Politics, Government & Public Policy: March 2012 Archives
At the end of 2011 we spotted some TAX CHEAT! Tim Geithner bills, and now Instapundit readers are sending pictures in!
(Picture by David Rogers.)
Don't forget to buy your own Tim Geithner TAX CHEAT! stamps!
A 5-4 vote along ideological lines by the Supreme Court to overturn part or all of Obamacare would be extremely polarizing for the country, but this is probably the result that President Obama is longing for. Let's look at the possibilities:
1. Obamacare upheld: conservatives and independents are mobilized and boatloads of money pours in to overturn the law. Left-wingers are pleased and feel lower sense of urgency.
2. Obamacare overturned by 6-3 decision or higher: Left-wingers are outraged but the decision is broad enough that most people are satisfied.
3. Obamacare overturned by 5-4 vote along ideological lines: Obama gets rid of the Obamacare issue that has been plaguing him since he signed it, his base is mobilized, and he gets to campaign against the evil conservative justices who overturned the "will of the people".
It's easy to see that option #3 is the best for the President.
It's been 1,056 days since the Democrat-controlled Senate has passed a budget, despite budgets bills being passed by the Republican House. Senate Leader Harry Reid has declared that we don't need a budget.
"We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year," Reid told reporters last month, arguing that legislation setting limits on spending is sufficient."The fact is, you don't need a budget," agreed fellow Democrat and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer a few weeks ago. "We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending."
In fact, the lawmakers are required by law to pass a budget each year. That's made conspicuously clear by the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. But proposing and passing a budget can cause lots of problems. It can force a party to take potentially unpopular stands on critical issues. How much should the government spend on national defense? On health care? On social programs? As Reid and his allies see it, better to just ignore the whole thing.
Representative Paul Ryan has proposed yet another plan for reducing our debt and bringing our spending under control: the Path to Prosperity.
Lots of structural changes and spending cuts. This is the kind and scale of change we need to restore our fiscal health, even if we can quibble about the details.
In 2009 President Obama said his health care law would cost $900 billion over 10 years. Surprise! The Congressional Budget Office now estimates that the 10-year cost will be $1.76 trillion.
I think it is absurd and offensive that every law ends up costing drastically more than originally "estimated" by the politicians who pass it. The track record shows that the politicians are not making good-faith estimates -- they're scamming us. They're buying votes from favored constituencies with taxpayer money.
How much of our local, state, and federal borrowing, taxing, and spending is (indirectly) dedicated to transferring wealth from males to females? It's easy to find out how much tax is paid by income percentile, but very hard to find a breakdown by gender. Similarly, it's hard to find statistics on the gender of transfer recipients.
