broken glass. Oh and yes, all you mothers to be, you best be careful not to be exposed to this stuff. The amount of mercury, 5mg, thats contained in CFLs may not seem like much, but on a massive 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 the trash. However, since CFLs contain that tricky little neurotoxin, we cant easily toss it and forget it. 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 estimated the cost of properly recycling a bulb to be anywhere from $0.50 to $2.00. So, it would seem that whatever amount of money that we are supposed to be saving from switching to these CFLs 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 old enough to be buying light bulbs, were old enough to decide for ourselves what kind of bulbs we want. We dont need the government hovering over us like some nagging mother reminding us to eat our broccoli, well in this case mandating which bulbs we should purchase. To put it simply, if consumers prefer to purchase the CFLs over the incandescent bulbs the market will show it. There is no need for the government to force consumers to buy something they do not necessarily need.
March Compendium!
12
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 doing research 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 found THIS. Now before you get all excited and believe that link to be the Holy Grail of internet surfing, 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 hunched over. 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 encourage you to read the answers he received. Now, I cant be sure if the author of that question was 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 simply walking slow and driving slow. After all, if there were no elderly, what would the workers at the Rascal scooter factory do for a living! Jokes aside, theyve spent the entirety of their lives working, 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. They contributed to Social Security all their lives and yet they are meant to feel as if they are the reason it is growing insolvent. Similar sentiments abound with programs like Medicaid and Medicare. 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 benefits with no concomitant taxes, that should bear the brunt of the blame. Take Social Security. In the 22 years spanning 1950 to 1972, Congress increased benefits nine times, including doubling
them in the early 1950s. Every chance they got politicians saw the opportunity to win the affection of voters by raising benefits, thereby securing a solid voting bloc in the process. What do they care of future generations? As the famous Keynesian rejoinder goes, in the long run we are all 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 is now 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 chil dren. Not in the United States. The federal governments expenditures on children have shrunk as a share of the budget over the past 30 years. In 1960, about 20 percent of the federal 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 during 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 the elderly can vary the conclusion is clear: The federal government spends between $4 and $5 on elderly 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 in things 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, debt doesnt 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 all shows 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 we may 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 be accomplished by spending more on children until the fraction looks more seemly. That will inevitably lead to a spending race which politicians will be all too happy to engage in. To truly fix the ratios we must reform entitlements. Not in a way that cheats those who have already paid in to the programs, but that ensures their existence does not harm future generations.
March Compendium!
14
I began this column by pointing out that most civilizations treat their older generations with a high level of deference and respect. My hope is that they in turn will provide the same for future generations.
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 welcoming spring, 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 the grievances. Currently, 28 out of the 50 states are filing to repeal ObamaCare on the premise of the law being unconstitutional to its citizens. I would hope that the fact that over half of the states in America are against the law would spur the government to see the bigger, flawed picture. In a recent study put out by the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce Committee, as a result of ObamaCare, budget-strapped states face at least $118 billion in unfunded mandates during 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 will rise $2100 annually because of the health care law. The further funding of ObamaCare will also force 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 stop seeing those patients or forego their practice completely. So in addition to the rise in health care coverage costs there will also be fewer doctors to go around. Which in turn means longer wait times 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 HoltzEakin, says that the costs of ObamaCare are set to explode when employers opt to drop coverage and send their workers to the new, federally subsidized health exchanges for coverage. He estimates 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.
March Compendium!
15
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 employees, the amount of money that is needed to make a profit drastically increases. So not only is 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 programs under 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 ravaging the lands of this North African country. With non-military civilians sandwiched between rebel forces and the government militia, the situation is very grim. As with all issues, whether the topic is terrorism, economics, education, or anything else political there is always disagreement as to what the right course of action should be. It should be no surprise to many of us that when an issue as volatile as the conflict in Libya erupts, there is much dissension 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 with the situation, Id like for you remember that we also have a great deal of internal crises to manage. 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 unemployment rate still dragging at 8.9% (little changed from before). Not to mention at the beginning 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 Gaddafi from bombing innocent civilians, the general consensus in Washington is that even a limited Western intervention in Libya may not be the best idea. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates 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 another Middle Eastern war. And right now, another war is something we could all do without.
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 a watchful eye on Libya, but not jump in just yet. However, dealing with the quandaries at home such as the balancing the national budget and debt, must be a matter we unquestionably need to tackle immediately.
The Spending Blitz Continues

Many people are in denial around here, said Senator McCaskill as she addressed her colleagues. Any plan to tackle our fiscal crisis must make a material difference in reducing the deficit, said Senator Bennett. What do these two Senators have in common? They are both Democrats who voted against their partys spending bill. They know that the unsustainable spending 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 fellow members 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 have reduced spending for the remainder of the fiscal year by $57 billion dollars. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described the GOP bill as one of the worst pieces of legislation in the history of 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 appropriations by a measly $6 billion from President Obamas budget. Lets not forget that every day the 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 to the $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 areas that Obama has targeted are still very small and do not put a dent in our debt. Time and time again, they have failed to fix the three cash cows of the American government, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
March Compendium!
17
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 unlikely that he will hunker down to make the real tough decisions. We must keep our hope up and give support to the members of Congress who will actually fix what has often been called the third rail 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 time for 2012. Apparently President Obama has realized that there is a disconnect between his campaign in 2008 and today. According to the Washington Post, the youth have soured somewhat 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 states around the country. In these so-called roundtable discussions, the President is asking for input from collegians. We are so interested in figuring out how to get your ideas, your input, your energy, Obama told a group of student leaders from Cleveland State and nearby schools. He then proceeded to pose in multiple photos with them. No amount of handshaking and photo opps will allow for the polishing cloth to shine up the youths shoes again. Weve had it. We are smarter than we look and the razzle 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 Obama Administration. College tuition rates are skyrocketing, education programs are being cut, and the best kicker is that graduates are being thrust into a worse job market than in 2008. A rise in the 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 holding roundtable discussions with the youth. Shouldnt he be I dont know, leading? Or meeting with members 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 Harvard 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 presidency and his current campaign.
March Compendium!
18
I would hope that everyone sees that this is little more than an act of campaigning. Proof is in the fact that some of the discussions have already been posted on the White House website to show the 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 whites for the camera, Obama is not leading a country he is merely campaigning to be the shining face of American youth once again. Dont fall back into the sparkle cycle; Fool me once, shame on me. 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 reform 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 President was spot on. With the fast-paced prolific advancements in science, technology, math, and literature, 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 Student 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 sci ence and 25th in math. [And] between 1995 and 2008the United States slipped from ranking second in college graduation rates to 13th, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], the Paris-based organization that de velop[ed] and administer[ed] the PISA exam. We have fallen behind, but this should by no means be a discouragement from improving. Instead, what we should do is take this as a sign to improve our education system. If we are to keep up with the changing times, then we need to keep up with other advanced nations and improve 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.
March Compendium!
19
Yes sir, Mr. President, you are absolutely right. Fixing the school systems will indeed cost some money, and right now as the president acknowledges, after a decade of deficits, there isnt 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 education. 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 money into 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! Understandably, the president wanted to allocate more money to the education system, but it seems wildly confusing when he is unwilling to reducing the big spending in Washington in order to do so.
March Compendium!
20
It seems to me that the president is about to make some more wild promises that he will not be able to keep. Therefore, it will be interesting to see in the upcoming months how the President really 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 shot down 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 just cant 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 uberpretentious 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 South Beach. Another supposed All-Star, Chris Bosh, joined James in Miami, forming what seemed to be an unbeatable trio. But in reality, there was no way they could win. Some pundits immediately determined that this team rivaled the Jordan-era Bulls, declaring that a season that didnt include 70 wins and a championship would be a failure. Other pundits said there 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 everyone who is sniffing a winning record. Now that weve found them to be average, the critics who predicted this outcome have slumped into invisibility, while the boo-birds who foresaw 70 wins 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 coach about 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 goes when you must fill the news cycle.
March Compendium!
21
The debt is suffering from the exact same overexposure. Now dont get me wrong, the debt deserves every minute it gets in the spotlight. The debt has reached $14 trillion and this years deficit 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 is an 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 Heats chemistry problems and decided to not anoint them champions before ever playing a game, Republicans foresaw the debt problem. Theyre also the only party that chosen to do something about it. Their 2011 continuing resolution (CR), which funds the government for the remainder of the fiscal year, trims a modest $57 billion from the federal deficit. If were to believe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even that small amount has no chance of passing in the Senate. Hes offering an alternative CR that would cut about $5 billion. Thats the fiscal equivalent of using an X-acto knife 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 is sending the exact opposite signals? Literally every cut has been demagogued as a disaster for one interest 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 was wrong. We absolutely must address entitlements and the biggest drivers of spending, but we need to 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 trillion dollars. In 2011 were projected to spend $3.82 trillion. Republican proposals wouldnt even reduce the budget to the previous years levels yet liberals would have you believe this to be some sort of apocalyptic scenario.
March Compendium!
22
The Heat couldnt win, not because they werent a good team, but because the spotlight would inevitably burn a hole straight through them. The same reality is threatening our ability to solve our debt. Critics will always exist. Those who say the most ridiculous things the loudest will get the most coverage. Those who present reasoned opinions get covered up. The Heat may not win the playoffs, which would only serve as a disaster to the championship-starved Lebron James. Our government 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 Tournament bracket is already in the recycling bin, just so you dont have to go through the frustration of having to see another of your predictions go wrong. It brings an entirely new meaning to the term March Madness. But nothing much happens when my predictions are wrong. Im pretty sure Notre Dame didnt lose 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 Washington get their predictions wrong it can be a fiscal disaster. Take Medicares hospital insurance program as an example. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that it would cost $9 billion annually by 1990. It actually cost $67 billion. In fact, the entire Medicare program was supposed to cost just $12 billion in 1990. The true pricetag was nearly 10 times that amount $110 billion. Or take the case of Medicaid. In 1987, the Medicaid budget for relief payments to hospitals was scheduled to cost less than $1 billion in 1992. In reality 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 even comes in the door, any cost overruns immediately get tacked on to the deficit.
March Compendium!
23
Today, the Congressional Budget Office called out President Obama for his too-rosy assumptions about the growth of our deficit. In a detailed analysis of his 2012 budget proposal the CBO found that 10 year deficit would likely total $2.3 trillion more than White House predictions. The CBO also 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 estimates, the Administration couldnt hide how bad our nations deficit and debt are, but today the CBO 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 too happy to remind you of your poor shot for the rest of the game. But in the world of politics, will Obamas $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 we have a problem. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin said today, We cannot ignore the fiscal Titanic of our national debt and deficit. . . There are some in Washington who believe we can simply 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 Titanic. There are some hopeful signs. A letter written by Sens. Michael Bennet, Mike Johanns, and 62 colleagues from both sides of the aisle to President Obama asking him to support a broad approach 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 showing encouraging signs. Just today she was spouting patently false statistics about how health insurance 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 budget nor their healthcare bill will live up to their lofty predictions. In reality its more of the spending and deficit denial that got us into this mess.
March Compendium!
24
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 tournament from a fresh perspective. President Obama should scrap his plans and start over with a fresh 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 confirmation hearing, the nominee for Deputy Director of Office and Budget Management (OMB) made some 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 Senate Budget 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 lied to the American people when they stated that the current administrations budget would not add to the deficit. President Obama and Director Lew had sugar coated their spending plan, claiming that it would not raise the deficit at all. That was a gross understatement. What Senator Sessions was alluding to was that the interest payments on the debt, would obviously increase our deficit. Higgenbottom 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 Obama saying 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 national deficit, 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 during the release of a report on the Presidents budget for fiscal year 2012. In the report, Senator Sessions also found that this past year President Obama increased the deficit by $26 billion, and will raise it again next year by over $80 billion. He stated during the hearing This confirms the White House isnt serious about the budget, there are no cuts and his budget makes the problems worse. What the CBOs report really demonstrates to the American people is that the Obama administration is still not taking our mounting deficit seriously. President Obama and OMB Director Lew
mislead the nation when they said that the White Houses budget proposal for 2012 would not raise the deficit when its obvious it will, especially after Higgenbottoms comments. It also shows their complete disregard for the staggering dollar signs American taxpayers are facing by underestimating 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 receding faster than a middle-aged mans hairline. On Monday, in briefings by the White House and Defense 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 are already 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 massively compiling the costs attributing to Libyan intervention. In the words of Sen. Richard Lugar, We argue over where to cut $100 million here and there from programs many people like, 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 110 Tomahawk missiles that were fired on the first day of the operation. The implementation of a no-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 University 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.
March Compendium!
26
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 normal when you left. In fact gas prices have jumped 75 cents higher than this time last year. Thats an 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, counterproductive taxes, and reactionary knee-jerk legislation. The result is that Americans are paying more for their energy than they need to. A perfect example of Obamas broken policy came yesterday when President Obama traveled to Brazil to announce a Strategic Energy Dialogue. During his visit he said that the United States would be investing billions of taxpayer dollars in Brazil in order to help them develop their oil reserves. We want to work with you. We want to help with technology and support to develop these 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 Americas century-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 investments in the United States.
March Compendium!
27
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 price swings in times of unrest, but also served to foment much of that unrest. Brazil is certainly a safer gamble than Libya. During his trip Obama even pointed out that the United States could not 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, why not attempt to spur domestic production? Dont be fooled into thinking that America doesnt have 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 year and contribute more than $8 trillion to GDP The federal government estimates that Alaskas OCS holds 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which could sustain 5,700 new jobs through 2057 and add $145 billion in payroll Analysis from Arctic Power shows that its oil and gas reserves could sustain 730,000 jobs and generate more than $200 billion in government revenue All told, according to the Congressional Research Service the U.S. contains the largest energy 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 effective sources will need to be found. Currently, the Obama Administration is attempting to force the switch to green technologies by brute force and bad economics. He is simultaneously mandating an increase in certain green technologies while at the same time subsidizing their use to make them cost-competitive with fossil fuels. Not only are we guaranteeing a market for their goods were ensuring them a level of profit! Sadly, though well intentioned, Obamas policies are simply picking political winners when the market should be the one driving innovation. A must-read presentation by lifelong environmentalists 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 pricing solutions tend to succeed when we have good, low cost alternatives . . . We dealt with acid rain once we had access to low sulfur coal from the western United States and
March Compendium!
28
reached an international agreement to phase out CFCs only once DuPont demonstrated that 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 recipe for bringing those technologies to scale. They argue that rather than subsidizing more of the same old technologies which still wont bring costs down far enough to compete with fossil fuels at a rate sufficient to have much impact on emissions we need technological innovation on a vast scale. Of course, technological innovation isnt cheap. The pricetag becomes even more daunting considering 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 with the 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 sounds like cheaper gas.
Another Entitlement Program Calls for New Economic Policies

Entitlement programs are usually thought of as Social Security and Medicare not to mention a host 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. In order to allow for the government to continue spending, the Treasury Department must give the go ahead for the use of Treasury securities. However, the use of Treasury securities flips the switch and turns our deficit into debt. Not to mention that if the U.S. were to forego payment on interest, the economic results would be disastrous. The government is continually charging its spending to our plastic and only paying off the minimum 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 accruing yearly! And the interest payments for the national debt are rising. According to the Presidents
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 Reagan administration. These ideas included a free market unencumbered by barriers, government regulation and taxation that created the most growth-friendly economic environment. As well as supply-side economics: lower taxes, less regulation, and less government spending, as well as a monetary policy focused on ridding us of the seemingly incurable disease of ever-rising inflation. These economic ideas allowed the U.S. to ricochet out of recession and spring into an economic boom. Reagans simple economic policies were able to pull America out of a greater recession than we are in currently. Higher unemployment, catastrophic interest rates (18% for mortgages) and a stock market that in real terms had fallen 60% from its mid-1960s levels. It is necessary that we revert back to these economic policies so Americans do not drown in debt. Mr. Obama needs to take a lesson from his predecessor and stop the exponential grown of the U.S. government. In this 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, and lets just say that things have not been going smoothly for the President. Last year, when the bill finally passed Congress, it had a favorable support, 46% of Americans supported the bill, and 40% did not according to the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll. One year later, things have changed a great 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 Presidents main policy initiative are now changing sides. The reason is that many things that President Obama promised us are not coming to fruition. Here are just a few:
President Obama claimed that under his healthcare plan, premiums for citizens would be reduced $2,500 by 2012. However, according to data released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this past week, that in fact will not happen. Instead, ac30
March Compendium!
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 healthcare spending 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 like the 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 this will not be the case according to the Department of Health and Human Services. They estimate conservatively that 51% of small businesses in the U.S. will be forced to change health insurance providers. In turn, they believe this will mean that 80% of employees working for small businesses would lose their current coverage. Well there goes keeping the 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 would ONLY cost $1 trillion over the next decade. The CBO while reporting on the Presidents annual budget believes that the President and his administration are completely lowballing the actual figure by billions of dollars. They figure that over the next decade, Obamacare will instead cost taxpayers $1.45 trillion, $40 billion higher than what the President had originally stated.
By looking at these three points, its no surprise then why so many people in America are finally seeing 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 President Obamas healthcare overhaul as his company spent hundreds of millions of dollars on health insurance costs. However, now he is singing a different tune. He was quoted recently as saying that Obamacare requirements will place too great pressure on small businesses across the country. Let us not forget that Obamacare is still in its infant stages, and has a lot of growing to do. So what does that mean for the next several years? We will most likely see burgeoning costs associated with the law, which will add to our already massive deficit. This will in turn force us to borrow more money from foreign countries like China, and to increase taxes here in the United States. Neither of those options sounds good to me.
Huge Obamacare Advocate Now Asking for Waiver for His State
March Compendium!
31
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 unpopular 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 Obama has failed to provide air cover for Congressional Democrats. He called the nonpartisan Congressional 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 single day. The brash, head-on, never retreat, never surrender style has endeared the New York representative to many liberal ideologues. After his day-long outburst, the normally staid liberal commentator 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 the steady disapproval ratings of the law, I think the strategy would backfire to Republicans advantage. 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 law for his home state of New York. We in New York already have hospitals, we already employ doctors and we employ nurses. 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 internally to 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 he likely wont be participating. Gee, what a ringing endorsement. Its a wonder all these Democrats arent 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 but instead was trying to highlight one of its strengths, namely, its flexibility. I call bull. True, that may have been what Rep. Weiner thought he was doing, but in reality he was making the best argument yet that this bill is too flawed to work on a national scale.
March Compendium!
32
The fact is, many state leaders want to opt out in order to save money and have more control over their destiny. Indiana Governor and conservative icon Mitch Daniels showed just how harmful Obamacares mandates are to states budgets in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. Daniels argued, For state governments, the bill presents huge new costs, as we are required to enroll 15 million to 20 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 a huge burden for our state, and yet another incremental expenditure the laws authors declined to account 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 current welfare apparatuses to do the numbingly complex work of figuring out who is eligible for its subsidies, 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 compliance 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 Obamacares costly mandates. In fact, he would join a long list of entities asking for waivers from the laws provisions. In 2010 alone more than 1,000 businesses were granted waivers from Obamacare, a number that has surely risen since. In an attempt to throw a lifeline to states, President Obama recently told state governors that he supports a proposal to allow states to opt out beginning 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. The question now becomes, with so many asking for waivers, is it really a testament to Obamacares flexibility 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 youve ever played, but its necessary. Ready? Klein writes,
March Compendium!
33
The [Republicans] plan, it seems, is to create a bunch of unemployed public workers wholl create more competition for the few open jobs in the private sector and thus drive wages down for everybody. How many did you find? I found three. Pretty impressive for a single sentence. Lets break them down: 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 a given political position in order to undermine it. The problem is, it can be done with almost any statement. Heres a far-flung example that should illustrate the point: The College Republicans have a plan to find jobs for more young adults, lowering the growing problem of youth unemployment. 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 to enjoy 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 to start 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 essentially responsible for paying their wages. It also ignores the enormous debt burden they are contributing to, which will negatively impact future generations through higher taxes, reduced government 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-andhope-nobody-notices trick. Essentially what Klein is arguing for here is a quasi, highly inefficient, 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 government needs to employ those people. What this argument fails to grasp is that the public sector and its workers are markedly different than the private sector and its workers. Public sector workers create no good that can be sold in
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 need workers to be able to fulfill them. But by never differentiating between necessary and unnecessary government workers, Klein shows his true purpose for the government to maintain employment solely for the sake of maintaining employment. If not for the fact that taxpayers are funding that employment perhaps we could agree, after all, nobody wants to see a higher unemployment rate. That is not the case. The wages of a large public sector is being carried on the backs of a diminished private sector. Those taxes being used for public sector wages could be used for vastly more productive purposes, namely buying goods. With more money available for buying private sector products, demand will inevitably rise, followed by employment. This is the kind of shift that we can no longer put off. A lean, efficient government that uses the minimum amount of tax dollars necessary to fulfill its purpose is the best way to jumpstart the economy, not a de facto stimulus program that employs people just for the sake of it. 3. and thus drive down wages for everybody
This is perhaps the biggest economic fallacy employed to justify liberal policies. The trick behind this technique is to stop short of carrying an economic progression to its end. Its the logical equivalent of throwing for five yards on 3rd and 10 and then cheering about progress. Sure, you advanced the ball forward, but youre conveniently leaving out the fact that youll have to punt on the next down. In order to better illustrate what I mean, lets take the Republican economic plan through to its economically justified end. First, we reduce the size of government, which inevitably means decreasing public sector employment with the hope of increasing private sector employment. Second, this creates competition for jobs, which (and only if we take the flawed assumption that we have a limited production capacity) through the process of supply and demand marginally lowers the cost of wages. That is where Klein stops. And to be fair, stopping here does make it sound like a pretty bad idea. But this is not the end, there are at least three more steps Klein fails to discuss.
March Compendium!
35
Third, lower wages in the impacted industries leads to lower production costs, allowing products to be sold more cheaply. Fourth, cheaper goods, means consumers have more cash in their pockets, freeing them up to spend their money on more products. Fifth, in order to fulfill the increased demand, companies are forced to hire more workers, thereby decreasing unemployment and raising real wages. Unfortunately, in order to fit his argument that Republicans are attempting a nefarious plot to raise unemployment and lower wages, Klein forgot his economic fundamentals. He engaged in numerous economic fallacies that focus on special interests in the short term over the general interest in the long term. Email him at the Washington Post and help us shed light on his mistakes: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/ezra+klein/
Americas Budget Needs a Spring Cleaning

I did some much-needed Spring-cleaning over the weekend. Admittedly, my apartment was in dire need of a scrub down. Fortunately, after a little elbow grease and a lot of Windex, my apartment is somewhat more respectable. I can now invite guests without having to say, my apartment is utterly disgusting so if you have a HAZMAT suit, bring it. I now only have to warn them my place is somewhat disgusting, but try not to judge me, after all, Im a young guy who lives by himself. In other words, I cleaned for about 30 minutes, and called it a success. My apartment progressed from uninhabitably gross to just liveable, if still nasty. The same critique applies to attempts to clean up our budget deficit. Our debt and deficits are enormous. If it were a dirty apartment it would deserve a two-hour special on Hoarders. This years $1.65 trillion deficit is the largest in our nations history, the result of an enormous increase in spending. To give you some perspective of its size, in 2011 our government will spend the equivalent of what it spent in 2006 and 1990 combined. Our deficit has grown into such a clear, bipartisan problem, 10 former chairmen and chairwomen of the Presidents, who have served in Republican and Democratic administrations penned a letter warning of an imminent debt crisis. There are many issues on which we dont agree, said the group, Yet we find ourselves in remarkable unanimity about the long-run federal budget deficit: It is a severe threat that calls for serious and prompt attention.
Unfortunately, our two parties cannot seem to agree to devote the serious and prompt attention it deserves. Speaker of the House John Boehner said Friday that, At no point in the 34 days since the House acted have the Democrats who run the Senate and the White House put forward a credible, long-term plan to resolve their budget mess. Its tough to argue with him. So far Republicans have put forward numerous proposals to deal with our deficit:

H.R. 1: A Continuing Resolution that would cut $61 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year H.Res. 82: A bill that would have created a Standing Committee whose sole job it is to scrutinize all federal programs and eliminate unnecessary federal spending H.R. 1111: A bill that would have required the Office of Management and Budget to rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer money that is sitting in agency coffers with no designated purpose H.R. 1155: A bill that would have created an expedited procedure to eliminate programs identified by the Presidents budget in its Terminations, Reductions, and Savings section
This is just a sampling of the myriad plans that House Republicans have put forward in order to deal with our deficit. Yet each and every one of them has died in the hands of Democrats in the Senate. That is hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money, almost all of which has been determined as having been wasted or misspent, and yet Democrats refuse to act. Why? Because the Democrats are playing politics with our money. The amount of money Republicans are talking about cutting would scarcely put a dent in our deficit. It is the budgetary equivalent of my sad attempt at Spring-cleaning. The cuts tidy up a little bit, make the situation look a little less disgusting, and sweep a lot of dust under the rug, but in the end, youre still left with a situation that looks a lot like the status quo. But Democrats cannot even get behind these modest cuts. Like pigs in slop, their fine living in filth, or in this case debt. In fact, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has taken to calling the Republicans mild proposals extreme and desperate attempts to satisfy this really narrow base that they have, that theyre willing to sacrifice American jobs for.
March Compendium!
37
Even if we cut spending using the Republicans suggestions we would still be at spending levels never before seen in our nations history. This is extreme? This will kill jobs? No. Unless we begin the thorough process of deep-cleaning our budget, and Im not talking Windex and a Swiffer, Im talking Clorox and a pressure-washer, our generations future will be in serious jeopardy. Weve got to clean up this mess before it is too late.
The Problem of Youth Unemployment and What We Can Do About It

Its a rough time to be a college graduate. Given that youre on the College Republicans website, you probably knew that already. A new Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco paper tells us what we already knew that were screwed of course it does it in more eloquent economic terms. The current labor market outcomes of recent college graduates closely mirror those ob served during the 2001 recession and the subsequent jobless recovery. This is important because recent college graduates are not subject to the kinds of structural factors that have been posited as the main sources of weakness in the overall labor market. This is both good and bad. Good in the sense that unemployment is not structural, that is to say, its not the result of a mismatch between the skills of our labor force and the demands of the labor market. In other words, were trained and ready to go. The bad news is that it doesnt matter because there arent any jobs. In other words, our situation cant be cured by just taking different courses or switching your major to say, engineering. In fact, it likely means that our generation will be feeling the effects of this recession in our wallets for a long time to come. How long? Research by Beaudry and DiNardo (and compiled by Roosevelt Institute fellow Mike Konczal) found that every percentage increase in the unemployment rate is associated with a 37 percent drop in entry-level contract wages. Heres the problem in graphic form (via Rortybomb)
The impacts of persistent levels of unemployment are beginning to appear. One of the more problematic ones is a dramatic decrease in the share of Americans who are participating in the labor force. The New York Times reports that in February just 64.2 percent of adults were either in a job or actively looking for one. A significant part of that decline is because young adults eschewing the job market to return to school. Sadly, given the previous data that shows the problem isnt structural, its unlikely that more education will actually help young adults. In fact, if the smart guys over at the San Francisco Fed are right, the problem isnt that our generations skills dont match up with the job market, its that there just isnt enough jobs. In other words a lot of kids are packing on a lot of debt without much evidence that its worth it. This is a triple whammy for our generation. Not only are we wracking up unnecessary debt, should we find a job we wont be paid as much as our skills demand, and, to top it all off, those adults who are dropping out of the labor market will make entitlements all the more expensive. Sigh. Sorry there is not more good news to share. But that doesnt mean we have the luxury of covering our eyes and wishing it all away. It means we must advocate all the more forcefully for policies that help our generation. Namely, we must push to reduce the size of government in order to allow the private sector to flourish. We must push to reduce government spending because we cant afford reduced incomes, student loan
payments, and high taxes to boot. Finally, we must reform entitlements so that a retiring Baby Boomer generation coupled with an increasing number who are dropping out of the work force do not crush us beneath the weight of their debt. This is the reality weve been handed. It will not be fun, but something must be done.
A Balanced Budget Amendment May be the Right Prescription for Our Spending Sickness
A Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment is once again back on the tips of Washingtons tongues. Its been somewhat of a miracle run. In a way it reminds me of the recent experience of the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Rams. If you havent been following the NCAA Tournament, VCU has been the ultimate Cinderella. From almost not being invited to the dance to media darling in just under two weeks, VCU is the most improbable of Final Four teams. Despite the fact that nobody had heard about them before this year, they did not come out of nowhere. In 2007 they made a splash by beating Duke before losing to Pittsburgh in an overtime thriller. In 2009 they lost to traditional powerhouse UCLA by a single point. Now, they find themselves one game away from the championship game. The Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) has a similar history. In the 1970s liberal Democrats were the ones pushing for a BBA. In fact, current governor of California, Jerry Brown, was one of the early architects of the legislation. In 1995, when the deficit became an enormous political factor, a BBA passed the House of Representatives before falling just one vote short in the Senate. Now, the BBA is making its reemergence, gaining momentum and making a final push for passage. The latest version of the Balanced Budget Amendment is the result of a compromise between two different proposals, one by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and one by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) (apparently Utahans really love the idea). Hatch is no stranger to the BBA, having offered it over a dozen times in 34 years. The gist of the combined proposal is that the government must run a balanced budget for each fiscal year with any deficit requiring a two-thirds vote in both chambers. It would also have cap
spending at its post-War historical norm of 18 percent of GDP. For the sake of comparison, consider that the CBO says government spending will equal nearly 25% of GDP this fiscal year. Of course the BBA does contain certain exceptions in times of emergency. So as not to be hamstrung in a crisis (read: not Libya), the BBA does contain waivers for when the nation is engaged in a declared war or engaged in a military conflict that poses an imminent and serious threat to national security. There is no doubt that the BBA proposal faces long odds. After all, the Framers didnt want Constitutional amendments to be added willy-nilly. But like VCUs chances in next weekends Final Four, BBA hopes may be slim, but its not impossible. So youre tellin me theres a chance. Well, yes. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell seems assured that the Amendment will be able to attract the votes for all 47 Republicans in the Senate. To pass, the BBA would need two-thirds of the Senate, meaning that the bills sponsors are left with the tall task of getting 20 Democrats to actually vote for something that doesnt allow them to raise taxes at every turn.
Dont scoff just yet. Okay, given their recent history, scoff a little. Now, consider that in 1997, Hatch was able to gain the votes of 11 Democrats, including such liberal stalwarts as Max Baucus and Herb Kohl, both of whom remain in the Senate. Heck, current Vice President Joe Biden even voted for passage! Then again, both he and President Obama also voted against raising the debt limit while they were in the Senate. Welcome to the wonderful mixed-up world of Washington! Senator John Cornyn gave perhaps the best reason for why the BBA should pass this time around. In 1997, when they came within one vote of getting the Balanced Budget Amendment,
the deficit was a little over $100 billion, and now its $1.5 trillion. The national debt was a little over $5 trillion in 97, and now its $14 trillion, said Cornyn. If people thought that the circumstances were sufficiently compelling in 1997 to get that close, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the deed is there to get it done in 2011. Democrats have long proven that evidence doesnt stand in the way of their decision-making. Until they are willing to admit that our budget deficit is unsustainable and something real (read: not Pay-Go) must be done, our generation will continue to drown in a sea of red ink. A Balanced Budget Amendment may seem ambitious, especially given its history, but that is exactly what the times demand. Our debt has grown beyond the realm of easy, simple solutions. Its time to be bold. And whats bolder than changing the constitution?
Census Results Show Low Taxes Key to Recovery

Yawn. The full decennial Census results have been released. Yea, I know, sounds about as exciting as watching re-runs of Rep. Barney Frank talk about financial derivatives on C-Span 2. But there really is some interesting stuff tucked away in this years Census results; stuff that our representatives in Washington would be wise to learn from. Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote in 1932, It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. As it turns out, many states have heeded the call, taking widely divergent paths on how best to tax and spend their citizens money. Some states have sought to pay down their debt by hiking taxes, others have sought to attract investment by lowering taxes, and then there is California where nobody can really out what the heck those nitwits are doing. What effect did this have on state populations? Political analyst Michael Barone breaks it down for us: The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent. The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent.
The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent. While not everyone considers growth a good thing (mainly those who really hate traffic), a booming population can do economic wonders for a state. At its core, population growth creates a larger market; that is to say it increases the number of taxpayers and consumers who can grease the wheels of the state economy. Given many states budget woes following their 90s spending binge, those with faster population growth will no doubt have a much easier time recovering. Of course, none of that means very much to the average citizen. We mainly identify ourselves as Americans, not as North Dakotans, Nevadans, or Maineiacs (I confess U dont know what people from Maine are called). Sure, in some ways we like to know that our state budgets arent completely out of whack, but for the most part we just want to know how it affects us. As it turns out, a states tax burden has a lot to do with how much we, as citizens, earn. The 10 states with the lowest tax burden saw personal income growth 17 percent higher than the 10 states with the highest tax burden. Thats partially because jobs are more plentiful. According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, the nine states with no income taxes averaged job growth of 18.2 percent over the past decade, compared to a mere 8.4 percent in the nine highest taxed states. So what can Washington learn from all of this? Well first our Congressmen had better take the message back to their state legislatures that creating jobs and recovering from the recession must begin with lowering tax burdens. But on a larger scale, our federal government must begin to understand how this applies to them. Sure, citizens have a much harder time picking up and leaving the country than they do picking up and leaving the state. But with globalization becoming an increasing force in the economic ecosystem, the idea of people, and especially businesses, voting with their feet and moving to low tax jurisdictions cannot be discounted. Americas advantages in the global economy are slowly dwindling. Where we were once known for our unrivaled education system, purchasing power, and free markets, other nations are beginning to beat us at our own game. Well its time we up the ante. The United States will always be attractive to businesses, the result of our entrepreneurial culture and loads of disposable dollars, but even those assets cannot completely overcome a burdensome tax system. So our lawmakers in Washington should take the
March Compendium!
43
time to study the Census results; not only to begin to put together their next election strategy, but to create a better climate for business.
March Compendium!
44

CRNC Research Compendium March 2011: Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRNC Research Compendium March 2011: Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRNC Research Compendium March 2011

Editor: Brandon Greife, Political Director

College Republican National Committee

600 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Ste. 215 Washington, DC 20003 www.collegerepublicans.org

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

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

College Republican National Committee

Goldman Sachs Gets it Wrong, We Can Cut and Grow

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

GAO Report Should Stop Dems Dithering on Debt

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

President Obama and His Lack of Sound Energy Policies

College Republican National Committee

Republican Cuts Finally Force Dems to Reason

College Republican National Committee

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

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

The Extinction of Incandescent?

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

To Invest in Future Generations We Simply Must Spend Less

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

Government Budget ObamaCare = A Tighter Fitting Belt

College Republican National Committee

Good Nature Without Prudence is Foolish

College Republican National Committee

The Spending Blitz Continues

College Republican National Committee

Razzle Dazzle Part 2- The Sequel

College Republican National Committee

Obama Still Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

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

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

CBO Says Deficit Much Worse than White House Predictions

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

$2.3 Trillion is No Joking Matter

College Republican National Committee

Budget Battle Rewind

College Republican National Committee

Investing in Tomorrows Energy Technology Requires Unshackling Resources Today

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

Another Entitlement Program Calls for New Economic Policies

College Republican National Committee

Happy First Birthday to Obamacareand Now for the Terrible Twos

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee

Dispelling Economic Myths About Republicans Jobs Plan

College Republican National Committee

College Republican National Committee