Posts
Morning Bell: A Nothing Burger, A Fig Leaf, and a Commission On the Side
Posted By Mike Brownfield On January 21, 2010 @ 9:46 am In Entitlements
11 Comments
From the President who brought you unaccountable, constitutionally-questionable czars comes the latest innovation in pass-the-buck leadership: a White House executive commission designed to solve the behemoth of a spending problem plaguing the federal government. Members of Congress have described the commission as a “nothing burger,” a “fig leaf” and “something that is put in place to kind of cover [President Obama’s] rear end.” [1] Colorful critiques aside, it’s an executive commission tasked with making policy recommendations [2] aimed at reducing the country’s projected $1.4 trillion deficit.
News of the commission follows the Senate’s debate this week on the increase of America’s debt limit by a whopping $1.9 trillion [3], which would raise Congress’ theoretical credit card limit to $14.3 trillion. That’s a legal necessity if the federal government wants to keep borrowing more money. The key word is “wants,” since the only return on the borrowed money is out-of-control discretionary spending and an expansive entitlement system with no responsible fiscal future. Congress must address the entitlements crisis if it wants to honestly address the root cause of our future debt problems.
Due to rising costs in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid [4], federal spending will cause the debt to grow to 300% of the economy by 2050 [5]. In total, the entitlement programs have promised $45 trillion more in benefits than the country can afford to pay. But hey, we can just raise taxes right? Raising taxes to fund these benefits would require an additional $12,072 per household by 2050 and further thereafter, which would create a tremendous burden on families and future generations. Cutting spending will not be sufficient to pay for the programs, as they will consume the entire federal budget by 2052 [4].
And if you think today’s economy is bad, you’ll really dislike what the future has in store. If Congress does not immediately address its long-term debt problem, America will face a fiscal crisis far worse than what we’ve seen in the past two years. Publicly-held debt must not grow faster than the economy if it is to be sustainable; otherwise the demand on capital markets would be so severe that private and foreign lenders would stop buying U.S. securities. Yet the United States is still on an unsustainable course.
Enter the executive commission. The Wall Street Journal describes its component make-up [2]: “The 18-member commission will include six people appointed by congressional Democrats, six appointed by congressional Republicans and six appointed by the president. Of the president’s six, two will be Republicans and four will be Democrats.”
This veneer of budget-fixing bipartisanship will no doubt make for a lovely rhetorical flourish at the President’s January 27 State of the Union Address, where it will likely serve as a centerpiece in his argument that he is making serious efforts to tackle out-of-control spending.
But as The Heritage Foundation’s Stuart Butler explains, the commission would be inherently flawed and ineffective [6], given that it lacks the accountability and “public consultation” necessary to gain popular support for any reforms it recommends: “The commissioners would be chosen from a pool of potentially lame duck Members of Congress, with a report due after the election and recommendations to be crammed through and voted on by the end of the year in a lame duck session. If this process were actually successful, it would virtually guarantee a back-room “Andrews Air Force Base” deal consisting of immediate and real tax hikes combined with distant and doubtful spending cuts.”
There’s a deeper truth at work here: a commission to study budget reform is an unnecessary measure designed to keep one’s hands clean while another does the dirty work. In reality, there’s nothing stopping Congress or the President from acting on their own accord and bearing the mantle of responsibility that the public has placed on their shoulders. In short, they have the power – but evidently not the will – to take serious steps to cut spending and reduce the deficit that this year exploded to “26 percent of the economy.” [6]
They could start with canceling TARP [6], capping discretionary spending growth (which has increased by 25 percent over the last three years) [7], and returning to federal spending levels [8] of just a decade ago. These fiscally prudent steps would immediately signal the American public that Congress comprehends the crisis. At that time, Washington could undertake serious entitlement reform that puts America on a fiscally responsible path forward. Understanding you have a problem is a good start, but a lame duck commission is not the solution.
Quick Hits:
According to the AP [9], “the number of newly laid-off workers seeking jobless benefits unexpectedly rose last week, as the economy recovers at a slow and uneven pace.”
The New York Times attempts to rationalize why so many college professors are liberal by blaming “typecasting [10]” in this morning’s edition, and also blames William F. Buckley and conservatives themselves.
200,000 Haitians could apply [11] for Temporary Protected Status to live and work in the United States, starting Thursday. Their status would allow them to remain the United States for 18 months. They must first prove they were in the United States before January 12, when the earthquake struck Haiti.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has retracted its earlier 2007 claim that the Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035. The IPCC now says there is little scientific evidence to back up their claim [12].
For the first time in the history of the Index for Economic Freedom [13], the United States is no longer in the top category of economically free countries and is even second in the North American region (behind Canada). This year’s score of 78, though high in global standards, is 2.7 points lower than last year and bumps the United States to a second-tier country of freedom. For more, visit www.JobsAndFreedom.com [14].
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org
URL to article: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/21/morning-bell-a-nothing-burger-a-fig-leaf-and-a-commission-on-the-side/
URLs in this post:
[1] “nothing burger,” a “fig leaf” and “something that is put in place to kind of cover [President Obama’s] rear end.”: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2015326920100120
[2] executive commission tasked with making policy recommendations: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703837004575013852530566476.html
[3] increase of America’s debt limit by a whopping $1.9 trillion: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/senate-discussing-a-raise-in-n.html?wprss=44
[4] rising costs in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid: http://issues2010.com/pdf/Entitlements.pdf
[5] 300% of the economy by 2050: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2710.cfm
[6] the commission would be inherently flawed and ineffective: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/20/please-no-white-house-lame-duck-commission/
[7] capping discretionary spending growth (which has increased by 25 percent over the last three years): http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/20/discretionary-spending-caps-a-good-first-step/
[8] returning to federal spending levels: http://blog.heritage.org/2009/12/11/morning-bell-speaker-pelosis-spendapalooza/
[9] According to the AP: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Initial-jobless-claims-apf-3027105474.html?x=0&.v=5
[10] typecasting: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/18/arts/18liberal.html
[11] 200,000 Haitians could apply: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/haiti/story/1436831.html
[12] The IPCC now says there is little scientific evidence to back up their claim: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_sc/un_un_climate_change
[13] Index for Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/Press/FactSheet/fs0049.cfm
[14] www.JobsAndFreedom.com: http://www.jobsandfreedom.com/
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Obama Tracking Poll 1-20-2010
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).
On the first anniversary of his inauguration, the President is dealing with the fallout from a stunning election upset in Massachusetts last night. On his way to victory, Scott Brown won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. That is consistent with a weakness among unaffiliated voters that has been evident in the President’s numbers for several months. Currently, just 25% of unaffiliated voters Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 44% Strongly Disapprove.
Most voters said health care was the top voting issue in Massachusetts. But, a final look at the Massachusetts Election Night Poll shows that Martha Coakley narrowly won among voters who ranked health care as most important. Brown won among those who consider the economy most important. That’s consistent with national polling showing that voters are now more likely to trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to the economy.
Overall, just 38% of voters nationwide now support the health care plan working its way through Congress. That matches the lowest level of support yet measured. Data will be released later today on the health care excise tax and other related issues.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove. To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the President’s numbers.
In Texas, both Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison lead likely Democratic nominee Bill White in the race for Governor. In the Republican Primary, Governor Rick Perry leads Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison by a 43% to 33% margin. A third candidate, Debra Medina, attracts support from 12%. Medina’s numbers jumped from 4% earlier in the race and she has now been invited to participate in an upcoming debate.
(More Below)
In California, Senator Barbara Boxer’s support remains below 50% against three potential opponents. In Colorado, Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton leads Democratic Senator Michael Bennett by a double digit margin. Rasmussen Reports has released other Senate polls for Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky. and California.
In Ohio, Republican John Kasich still holds a modest lead over incumbent Governor Ted Strickland. Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!” During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).
On the first anniversary of his inauguration, the President is dealing with the fallout from a stunning election upset in Massachusetts last night. On his way to victory, Scott Brown won unaffiliated voters by a 73% to 25% margin. That is consistent with a weakness among unaffiliated voters that has been evident in the President’s numbers for several months. Currently, just 25% of unaffiliated voters Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 44% Strongly Disapprove.
Most voters said health care was the top voting issue in Massachusetts. But, a final look at the Massachusetts Election Night Poll shows that Martha Coakley narrowly won among voters who ranked health care as most important. Brown won among those who consider the economy most important. That’s consistent with national polling showing that voters are now more likely to trust Republicans over Democrats when it comes to the economy.
Overall, just 38% of voters nationwide now support the health care plan working its way through Congress. That matches the lowest level of support yet measured. Data will be released later today on the health care excise tax and other related issues.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove. To get a sense of longer-term trends, check out our month-by-month review of the President’s numbers.
In Texas, both Rick Perry and Kay Bailey Hutchison lead likely Democratic nominee Bill White in the race for Governor. In the Republican Primary, Governor Rick Perry leads Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison by a 43% to 33% margin. A third candidate, Debra Medina, attracts support from 12%. Medina’s numbers jumped from 4% earlier in the race and she has now been invited to participate in an upcoming debate.
(More Below)
In California, Senator Barbara Boxer’s support remains below 50% against three potential opponents. In Colorado, Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton leads Democratic Senator Michael Bennett by a double digit margin. Rasmussen Reports has released other Senate polls for Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky. and California.
In Ohio, Republican John Kasich still holds a modest lead over incumbent Governor Ted Strickland. Rasmussen Reports has also released polls on the 2010 governor’s races in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.
Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.
(More Below)
Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).
Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”
In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!” During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."
A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.
An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.
In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).
Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.
Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.
A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls
Thursday, January 14, 2010
MORE INVESTIGATION REVEALS DETAILS OF OPERATIONS OF MAJOR DRUG TRAFFICING IN THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. investigation of La Familia Michoacana (“LFM”) has revealed many details about the operation of the group in the United States and answered some important questions about the nature of Mexican drug trafficking and distribution north of the border.
LFM stands out among the various drug cartels that operate throughout Mexico for several reasons. Unlike other drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) that have always been focused on drug trafficking, LFM first arose in Michoacan several years ago as a vigilante response to kidnappers and drug gangs. Before long, however, LFM members were themselves accused of conducting the very crimes they had opposed, including kidnapping for ransom, cocaine and marijuana trafficking and, eventually, methamphetamine production. The group is now the largest and most powerful criminal organization in Michoacan — a largely rural state located on Mexico’s southwestern Pacific coast — and maintains a significant presence in several surrounding states.
Beyond its vigilante origins, LFM has also set itself apart from other criminal groups in Mexico by its almost cult-like ideology. LFM leaders are known to distribute documents to the group’s members that include codes of conduct and pseudo-religious quotations from Nazario Moreno Gonzalez, also known as “El Mas Loco” (“the craziest one”), who appears to serve as a sort of inspirational leader of the group.
LFM stands out among the various drug cartels that operate throughout Mexico for several reasons. Unlike other drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) that have always been focused on drug trafficking, LFM first arose in Michoacan several years ago as a vigilante response to kidnappers and drug gangs. Before long, however, LFM members were themselves accused of conducting the very crimes they had opposed, including kidnapping for ransom, cocaine and marijuana trafficking and, eventually, methamphetamine production. The group is now the largest and most powerful criminal organization in Michoacan — a largely rural state located on Mexico’s southwestern Pacific coast — and maintains a significant presence in several surrounding states.
Beyond its vigilante origins, LFM has also set itself apart from other criminal groups in Mexico by its almost cult-like ideology. LFM leaders are known to distribute documents to the group’s members that include codes of conduct and pseudo-religious quotations from Nazario Moreno Gonzalez, also known as “El Mas Loco” (“the craziest one”), who appears to serve as a sort of inspirational leader of the group.
Unanswered Questions
In April 2009, STRATFOR published a report on the dynamics of narcotics distribution in the United States. It laid out the differences between trafficking (transporting large quantities of drugs from the suppliers to the buyers over the most efficient routes possible) and distribution (the smaller scale, retail sale of small quantities of drugs over a broader geographic area) as well as the various gangs on the U.S. side that are involved in drug trafficking. The report outlined the differences in the resources and skills required to transport tons of narcotics hundreds of miles through Mexico versus picking up those loads at the border and managing the U.S. retail networks that distribute narcotics to the individual buyers on the street.
In the April analysis, several intelligence gaps were identified in the interface between the Mexican-based drug traffickers (such as the Sinaloa Cartel, the Beltran-Leyva Organization [BLO] and Los Zetas) and the U.S.-based drug distributors (such as MS-13, Barrio Azteca and the Mexican Mafia). One question we were left with was: How deeply involved are the Mexican DTOs in the U.S. distribution network? While it appeared that narcotics changed hands at the border, it wasn’t clear how or even whether the relationships between gangs and drug traffickers had an effect on the distribution of narcotics within the United States. Although we suspected it, there was little evidence that showed cartel involvement in the downstream or retail distribution of narcotics in the U.S. market.
Command and Control in Chicago
Now there is evidence. The indictment handed down Nov. 20 in Chicago clearly alleges that a criminal group in Chicago was directly conspiring with the drug trafficking organization LFM to distribute shipments of cocaine. The indictment specifically links the criminal group in Chicago to LFM and labels it a “command and control group” run by someone in Michoacan. While the indictment only referred to this person as “individual A,” we suspect that the unidentified person was LFM operational manager Servando Gomez Martinez, the second in command of LFM. The manager of the Chicago command and control group, Jorge Luis Torres-Galvan, and the distribution supervisor, Jose Gonzalez-Zavala, were allegedly in regular contact with their manager in Mexico, updating him on accounting issues and relying on him to authorize which wholesale distributors the group could do business with in the United States.
These wholesale distributors also appear to have had close ties to the command and control group. According to the indictment, they were allowed to sell cocaine on consignment — they could wait to pay Zavala once the entire load was sold — an agreement that indicates a great deal of trust between the supplier and the retail distributor. It was likely a matter of the LFM commander in Mexico authorizing their involvement and probably was based on an existing business or extended-family relationship. Due to LFM’s ideological basis, its members should be thought of more as adherents than employees. The group does not operate using the same business objectives as most other major DTOs, so we would expect personal relationships to be more valued than strictly business relationships among LFM members.
Another member of the group, Jorge Guadalupe Ayala-German, allegedly operated stash houses in the Chicago area where deliveries of narcotics would come in and shipments of cash would leave. The indictment says Ezequel Hernandez-Patino was responsible for physically delivering the shipments of cocaine to the wholesale distributors, and Ismail Flores with Oscar Bueno were responsible for transporting money south to Dallas, where they would deliver cash proceeds from the sale of cocaine and pick up more cocaine to sell. The indictment does not indicate that Flores or Bueno supplied any other markets between Dallas and Chicago, which suggests that the Chicago-based LFM members were fairly compartmentalized.
These wholesale distributors also appear to have had close ties to the command and control group. According to the indictment, they were allowed to sell cocaine on consignment — they could wait to pay Zavala once the entire load was sold — an agreement that indicates a great deal of trust between the supplier and the retail distributor. It was likely a matter of the LFM commander in Mexico authorizing their involvement and probably was based on an existing business or extended-family relationship. Due to LFM’s ideological basis, its members should be thought of more as adherents than employees. The group does not operate using the same business objectives as most other major DTOs, so we would expect personal relationships to be more valued than strictly business relationships among LFM members.
Another member of the group, Jorge Guadalupe Ayala-German, allegedly operated stash houses in the Chicago area where deliveries of narcotics would come in and shipments of cash would leave. The indictment says Ezequel Hernandez-Patino was responsible for physically delivering the shipments of cocaine to the wholesale distributors, and Ismail Flores with Oscar Bueno were responsible for transporting money south to Dallas, where they would deliver cash proceeds from the sale of cocaine and pick up more cocaine to sell. The indictment does not indicate that Flores or Bueno supplied any other markets between Dallas and Chicago, which suggests that the Chicago-based LFM members were fairly compartmentalized.
Project Coronado
The larger operation from which the Chicago indictment emerged, the DEA-led Project Coronado, was a joint operation with the FBI, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and numerous other agencies. It followed several similar nationwide sweeps such as Operation Xcellerator, a multi-year effort to dismantle the Sinaloa cartel’s connections in the United States, and Project Reckoning, which went after a Gulf cartel network in the United States that was trafficking cocaine to Italy. Under Project Coronado, the DEA, FBI and ATF, along with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, have made a total of almost 1,200 arrests, seized $32.8 million in U.S. currency and seized 11.7 tons of marijuana, methamphetamines, cocaine and heroin since the operation began in 2005. Dozens of other indictments and criminal complaints (in addition to the Chicago indictment) have been unsealed against associates of the group across the country since Oct. 22, the official culmination of Project Coronado.
The other cases revealed more details about LFM’s operations in the United States: how it trafficked methamphetamines and cocaine from Mexico to Dallas, how a cell in Nashville was supplied by a distribution hub in Atlanta, and how a group in New York had obtained automatic assault rifles, high-caliber pistols and ammunition with the intent to smuggle those weapons back to Mexico to supply LFM. LFM has been responsible for a substantial level of violence in southwestern Mexico, and former Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Morina Mora recently called it the most dangerous cartel in Mexico.
The Northern District of Texas had the most cases as a result of Project Coronado. It appears that Dallas was a major U.S. hub for LFM, where it managed drug shipments from Mexico to other regions (Chicago and Arkansas were specifically mentioned) and the collection of cash from those distributors before shipping the cash back to Mexico. Dallas is a logical hub for such activity because of its proximity to Mexico and its location along Interstate 35 and Interstate 20, which link Dallas to the rest of the United States as well as points to the south. In at least one case, an individual attempting to smuggle four kilograms of methamphetamines to Dallas passed through the McAllen, Texas, border crossing on a passenger bus but was interdicted by police.
Most indictments (including the one in Chicago) pointed out that LFM groups in the United States conducted countersurveillance while moving drug shipments. On one occasion, accused Dallas drug distributor Soto Cervantes changed the location of a meet-up point when he learned that the person he was meeting suspected that he was being followed. The change in location caused the police (who were indeed following the transporter) to call off the surveillance mission in order to not compromise their investigation. As a result, authorities relied primarily on electronic surveillance of the suspects’ communications through wiretaps on home and cellular phones — of which the suspects had many and which they changed frequently.
There were other cases when police were unable to follow suspects due to such surveillance detection tactics, when targeted traffickers called off meetings and changed vehicles in an effort to confuse police. While seemingly simple, these tactics indicate a higher degree of tradecraft and professionalism among the suspects linked to LFM, who don’t appear to be members of run-of-the-mill street gangs. It is unclear if these tactics have been institutionalized in the LFM network, but judging by the frequency that police encountered them in various U.S. cities during Project Coronado, they appear to be a standard practice for many if not all LFM members.
Implications
The details released in the Nov. 20 indictment provide solid evidence that drug trafficking organizations in Mexico (specifically LFM) have established command and control groups inside the United States that report to and receive orders from commanders in Mexico. And this shows that LFM has had an international presence far beyond what we originally suspected and is not just a small-time trafficking group in southwestern Mexico.
Whereas most drug distribution in the United States is carried out by individual gangs serving their own interests and operating on their own familiar turf, the criminal group in Chicago working for LFM was carrying out orders issued by a drug trafficking organization some 3,000 miles away. And based on the interaction the Chicago group had with its contact in Mexico, the use of such tactics as countersurveillance measures, the coordination among groups in different cities and reports from sources within U.S. counternarcotics agencies, it is likely that the individual in Mexico was managing several groups throughout the United States.
Most criminal enterprises avoid this kind of command and control structure for two reasons. First, distribution in a foreign country is not typically in a Mexican-based drug trafficker’s area of expertise. Their interests tend to focus on their own territory, which they can control much more easily due to their familiarity with and proximity to it. Second, as seen in these latest arrests, U.S. law enforcement agencies are much more proficient at thwarting drug distribution operations than Mexican law enforcement agencies are. (LFM has recently proved very proficient indeed at challenging Mexican security forces.) By passing the drugs off to gangs in the United States, major cartels are also able to avoid a great deal of liability at the hands of U.S. law enforcement. In a way, LFM’s efforts to move downstream, farther from the source of the cocaine, mirror those of other, larger Mexican DTOs that are expanding their control over the supply of cocaine in South America as they move upstream, closer to the source.
And this raises the question: Why would LFM want to expand its operations so deeply into the United States when other Mexican DTOs maintain a more superficial presence there? One possible answer is that LFM is much smaller than Sinaloa, Los Zetas and BLO, controls much less territory and gets a smaller share of the narcotics being trafficked through Mexico. By expanding business into the United States, LFM is able to leverage what little control it does have in order to gain access to the highly lucrative retail market. And then there is LFM’s ideological bent, which makes it behave at times more like a cult than a purely pragmatic business.
The answer to the above question is only conjecture. What is certain, at this point, is that there is now a precedent for Mexican DTOs to have a greater influence over their lower-level supply-chain operations in the United States. The details released in the Chicago indictment provide a better understanding of how Mexican-based drug traffickers impact the drug distribution network inside the United States and prove that at least one, “La Familia,” is taking a very hands-on approach
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
President Obama's Son of Stimulus: More Costs, Fewer Jobs
January 5, 2010
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Abstract: President Obama has announced a third stimulus plan, which he presented as a "jobs plan." It promises to be at least as ineffective as previous attempts to stimulate the economy because it relies heavily on government infrastructure spending even though this has been one of the least effective components of the previous stimulus plan. The latest plan is far less likely to stimulate the economy than it is to stimulate government expansion and the federal deficit, leading to higher taxes on Americans who will receive little in return.
If nothing else, President Barack Obama's speech at the Brookings Institution proposing a third stimulus reveals his stubborn persistence in trying to demonstrate that liberal economic nostrums based on big spending can work; it just takes a lot of practice to "get it right." Of course, these multiple practice sessions come at considerable cost to the taxpayer, not to mention the growing misery and poverty among the 7 million Americans who have lost their jobs since the recession began.
With mortgage default and foreclosure rates now at a record high of 14.4 percent, each month's delay in "getting it right" means that tens of thousands more families will lose their homes to foreclosure. As Jay Brinkman of the Mortgage Bankers Association has observed, "mortgages are paid with paychecks, not percentage point increases in GNP."[1]
Same Old, Same Old
With his latest plan calling for another $50 billion in infrastructure spending (e.g., roads, trolleys, trains, and sewer systems), the President's "Son of Stimulus" plan relies heavily on government infrastructure spending, one of the least effective components of the increasingly discredited American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus II). Government infrastructure spending is widely believed to be a quick ticket to job creation and economic prosperity. The House of Representatives acted first in mid-December by adding the Jobs for Main Street Act to H.R. 2847.
Based on the many congressional debates on the subject of stimulus spending, as well as the practical results of those debates, it appears that many Members of Congress feel that a stimulus plan must meet at least five criteria:
The policy must be ineffective, as confirmed by independent studies published over several decades.
Recent implementation of a similar policy must fall well short of expectations and coincide with soaring unemployment.
It must waste several billions of dollars and add to the federal deficit.
It must pander to influential constituencies.
It must be subject to long delays in implementation.
Learning from Mistakes
Notwithstanding the federal government's growing obsession with spending vast amounts of money on nearly everything, the President is apparently learning from some of his earlier mistakes in economic policy and is showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and embrace ideas and concepts endorsed by the opposition party.
For example, taking a lesson from Republican Bob McDonnell's immensely successful gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, during which he focused almost exclusively on jobs, President Obama now refers to his Son of Stimulus plan as a jobs plan, not a stimulus plan. Indeed, he never mentioned the word "stimulus" in his recent Brookings speech, but "jobs" appeared about two dozen times.
Similarly, the costly infrastructure projects to be funded by the policy are no longer described as "shovel-ready," but as "ready-to-go" in appreciation of the extraordinary delays in starting the Stimulus II shovel-ready projects. As the nation discovered in the months following the enactment of Stimulus II, the only things being shoveled were empty promises and vast volumes of bureaucratic paperwork.
None of these problems would have occurred if the President's economic team had paid attention to the economic literature instead of press releases from business trade associations and labor unions or op-eds by partisan Nobel laureates. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its earlier review of such stimulus plans:
To the extent that financing new highways by reducing expenditures on other programs or by deficit finance and its impact on private consumption and investment, the net impact on the economy of highway construction in terms of both output and employment could be nullified or even negative.[2]
Slow Stimulus, Slow Recovery
Compounding this pattern of little or even negative net impact are the significant delays often associated with stirring cumbersome federal and state bureaucracies into action and inducing them to do what many once believed was their unique talent: making lists and spending money.
For example, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D- MN) publicly complained about the ineffectiveness of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Stimulus II package passed in February delivered $695 million in road money to the state, but by August, Virginia had begun work on only 16 percent of its designated projects compared to 43 percent nationwide. Noting that many states were working to get the projects underway, Mr. Oberstar wrote to Governor Tim Kaine that "your state ranks last among all states [51 out of 51, including the District of Columbia], based on an analysis of the percentage of Recovery Act highway formula funds put out to bid, under contract and under way."[3]
Sadly, Virginia's bureaucratic bungle was not the first time the state was accused of mishandling Recovery Act money. States were first required to submit their project requests to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and Virginia was the last state to provide its list. As The Washington Post noted:
For a state that has struggled for years to find road and transit money, Virginia would seem the least likely candidate to be the last one to ask for federal stimulus money for transportation. But state officials started submitting lists of shovel-ready projects to the federal government last month after the other 49 states had.[4]
While Virginia was last, it was not the only state that suffered delays. More than half of the projects approved nationwide had not started six months after enactment of Stimulus II. At a December hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, staff reported that work had begun on projects representing only 54 percent of the formula-based funds.[5]
As problematic as Virginia's performance was, USDOT's performance as the lead federal agency overseeing much of the infrastructure program was even worse. Of the $8 billion that Stimulus II allocated to higher-speed rail, none will be spent until sometime in 2010, more than a year after the law's enactment. Indeed, the states were given until October 2009 (eight months after the law's enactment) to submit their proposed projects to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for possible funding. Reflecting the perennial popularity of "free" money, states requested a total of $57 billion, almost seven times more than the government is authorized to spend.
Recently, the FRA announced that the proposals were under review and that winning submissions would be announced sometime in early 2010. Once awarded, project plans must be developed in detail and then put out for competitive bid. Sometime later, the contracts will be awarded, and work will finally get underway nearly two years after the enactment of Stimulus II. Presumably, Son of Stimulus, which includes an additional $800 million for Amtrak in the House version, will be coupled to the same slow train to economic recovery.
Intentional Delays
In his speech, President Obama acknowledges the slow start in infrastructure spending, but rather than seeing it as a problem, he contends that the delays were intentional: "It was planned that way for two reasons: so the impact would be felt over a two year period; and more importantly, because we wanted to do it right" to ensure that only sound and worthy projects were funded. He then added that thanks to this scrutiny, "we're going to see even more work--and workers--on recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months."[6]
Perhaps, but if the President actually believes that these programs would make a difference in economic recovery and would create jobs, then this planned delay seems surprisingly callous toward the millions of families whose homes went into foreclosure during the scheduled delay.
This excuse, of course, will not come as a relief to the millions of people who may have believed in the plan but have still lost their jobs and houses since Congress passed the Recovery Act. Sadly, with the unemployment rate now at 10 percent, their intentional sacrifice was certainly in vain, and taxpayers are again being forced to bail out the reputations of their elected officials who now bizarrely claim ownership of this fiasco.
As the record reveals, the "do it right" claim would come as a surprise to the many journalists who have uncovered hundreds of instances of laugh-out-loud waste in Stimulus II. For example, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) have identified a long list of wasteful projects, including $350 million for a broadband map that duplicates existing maps, a $5 million thermal energy award to a largely vacant shopping mall, $1.57 million for fossil research in Argentina, and $50,000 to fund performances of an anti-capitalist puppet show.[7]
Conclusion
In the end, voters must wonder whether Congress and the President really care whether these repeated stimulus plans work. On one hand is the view of Rahm Emanuel, the President's chief of staff: "Never allow a crisis to go to waste.... They are opportunities to do big things."[8] In this case, the opportunity is to expand federal intrusion into the economy and the daily lives of Americans to a degree never before experienced in peacetime and to use fear of the trillion-dollar-plus deficit as an excuse for massive tax increases. On the other hand is Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
In less than a year, American voters will have the opportunity to decide whether either one (or both) of these options is what they are looking for in the nation's political leadership.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Abstract: President Obama has announced a third stimulus plan, which he presented as a "jobs plan." It promises to be at least as ineffective as previous attempts to stimulate the economy because it relies heavily on government infrastructure spending even though this has been one of the least effective components of the previous stimulus plan. The latest plan is far less likely to stimulate the economy than it is to stimulate government expansion and the federal deficit, leading to higher taxes on Americans who will receive little in return.
If nothing else, President Barack Obama's speech at the Brookings Institution proposing a third stimulus reveals his stubborn persistence in trying to demonstrate that liberal economic nostrums based on big spending can work; it just takes a lot of practice to "get it right." Of course, these multiple practice sessions come at considerable cost to the taxpayer, not to mention the growing misery and poverty among the 7 million Americans who have lost their jobs since the recession began.
With mortgage default and foreclosure rates now at a record high of 14.4 percent, each month's delay in "getting it right" means that tens of thousands more families will lose their homes to foreclosure. As Jay Brinkman of the Mortgage Bankers Association has observed, "mortgages are paid with paychecks, not percentage point increases in GNP."[1]
Same Old, Same Old
With his latest plan calling for another $50 billion in infrastructure spending (e.g., roads, trolleys, trains, and sewer systems), the President's "Son of Stimulus" plan relies heavily on government infrastructure spending, one of the least effective components of the increasingly discredited American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Stimulus II). Government infrastructure spending is widely believed to be a quick ticket to job creation and economic prosperity. The House of Representatives acted first in mid-December by adding the Jobs for Main Street Act to H.R. 2847.
Based on the many congressional debates on the subject of stimulus spending, as well as the practical results of those debates, it appears that many Members of Congress feel that a stimulus plan must meet at least five criteria:
The policy must be ineffective, as confirmed by independent studies published over several decades.
Recent implementation of a similar policy must fall well short of expectations and coincide with soaring unemployment.
It must waste several billions of dollars and add to the federal deficit.
It must pander to influential constituencies.
It must be subject to long delays in implementation.
Learning from Mistakes
Notwithstanding the federal government's growing obsession with spending vast amounts of money on nearly everything, the President is apparently learning from some of his earlier mistakes in economic policy and is showing a willingness to reach across the aisle and embrace ideas and concepts endorsed by the opposition party.
For example, taking a lesson from Republican Bob McDonnell's immensely successful gubernatorial campaign in Virginia, during which he focused almost exclusively on jobs, President Obama now refers to his Son of Stimulus plan as a jobs plan, not a stimulus plan. Indeed, he never mentioned the word "stimulus" in his recent Brookings speech, but "jobs" appeared about two dozen times.
Similarly, the costly infrastructure projects to be funded by the policy are no longer described as "shovel-ready," but as "ready-to-go" in appreciation of the extraordinary delays in starting the Stimulus II shovel-ready projects. As the nation discovered in the months following the enactment of Stimulus II, the only things being shoveled were empty promises and vast volumes of bureaucratic paperwork.
None of these problems would have occurred if the President's economic team had paid attention to the economic literature instead of press releases from business trade associations and labor unions or op-eds by partisan Nobel laureates. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its earlier review of such stimulus plans:
To the extent that financing new highways by reducing expenditures on other programs or by deficit finance and its impact on private consumption and investment, the net impact on the economy of highway construction in terms of both output and employment could be nullified or even negative.[2]
Slow Stimulus, Slow Recovery
Compounding this pattern of little or even negative net impact are the significant delays often associated with stirring cumbersome federal and state bureaucracies into action and inducing them to do what many once believed was their unique talent: making lists and spending money.
For example, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman James Oberstar (D- MN) publicly complained about the ineffectiveness of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Stimulus II package passed in February delivered $695 million in road money to the state, but by August, Virginia had begun work on only 16 percent of its designated projects compared to 43 percent nationwide. Noting that many states were working to get the projects underway, Mr. Oberstar wrote to Governor Tim Kaine that "your state ranks last among all states [51 out of 51, including the District of Columbia], based on an analysis of the percentage of Recovery Act highway formula funds put out to bid, under contract and under way."[3]
Sadly, Virginia's bureaucratic bungle was not the first time the state was accused of mishandling Recovery Act money. States were first required to submit their project requests to the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and Virginia was the last state to provide its list. As The Washington Post noted:
For a state that has struggled for years to find road and transit money, Virginia would seem the least likely candidate to be the last one to ask for federal stimulus money for transportation. But state officials started submitting lists of shovel-ready projects to the federal government last month after the other 49 states had.[4]
While Virginia was last, it was not the only state that suffered delays. More than half of the projects approved nationwide had not started six months after enactment of Stimulus II. At a December hearing before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, staff reported that work had begun on projects representing only 54 percent of the formula-based funds.[5]
As problematic as Virginia's performance was, USDOT's performance as the lead federal agency overseeing much of the infrastructure program was even worse. Of the $8 billion that Stimulus II allocated to higher-speed rail, none will be spent until sometime in 2010, more than a year after the law's enactment. Indeed, the states were given until October 2009 (eight months after the law's enactment) to submit their proposed projects to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for possible funding. Reflecting the perennial popularity of "free" money, states requested a total of $57 billion, almost seven times more than the government is authorized to spend.
Recently, the FRA announced that the proposals were under review and that winning submissions would be announced sometime in early 2010. Once awarded, project plans must be developed in detail and then put out for competitive bid. Sometime later, the contracts will be awarded, and work will finally get underway nearly two years after the enactment of Stimulus II. Presumably, Son of Stimulus, which includes an additional $800 million for Amtrak in the House version, will be coupled to the same slow train to economic recovery.
Intentional Delays
In his speech, President Obama acknowledges the slow start in infrastructure spending, but rather than seeing it as a problem, he contends that the delays were intentional: "It was planned that way for two reasons: so the impact would be felt over a two year period; and more importantly, because we wanted to do it right" to ensure that only sound and worthy projects were funded. He then added that thanks to this scrutiny, "we're going to see even more work--and workers--on recovery projects in the next six months than we saw in the last six months."[6]
Perhaps, but if the President actually believes that these programs would make a difference in economic recovery and would create jobs, then this planned delay seems surprisingly callous toward the millions of families whose homes went into foreclosure during the scheduled delay.
This excuse, of course, will not come as a relief to the millions of people who may have believed in the plan but have still lost their jobs and houses since Congress passed the Recovery Act. Sadly, with the unemployment rate now at 10 percent, their intentional sacrifice was certainly in vain, and taxpayers are again being forced to bail out the reputations of their elected officials who now bizarrely claim ownership of this fiasco.
As the record reveals, the "do it right" claim would come as a surprise to the many journalists who have uncovered hundreds of instances of laugh-out-loud waste in Stimulus II. For example, Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and John McCain (R-AZ) have identified a long list of wasteful projects, including $350 million for a broadband map that duplicates existing maps, a $5 million thermal energy award to a largely vacant shopping mall, $1.57 million for fossil research in Argentina, and $50,000 to fund performances of an anti-capitalist puppet show.[7]
Conclusion
In the end, voters must wonder whether Congress and the President really care whether these repeated stimulus plans work. On one hand is the view of Rahm Emanuel, the President's chief of staff: "Never allow a crisis to go to waste.... They are opportunities to do big things."[8] In this case, the opportunity is to expand federal intrusion into the economy and the daily lives of Americans to a degree never before experienced in peacetime and to use fear of the trillion-dollar-plus deficit as an excuse for massive tax increases. On the other hand is Albert Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
In less than a year, American voters will have the opportunity to decide whether either one (or both) of these options is what they are looking for in the nation's political leadership.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation
Friday, December 25, 2009
Republicans Challenge Constitutionality of Individual Mandate
As passage of the Senate's health care reform bill (HR 3590) seems all but assured, Republicans have thrown up a procedural roadblock by questioning the constitutionality of some measures in the bill, CQ Today reports.
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) filed a constitutional point of order against the legislation Tuesday, arguing that the mandate that all U.S. residents purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional. The Senate is expected to vote on the challenge Wednesday. Fifty-one votes are needed to defeat it.
Republicans unsuccessfully have tried to use the technique several times this year, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is confident that Democrats will defeat Ensign's challenge.
Ensign said that the federal government does not have the power to force individuals to buy a specific product. "(I)f one of my constituents in Nevada does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this requirement could be a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment," Ensign said (Hunter/Perine, CQ Today, 12/22).
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ensign both delivered floor speeches Tuesday denouncing the constitutionality of the individual mandate, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room" reports (Young, "Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 12/22).
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) also said Monday that a provision in the bill that would levy fees on insurance companies -- but would provide exceptions to benefit not-for-profit insurers in Nebraska and Michigan -- "will not stand the test of the Constitution" because it "cannot be considered equal protection under the law."
Some legal experts disagreed with Ensign and Hutchison, arguing that the mandate is constitutional because Congress is permitted to "regulate commerce… among the several states." In addition, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Congress (CQ Today, 12/22).
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also said that insurance is subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Washington Times reports.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the deals in the bill that have come under GOP criticism, calling them part of the regular legislative process (Dinan, Washington Times, 12/23).
Attorneys General Challenge Reform Bill
State attorneys general in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington are examining the constitutionality of the Senate reform bill, focusing on a provision that would shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost of expanding Medicaid, the AP/Houston Chronicle reports.
Nebraska is Sen. Ben Nelson's (D) home state, and the provision is viewed as a concession used to help garner his support. Other states -- including Louisiana, Massachusetts and Vermont -- also would receive special Medicaid funding under the bill.
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution -- as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said (Davenport, AP/Houston Chronicle, 12/22).
Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) filed a constitutional point of order against the legislation Tuesday, arguing that the mandate that all U.S. residents purchase health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional. The Senate is expected to vote on the challenge Wednesday. Fifty-one votes are needed to defeat it.
Republicans unsuccessfully have tried to use the technique several times this year, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he is confident that Democrats will defeat Ensign's challenge.
Ensign said that the federal government does not have the power to force individuals to buy a specific product. "(I)f one of my constituents in Nevada does not want to spend his or her hard-earned income on health insurance coverage and would prefer to spend it on something else, such as rent or a car payment, this requirement could be a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment," Ensign said (Hunter/Perine, CQ Today, 12/22).
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Ensign both delivered floor speeches Tuesday denouncing the constitutionality of the individual mandate, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room" reports (Young, "Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 12/22).
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) also said Monday that a provision in the bill that would levy fees on insurance companies -- but would provide exceptions to benefit not-for-profit insurers in Nebraska and Michigan -- "will not stand the test of the Constitution" because it "cannot be considered equal protection under the law."
Some legal experts disagreed with Ensign and Hutchison, arguing that the mandate is constitutional because Congress is permitted to "regulate commerce… among the several states." In addition, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to Congress (CQ Today, 12/22).
Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) also said that insurance is subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the Washington Times reports.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs defended the deals in the bill that have come under GOP criticism, calling them part of the regular legislative process (Dinan, Washington Times, 12/23).
Attorneys General Challenge Reform Bill
State attorneys general in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas and Washington are examining the constitutionality of the Senate reform bill, focusing on a provision that would shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost of expanding Medicaid, the AP/Houston Chronicle reports.
Nebraska is Sen. Ben Nelson's (D) home state, and the provision is viewed as a concession used to help garner his support. Other states -- including Louisiana, Massachusetts and Vermont -- also would receive special Medicaid funding under the bill.
"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution -- as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said (Davenport, AP/Houston Chronicle, 12/22).
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Battle Over Obamacare's Obituary Has Begun
Last month, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rammed through her version of Obamacare almost a week before the agency in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS), could issue its non-partisan and independent analysis of the legislation. And for supporters of the President’s plan, it’s a good thing she did. The CMMS report eviscerated almost every single promise the President has made about his health care plan.
According to that report, Obamacare: 1) raises health care costs; 2) causes millions of Americans to lose their current health care coverage; 3) forces millions of Americans to pay fines and still receive no health insurance; 4) causes millions of seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage plans; 4) places millions of Americans on welfare; 5) jeopardizes Medicare access for all seniors; 6) worsens health care access for the poor.This past Friday, CMMS issued another report, this time on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) version of Obamacare and the verdict was in many ways worse: 1) health care costs would rise by $234 billion; 2) 17 million Americans would be forced out of their existing health insurance; 3) 19 million Americans would pay $29 billion in taxes/fines and receive no health care in return; 4) 33% of all Medicare Advantage customers would lose their health care plan; 5) 18 million Americans would be put on welfare; 6) the $493 billion in Medicare cuts would force 20% of Medicare providers to become unprofitable thus jeopardizing access to care for all seniors; and 7) the explosion in Medicaid recipients would exacerbate existing health care access problems for the poor.The week before the Senate began debating Obamacare, CNN conducted a poll and found that Americans narrowly opposed the plan, 49% to 46%. Now that the Senate has been debating the plan for two weeks, and CMMS has issued two devastating reports on what the impacts of Obamacare would be, opposition to the plan has skyrocketed. This Friday’s latest CNN poll showed 61% of Americans now oppose Obamacare compared to just 36% who support it.Liberals are is beginning to see the writing on the wall. They know that if Obamacare fails to pass the Senate this year, the battle will be on to explain its failure. For them, the story can not be that President Barack Obama tried to push too ambitious a government health plan. It must be that the President and Congress did not go far enough to the left to satisfy the supposedly government-hungry American people. Hence the left is now attacking the White House and Reid over the public option, the employer mandate, drug reimportation, abortion, and health insurance spending caps.Obamacare is not dead yet. Speaker Pelosi has signaled that she will quickly pass anything that comes out of the Senate, so Reid could still cave on almost everything and get a terrible bill from everybody’s prospective on the President’s desk by New Years. But Senators thinking about moving quickly should remember that the public strongly opposes this bill, and that opposition is only rising.
According to that report, Obamacare: 1) raises health care costs; 2) causes millions of Americans to lose their current health care coverage; 3) forces millions of Americans to pay fines and still receive no health insurance; 4) causes millions of seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage plans; 4) places millions of Americans on welfare; 5) jeopardizes Medicare access for all seniors; 6) worsens health care access for the poor.This past Friday, CMMS issued another report, this time on Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) version of Obamacare and the verdict was in many ways worse: 1) health care costs would rise by $234 billion; 2) 17 million Americans would be forced out of their existing health insurance; 3) 19 million Americans would pay $29 billion in taxes/fines and receive no health care in return; 4) 33% of all Medicare Advantage customers would lose their health care plan; 5) 18 million Americans would be put on welfare; 6) the $493 billion in Medicare cuts would force 20% of Medicare providers to become unprofitable thus jeopardizing access to care for all seniors; and 7) the explosion in Medicaid recipients would exacerbate existing health care access problems for the poor.The week before the Senate began debating Obamacare, CNN conducted a poll and found that Americans narrowly opposed the plan, 49% to 46%. Now that the Senate has been debating the plan for two weeks, and CMMS has issued two devastating reports on what the impacts of Obamacare would be, opposition to the plan has skyrocketed. This Friday’s latest CNN poll showed 61% of Americans now oppose Obamacare compared to just 36% who support it.Liberals are is beginning to see the writing on the wall. They know that if Obamacare fails to pass the Senate this year, the battle will be on to explain its failure. For them, the story can not be that President Barack Obama tried to push too ambitious a government health plan. It must be that the President and Congress did not go far enough to the left to satisfy the supposedly government-hungry American people. Hence the left is now attacking the White House and Reid over the public option, the employer mandate, drug reimportation, abortion, and health insurance spending caps.Obamacare is not dead yet. Speaker Pelosi has signaled that she will quickly pass anything that comes out of the Senate, so Reid could still cave on almost everything and get a terrible bill from everybody’s prospective on the President’s desk by New Years. But Senators thinking about moving quickly should remember that the public strongly opposes this bill, and that opposition is only rising.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
GOP Senators Note $7 Billion Waste in Stimulus
By Humberto Sanchez CongressDaily December 8, 2009
A GOP report released Tuesday charged that 100 projects amounting to $7 billion in waste were funded by February's $787 billion stimulus package.
"If you really want to create jobs with deficit spending, then you need to be doing it in an area that creates the most jobs," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., at a news conference on the report. He and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., spearheaded the project.
Coburn pointed to a shopping mall in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that was awarded $5 million from the stimulus to provide geothermal heat.
"We take $5 million to do geothermal heat on something that is not going to be used in the future, or at least has very little likelihood of being used in the future to the full extent," Coburn said.
McCain said he was not surprised that the stimulus resulted in wasted funds because he contends the package had insufficient provisions for oversight, cost control, and competition. He criticized projects to study ant behavior at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, which received $500,000 and $450,000, respectively.
Coburn said he believes that more than $55 billion will have been wasted once the entire stimulus is spent, citing a previous estimate by Earl Devaney, the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
The two said Vice President Biden, the Obama administration's point man on the stimulus, should take responsibility for the waste. Coburn said he was concerned when Biden was named to oversee the stimulus because "if you look at his voting record [in the Senate], he never saw a spending bill he didn't like."
Coburn and McCain said they would support using stimulus funds to pay for jobs legislation being drafted by Democrats. But Democratic leaders are leaning toward wanting to use funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
McCain and Coburn said they oppose the idea of using TARP repayment money to address unemployment, arguing that it should instead be used to reduce the deficit. Furthermore, they said, tapping any unused TARP funds would add to the deficit because the money would still have to be borrowed
A GOP report released Tuesday charged that 100 projects amounting to $7 billion in waste were funded by February's $787 billion stimulus package.
"If you really want to create jobs with deficit spending, then you need to be doing it in an area that creates the most jobs," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., at a news conference on the report. He and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., spearheaded the project.
Coburn pointed to a shopping mall in Oak Ridge, Tenn., that was awarded $5 million from the stimulus to provide geothermal heat.
"We take $5 million to do geothermal heat on something that is not going to be used in the future, or at least has very little likelihood of being used in the future to the full extent," Coburn said.
McCain said he was not surprised that the stimulus resulted in wasted funds because he contends the package had insufficient provisions for oversight, cost control, and competition. He criticized projects to study ant behavior at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, which received $500,000 and $450,000, respectively.
Coburn said he believes that more than $55 billion will have been wasted once the entire stimulus is spent, citing a previous estimate by Earl Devaney, the chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
The two said Vice President Biden, the Obama administration's point man on the stimulus, should take responsibility for the waste. Coburn said he was concerned when Biden was named to oversee the stimulus because "if you look at his voting record [in the Senate], he never saw a spending bill he didn't like."
Coburn and McCain said they would support using stimulus funds to pay for jobs legislation being drafted by Democrats. But Democratic leaders are leaning toward wanting to use funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
McCain and Coburn said they oppose the idea of using TARP repayment money to address unemployment, arguing that it should instead be used to reduce the deficit. Furthermore, they said, tapping any unused TARP funds would add to the deficit because the money would still have to be borrowed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)