New study shows ObamaCare subsidies potentially five times higher in first year than predicted
HotAir.com
posted at 3:13 pm on October 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
In passing ObamaCare, Democrats argued that it would provide a net relief to the budget deficit in its balance of new taxes and fees, drastic cuts to Medicare Advantage, and the subsidies it would provide to Americans making $88,000 a year or less. A new study commissioned by Families USA, a group that supports ObamaCare, shows that the Democrats and the CBO badly miscalculated the level of subsidies provided. In the first year (2014), 28 million Americans would have eligibility for more than $110 billion, outstripping the Congressional/CBO estimate by almost 600%:
Families USA commissioned The Lewin Group to use its economic models to estimate how many individuals would benefit from the new premium tax credits in 2014 and the value of the dollars going to help pay for insurance (see the Methodology on page 12 for more details). We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion.
The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines). However, because the size of the tax credits will be determined on a sliding scale based on income, those with the lowest incomes will receive the largest tax credit, which will ensure that the assistance is targeted to those who need it the most.
Top 10 Failures of Obamanomics
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 23rd 2010 at 7:46 am
by Vince Haley
President Obama unveiled his latest economic proposal in Cleveland recently in a desperate attempt to boost the Democrats’ fleeting hopes of maintaining control of Congress this November. But after two years of massive government spending and job-killing policies, the damage has already been done and it’s clear this fall’s election will be boiled down to a simple choice: job killers versus job creators.
With unemployment at 9.6%, the American people are clamoring for candidates with a solutions-oriented agenda for job creation as an alternative to the job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini described it this way: “I think this group does not understand what it takes to create jobs. And I think they’re flummoxed by their experiment in Keynesian economics not working.”
Simply put, candidates who propose job-creating policies and show how their opponent’s policies are killing jobs will win decisively in 2010.
American Solutions has already put forth its Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First plan, so let’s examine the top 10 job-killing policies of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid machine.
1. $1 Trillion ObamaCare
Despite being law for less than a year, ObamaCare has already had a devastating impact on the economy. For example, Milwaukee-based Assurant Health is eliminating 130 jobs due to the new healthcare law, while one of Iowa’s largest companies, Deere & Company, said ObamaCare will cost them $150 million. AT&T, meanwhile, was hit with $1 billion in new costs related to the law. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. According to a study from the National Federation of Independent Business, within the first five years of ObamaCare over 1.6 million jobs will be lost because of the employer mandate alone.
2. $800 Billion Failed Stimulus
Despite having no basis in economics—and widely mocked as unserious—the Obama administration foolishly continues to claim the stimulus “saved or created” millions of jobs. However, for a far more accurate characterization look no further than the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which calculates that more than 2.5 million jobs have been lost since the stimulus became law. If you factor in jobs “lost and dislocated,” that number could be as high as 4 million.
3. Cap and Trade Energy Tax
According to the Heritage Foundation, Waxman-Markey, the House-passed version of cap and trade, could kill more than 1 million jobs per year, raise annual energy costs by $829 for the average family, and increase gasoline prices by $1.38 per gallon. The Senate version of cap and trade, Kerry-Lieberman, is equally destructive. A study by Chamberlain Economics found the Kerry-Lieberman bill would kill 522,000 jobs in 2015, and up to 5.1 million jobs by 2050. Families would also face an additional burden of $1,042 per year as a result of the bill.
4. 2011 Automatic Tax Increases
If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are not extended by January 1, 2011, then a $3.8 trillion tax increase will hit every American who pays income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, expiration of these tax cuts will increase the average tax filer’s burden by $1,368 per year. Additionally, analysts at Deutsche Bank predicted that GDP could drop by as much as 1.5% if the tax cuts expire. Just last week, 31 House Democrats sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer indicating their support for extending all of the tax cuts.
5. $13 Trillion National Debt
If you add up the massive expansion of government outlined in this list and elsewhere, the national debt has increased by $2.4 trillion under President Obama’s watch to a total of over $13 trillion. Even worse, the White House projects the national debt to double by 2020 to over $26 trillion. As CBS News’ Mark Knoller wrote, “If you could buy stock in the National Debt, do it. It’s headed for the moon.”
The Jewish Holidays, Personal Responsibility, and Progressivism
BigGovernment.com
Posted Sep 6th 2010 at 10:56 am
by Jeff Dunetz
With the setting of the sun this Wednesday night, Jews across the world will begin the observance of the Yomim Noraim (Days of Awe), a ten day period book-ended by the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. This year’s High Holiday period comes at an interesting time for America as the first night of Rosh Hashanah comes a mere fifty-four days before the United States goes to the polls to between two radically different directions, one which emphasizes personal responsibility, the other emphasizes a reliance on government. Only one of those directions is compatible with the true meaning of the High Holidays.
The popular view is the two holidays are observed by going to Synagogue saying a few prayers and begging God for forgiveness. Nothing can be further from the truth.
The High Holiday period is all about personal responsibility. All the prayers and readings are just tools to help us look inward and formulate a personal accounting of our deeds over the past year, good and bad, and to understand what we have learned, or need to learn to correct our deeds. As for forgiveness, we are taught that our maker is not like a big massive government who will fix everything. For earthly-type mistakes, we must approach the people we may have harmed for forgiveness and if necessary make restitution to them, then we must discover what within ourselves led us to err and correct them. Only then can we approach God for absolution.
It’s not that God couldn’t fix everything, but his direct involvement would destroy the delicate balance he set up during creation.
Selling Obama’s Spending Plans: Just Pay Separate Processing and Handling
BigGovernment.com
Posted Aug 9th 2010 at 9:27 am
Sound familiar? Most everyone has heard it time and time again. It’s the way many TV sales pitches end after seeming to give the viewing audience something for nothing. It’s a sucker’s pitch. It usually works like this: you are offered the gadget of the moment for the bargain price (typically) of $19.95, and you get an additional gadget for free. Then comes the addendum (very quickly and often in a whisper) “just pay separate processing and handling.” The fee is never disclosed, but it’s always there (typically $9.95 for each gadget, or another $19.90 for both which brings the total to $39.85 exclusive of shipping charges) proving there are no free lunches. This deceitful advertising used by television pitchman works so well that its equivalent has become the new Obama-Pelosi-Reid pitch to disguise the true cost of their programs.
And while this may not be a precise analogy for the way things are done in Washington, it’s close enough. “Just pay processing and handling” is our metaphor for the entire panoply of Washington speak that produces programs, the costs of which are often orders of magnitude more than originally represented. We are, almost daily it seems, pitched free lunches or “benefits” by our government. And while the seemingly irreversible debt we are currently piling on our children and grandchildren is truly unprecedented in American history, this administration did not invent the government “free lunch” shell game; they’ve simply refined and extended it with complete abandon. As Ronald Reagan so aptly warned, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
Pawlenty: No truce on abortion issues
HotAir.com
posted at 12:55 pm on July 16, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
printer-friendly
Should Republicans take Mitch Daniels’ advice and declare a truce on abortion in order to garner a larger coalition on fiscal issues? Not according to Tim Pawlenty, who dismissed the notion in a Real Clear Politics interview on Wednesday. The outgoing two-term governor of Minnesota makes a case for multi-tasking:
RCP: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has called for a “truce” on social issues such as abortion for the next few years that would allow Americans who agree on fiscal but not social issues to work together to fix the nation’s financial problems. Do you support that?
Pawlenty: I’m not sure what Mitch had in mind there but there’s a whole coalition of people and interests and issues that comprise the conservative movement and the conservative perspective. I’m a fiscal conservative as well as a social conservative, so I don’t think it’s an either/or. I think it’s both. And right now the economy is a pressing issue for the nation, and we’re all primarily focused on that and jobs and the like, but that’s not to say there isn’t space to discuss other issues.
I’m not sure Daniels knew what he had in mind. It didn’t take him long to jump back into the abortion debate after insisting on calling the truce. And then after that, Life News notes that Daniels called a truce again.
Obama’s Dilemma: Heavy Leadership Responsibility – Light Leadership Aptitude
BigGovernment.com
Posted Jun 29th 2010 at 8:37 am
The president’s recent disappointing oval office speech elicited a chorus of criticism from across the political spectrum. For some reason the speech seems to have put a spotlight on the president as a leader, whereas other misjudgments in which he was directly involved in making policy had not. The oil spill, which was certainly no fault of Mr. Obama, seems to have finally caused the public and many of his cheerleaders among the pundits to focus on the president’s substance and not his style. That has been the unspoken, elephant-in- the-room, concern throughout his presidency, his aptitude for leadership. We are reminded of the lead-in lyrics to the signature song Ethel Merman belts out in Gypsy… “Curtain up…light the lights…you either got it…or you ain’t.”
President Obama seems to have the curtain up, light the lights part down pat. The dramatic campaign and convention stage sets, his world photo-op tours, his big oval-office backdrop to his little oval-office speech, and his ever-masterful use of the teleprompter have all produced a “strike-up-the-band” expectation whenever and wherever he appears. It’s the “you either got it, or you ain’t” part that seems finally to have focused the public on the president’s aptitude for leadership.
Health Reform Radicals Are Driving Congressional Democrats Off a Cliff
From: BigGovernment.com
Posted Dec 17th 2009 at 7:27 am
by Kyle Olson
The socialist wing of the Democratic Party must have thought the brass ring was within its grasp when Barack Obama was elected president, a larger Democratic majority was returned to the House and a filibuster-proof majority was secured in the Senate.
But with the exception of massive new spending, little, if anything, has been delivered to satisfy the liberal base of the party. Health care reform is a perfect example. When the political stars began to align, leftists began moving swiftly to enact their agenda. After all, a government takeover of health care has long been the ultimate goal for the socialist base of the party.
Despite polls that show solid majorities of Americans opposed to ObamaCare, Congressional Democrats trudge ahead. Common sense would say they should pull the plug, in order to appease voters.
But special interest groups, such as the Service Employees International Union, have sent members of Congress out to battle and ordered them not to return without victory scalps. Consider what SEIU president Andy Stern wrote in the November 10th Washington Post:
They will be judged for what they deliver. If at the end of the day Americans can’t afford health care or if the standard of care declines, every single Democratic senator will pay the price.
And Robert Creamer, arguably the architect of the political campaign to obtain socialized medicine, made a similar statement on a talk radio show March 18, 2008:
We need a national movement that says to these members of Congress, if they don’t deliver what we want, you’re not going back.
That national movement already exists, in the form of Healthcare for America Now, which is led by ACORN and SEIU. It’s been putting enormous pressure on Congress to support Obamacare, complete with a robust “public option” and nothing less.
CWNews Posted Comments