Truth in Budgeting - The Editors - National Review Online
As Americans struggle to balance their checkbooks in the real world, lawmakers in Washington continue to apply postmodern accounting tricks to mask their out-of-control spending habits. New legislation introduced by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, and Olympia Snowe (R., Maine) would help to tamp down some of these shenanigans.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Steve Jobs Dead At 56
Steve Jobs on death in 2005 commencement speech:
"No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.
Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."
Today's Quote
The single most exciting thing you encounter in government is competence because its so rare.
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
-Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Steve Jobs Dead At 56!
Steve Jobs, the co-founder of Apple, has died, according to the company. He was 56.
The hard-driving executive pioneered the concept of the personal computer and of navigating them by clicking onscreen images with a mouse. In more recent years, he introduced the iPod portable music player, the iPhone and the iPad tablet -- all of which changed how we consume content in the digital age.
Jobs had battled cancer for years, took a medical leave from Apple in January and stepped down as CEO in August because he could "no longer meet (his) duties and expectations."
The hard-driving executive pioneered the concept of the personal computer and of navigating them by clicking onscreen images with a mouse. In more recent years, he introduced the iPod portable music player, the iPhone and the iPad tablet -- all of which changed how we consume content in the digital age.
Jobs had battled cancer for years, took a medical leave from Apple in January and stepped down as CEO in August because he could "no longer meet (his) duties and expectations."
Palin Will Not Run In 2012!
Sarah Palin will not enter the 2012 Republican race. "I have decided that I will not be seeking the 2012 GOP nomination for President of the United States. As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision. When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order," the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee told radio host Mark Levin on Wednesday afternoon.
WSJ: Handout States of America
By Sara Murray
Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.
Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.
Click for full-size image
The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)
Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).
Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.
High unemployment and increased reliance on government programs has also shrunk the nation’s share of taxpayers. Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.
Most of those households will still be hit by payroll taxes. Just 18.1% of households pay neither payroll nor federal income taxes and they are predominantly the nation’s elderly and poorest families.
The tandem rise in government-benefits recipients and fall in taxpayers has been cause for alarm among some policymakers and presidential hopefuls.
Benefits programs have come under closer scrutiny as policymakers attempt to tame the federal government’s budget deficit. President Barack Obama and members of Congress considered changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a grand bargain (that ultimately fell apart) to raise the debt ceiling earlier this year. Cuts to such programs could emerge again from the so-called “super committee,” tasked with releasing a plan to rein in the deficit.
Republican presidential hopefuls, meanwhile, have latched onto the fact that nearly half of households pay no federal income tax, saying too many Americans aren’t paying their fair share.
UPDATE: Nearly half of the population lives in a household that has at least one member who receives some kind of government benefit. An earlier headline incorrectly suggested that half of American households receive some government benefit. Due to differences in household size that isn’t the case.
Families were more dependent on government programs than ever last year.
Nearly half, 48.5%, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4% lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.
Click for full-size image
The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years. (See a timeline on the history of government benefits programs here.)
Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2% of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid (the federal-state health care program for the poor).
Another 14.5% lived in homes where someone was on Medicare (the health care program for the elderly). Nearly 16% lived in households receiving Social Security.
High unemployment and increased reliance on government programs has also shrunk the nation’s share of taxpayers. Some 46.4% of households will pay no federal income tax this year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. That’s up from 39.9% in 2007, the year the recession began.
Most of those households will still be hit by payroll taxes. Just 18.1% of households pay neither payroll nor federal income taxes and they are predominantly the nation’s elderly and poorest families.
The tandem rise in government-benefits recipients and fall in taxpayers has been cause for alarm among some policymakers and presidential hopefuls.
Benefits programs have come under closer scrutiny as policymakers attempt to tame the federal government’s budget deficit. President Barack Obama and members of Congress considered changes to Social Security and Medicare as part of a grand bargain (that ultimately fell apart) to raise the debt ceiling earlier this year. Cuts to such programs could emerge again from the so-called “super committee,” tasked with releasing a plan to rein in the deficit.
Republican presidential hopefuls, meanwhile, have latched onto the fact that nearly half of households pay no federal income tax, saying too many Americans aren’t paying their fair share.
UPDATE: Nearly half of the population lives in a household that has at least one member who receives some kind of government benefit. An earlier headline incorrectly suggested that half of American households receive some government benefit. Due to differences in household size that isn’t the case.
Dems v Dems On Medicaid: National Review
October 5, 2011 12:00 P.M.
I've spilt many pixels writing about the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which are now nearly certain to end up in the just-commenced 201112 term of the Supreme Court. But there's another important health-care lawsuit on the high court's docket, one that pits the Obama administration against congressional and California Democrats. It's Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, a case that gets at the fundamental flaw in the humanitarian catastrophe known as Medicaid. That is: What should you do when you can't make two plus two equal seven?
Numerous studies show that many Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than those with no health insurance at all. This is in large part driven by the fact that Medicaid severely underpays physicians and hospitals for the cost of treating Medicaid patients. As a result, many doctors don't take appointments from Medicaid patients, leaving our nation's poorest without access to adequate medical care.
Even though Medicaid is bankrupting many states -- most notably New York and California -- most states are unwilling to pare down their Medicaid rolls to devote more resources to the truly needy. Those that are willing are stymied by bureaucrats in Washington. So governments take the path of least political resistance: underpaying the providers of health care.
On Feb. 16, 2008, in response to California's fiscal crisis, the state legislature passed a law cutting payments to the already-underpaid providers in the state's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, by as much as 10 percent. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. California's providers sued the state.
Under the federal Medicaid law, states are obligated to "assure that payments [to providers] are consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area."
In other words, states aren't allowed to underpay providers to such an extent that it compromises the quality of care, and the degree of access to care, that Medicaid beneficiaries receive.
Lower courts agreed with the providers, and enjoined the state from enacting the Medi-Cal cuts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower-court decision, agreeing in March 2010 that "the ten percent rate reduction threatens access to much-needed medical care." The Schwarzenegger administration appealed the decision, an appeal that has been carried on by current governor Jerry Brown (D.) and his director of health-care services, Toby Douglas.
Governor Brown may be one of the nation's most famous liberals, but he is subject to the same laws of arithmetic that Arnold Schwarzenegger was. When Governor Brown was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2011, he was staring at a 201012 budget deficit of $25.4 billion. Brown, too, needs to trim Medicaid spending; California is projected to spend $18.8 billion on Medi-Cal in 201112, not including the additional $25 billionplus contribution from the federal government. Brown, too, signed legislation cutting Medi-Cal payments by 10 percent.
Unusually, the Obama administration intervened in the case. Even though the federal government isn't a party to the lawsuit, the Department of Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the State of California. And small wonder: Given that nearly half of Obamacare's expanded health coverage comes in the form of Medicaid, the administration needs to avoid the political damage that would come from bankrupting large Democratic states such as California, New York, and Illinois.
Suffice it to say that progressives were displeased. "I find it appalling that the solicitor general in a Democratic administration would assert in a Supreme Court brief...that poor recipients of Medicaid cannot challenge state violations of federal law," said Washington & Lee health-law professor Timothy Jost.
I've spilt many pixels writing about the constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which are now nearly certain to end up in the just-commenced 201112 term of the Supreme Court. But there's another important health-care lawsuit on the high court's docket, one that pits the Obama administration against congressional and California Democrats. It's Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, a case that gets at the fundamental flaw in the humanitarian catastrophe known as Medicaid. That is: What should you do when you can't make two plus two equal seven?
Numerous studies show that many Medicaid patients have worse outcomes than those with no health insurance at all. This is in large part driven by the fact that Medicaid severely underpays physicians and hospitals for the cost of treating Medicaid patients. As a result, many doctors don't take appointments from Medicaid patients, leaving our nation's poorest without access to adequate medical care.
Even though Medicaid is bankrupting many states -- most notably New York and California -- most states are unwilling to pare down their Medicaid rolls to devote more resources to the truly needy. Those that are willing are stymied by bureaucrats in Washington. So governments take the path of least political resistance: underpaying the providers of health care.
On Feb. 16, 2008, in response to California's fiscal crisis, the state legislature passed a law cutting payments to the already-underpaid providers in the state's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, by as much as 10 percent. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. California's providers sued the state.
Under the federal Medicaid law, states are obligated to "assure that payments [to providers] are consistent with efficiency, economy and quality of care and are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area."
In other words, states aren't allowed to underpay providers to such an extent that it compromises the quality of care, and the degree of access to care, that Medicaid beneficiaries receive.
Lower courts agreed with the providers, and enjoined the state from enacting the Medi-Cal cuts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower-court decision, agreeing in March 2010 that "the ten percent rate reduction threatens access to much-needed medical care." The Schwarzenegger administration appealed the decision, an appeal that has been carried on by current governor Jerry Brown (D.) and his director of health-care services, Toby Douglas.
Governor Brown may be one of the nation's most famous liberals, but he is subject to the same laws of arithmetic that Arnold Schwarzenegger was. When Governor Brown was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2011, he was staring at a 201012 budget deficit of $25.4 billion. Brown, too, needs to trim Medicaid spending; California is projected to spend $18.8 billion on Medi-Cal in 201112, not including the additional $25 billionplus contribution from the federal government. Brown, too, signed legislation cutting Medi-Cal payments by 10 percent.
Unusually, the Obama administration intervened in the case. Even though the federal government isn't a party to the lawsuit, the Department of Justice filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the State of California. And small wonder: Given that nearly half of Obamacare's expanded health coverage comes in the form of Medicaid, the administration needs to avoid the political damage that would come from bankrupting large Democratic states such as California, New York, and Illinois.
Suffice it to say that progressives were displeased. "I find it appalling that the solicitor general in a Democratic administration would assert in a Supreme Court brief...that poor recipients of Medicaid cannot challenge state violations of federal law," said Washington & Lee health-law professor Timothy Jost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)