Voter pessimism towards the new national health care bill has reached an all-time high, while the number of insured voters who feel it will force them to switch their coverage is up 11 points from early last month.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters say the recently passed health care law will be bad for the country. That’s the highest level of pessimism measured since regular tracking began following Congress' passage of the law in late March. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the health care plan will be good for the United States.
Prior to this survey, belief that the plan is good for the country ranged from 34% to 41%, while those who predict it will be bad for the country range from 49% to 54%.
Yet while 70% of Mainstream voters feel the bill is bad for the country, 80% of the Political Class disagree and see it as a good thing for America.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters now favor repeal of the health care bill. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal. These findings include 45% who Strongly Favor repeal and 28% who Strongly Oppose repeal. Support for repeal has ranged from 52% to 63%, while opposition has ranged from 32% to 42%.
Most Republicans and unaffiliated voters continue to strongly favor repeal of the health care bill and believe it will be bad for the country. Democrats, on the other hand, have remained supportive of the bill and feel it will be positive for the country.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 30-31, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
An overwhelming majority (77%) of those with health insurance rate their coverage as good or excellent, while only seven percent (7%) say it's poor. These figures show little change since early June.
Roughly half (51%) of those insured voters, however, say it’s at least somewhat likely that passage of the health care bill will mean they have to change their insurance. That’s up from 40% in early July and the highest level measured in two months. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say it's Very Likely.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe it’s not likely they will have to switch their insurance.
For the first since President Obama took office, voters see his policies as equally to blame with those of President George W. Bush for the country’s current economic problems.
Forty-four percent (44%) expect their taxes to increase under Obama.
Most voter see cutting spending and cutting deficits as good for the economy.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2010/57_say_health_care_plan_bad_for_the_country_59_favor_repeal
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Social Security Is Bankrupt Now
By Bill Frezza
This just in from the trustees that issue the annual report on the health of those two pillars of the modern entitlement state: Medicare and Social Security. For the first time in its history the Social Security program will pay out more money than it takes in. This watershed event will occur this year, to the tune of $41 Billion dollars. Under any rational accounting standards this makes the Social Security program bankrupt. And that's right now, not in 25 years when the so-called Trust Fund becomes insolvent.
You see, most pension programs hold income producing assets in their Trust Funds. Stocks, bonds, real estate, oil and gas partnerships, that sort of thing. A fully funded pension program owns enough of those assets to pay its liabilities even if the company closes its doors and not a penny more of new money comes in from current employees.
Social Security plays by a different set of rules enshrined under the New Deal and Great Society programs. These are the same rules that landed Bernie Madoff in jail. Although the Social Security system has been regularly taking in billions for decades and socking it into its Trust Fund just like a normal pension plan, Congress has just as regularly been draining the money out for current spending. All of the money collected from every American's paycheck throughout all of our careers is now gone. In its place are not stocks, bonds, real estate, and oil and gas partnership. In its place are IOUs from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank. $2.5 Trillion dollars worth of IOUs.
Now, imagine if a private company had a pension plan that its executives had completely drained wining and dining Congressmen in return for IOUs. What do you think would become of those executives when word got out that the only way they could make pension payments was to beg a flat-broke Congress for money?
Tar and feathers come to mind.
So after years of telling us this problem is decades away the fateful day has finally arrived when Congress has to make good on that giant pile of IOUs. The same Congress that just massively expanded "access" to healthcare for all Americans regardless of their ability to pay. The same Congress that bailed out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, and AIG. The same Congress that can't resist festooning every spending bill with earmarks for essential programs like butterfly gardens. And all of this right in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression
Wake up you little princess and princesses. It's time to face the music.
And where are these trusted paragons of fiduciary responsibility going to get all that dough? The same place they get the rest of the money they spend that they don't have. First, they grab what they can from current taxpayers. But, oops, income tax payments are way down thanks to the jobless recovery served up by the geniuses who believe we can spend our way back to prosperity. So the next stop is to borrow the money, again, mostly from the Chinese. For reasons known only to Confucius, Chinese Communists think it's a good idea to keep lending our Congressmen money. These people deserve each other, don't you think?
The Social Security commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, sanguine about his awesome responsibilities, was quoted as saying this is "not a cause for panic." The man would have made a perfect captain of the Titanic.
With the confidence of a cardsharp that thinks he has his rube flummoxed, the liberal pundisphere received this annual report with brassy spin. "Medicare Stronger, Social Security Worse in the Short Run," blares the New York Times. The short run? Ah yes, the Obama recovery is right around the corner. Just close your eyes, spend, spend, spend and sing Happy Days are Here Again.
This story gets worse if you look at Medicare, which has taken the crown from Social Security as our largest runaway entitlement program. The trustees' report predicts that thanks to payment cuts included in the new healthcare bill, Medicare won't go broke until 2029. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims this shows "some very positive developments." But these are the same cuts that have been eliminated every year in the so called Doc Fix required to keep doctors from refusing to see Medicare patients. Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, doesn't believe for a minute that those cuts are going to stand. You see, a Congress that has to borrow money from China to keep Granny from being thrown into the street doesn't want to have to explain why her doctor won't see her anymore.
How much longer the American people are going to let the lunatics run the asylum remains to be seen. But the longer it takes to throw the bums out the tighter we are going to have to cinch our belts to dig out of this hole. At least for those of us that don't depart for better climes.
Bill Frezza is a partner at Adams Capital Management, an early-stage venture capital firm. He can be reached at bill@vereverus.com. If you would like to subscribe to his weekly column, drop a note to publisher@vereverus.com.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/08/09/not_in_25_years_social_security_is_bankrupt_now_98611.html
This just in from the trustees that issue the annual report on the health of those two pillars of the modern entitlement state: Medicare and Social Security. For the first time in its history the Social Security program will pay out more money than it takes in. This watershed event will occur this year, to the tune of $41 Billion dollars. Under any rational accounting standards this makes the Social Security program bankrupt. And that's right now, not in 25 years when the so-called Trust Fund becomes insolvent.
You see, most pension programs hold income producing assets in their Trust Funds. Stocks, bonds, real estate, oil and gas partnerships, that sort of thing. A fully funded pension program owns enough of those assets to pay its liabilities even if the company closes its doors and not a penny more of new money comes in from current employees.
Social Security plays by a different set of rules enshrined under the New Deal and Great Society programs. These are the same rules that landed Bernie Madoff in jail. Although the Social Security system has been regularly taking in billions for decades and socking it into its Trust Fund just like a normal pension plan, Congress has just as regularly been draining the money out for current spending. All of the money collected from every American's paycheck throughout all of our careers is now gone. In its place are not stocks, bonds, real estate, and oil and gas partnership. In its place are IOUs from Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and Barney Frank. $2.5 Trillion dollars worth of IOUs.
Now, imagine if a private company had a pension plan that its executives had completely drained wining and dining Congressmen in return for IOUs. What do you think would become of those executives when word got out that the only way they could make pension payments was to beg a flat-broke Congress for money?
Tar and feathers come to mind.
So after years of telling us this problem is decades away the fateful day has finally arrived when Congress has to make good on that giant pile of IOUs. The same Congress that just massively expanded "access" to healthcare for all Americans regardless of their ability to pay. The same Congress that bailed out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, General Motors, and AIG. The same Congress that can't resist festooning every spending bill with earmarks for essential programs like butterfly gardens. And all of this right in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression
Wake up you little princess and princesses. It's time to face the music.
And where are these trusted paragons of fiduciary responsibility going to get all that dough? The same place they get the rest of the money they spend that they don't have. First, they grab what they can from current taxpayers. But, oops, income tax payments are way down thanks to the jobless recovery served up by the geniuses who believe we can spend our way back to prosperity. So the next stop is to borrow the money, again, mostly from the Chinese. For reasons known only to Confucius, Chinese Communists think it's a good idea to keep lending our Congressmen money. These people deserve each other, don't you think?
The Social Security commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, sanguine about his awesome responsibilities, was quoted as saying this is "not a cause for panic." The man would have made a perfect captain of the Titanic.
With the confidence of a cardsharp that thinks he has his rube flummoxed, the liberal pundisphere received this annual report with brassy spin. "Medicare Stronger, Social Security Worse in the Short Run," blares the New York Times. The short run? Ah yes, the Obama recovery is right around the corner. Just close your eyes, spend, spend, spend and sing Happy Days are Here Again.
This story gets worse if you look at Medicare, which has taken the crown from Social Security as our largest runaway entitlement program. The trustees' report predicts that thanks to payment cuts included in the new healthcare bill, Medicare won't go broke until 2029. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner claims this shows "some very positive developments." But these are the same cuts that have been eliminated every year in the so called Doc Fix required to keep doctors from refusing to see Medicare patients. Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, doesn't believe for a minute that those cuts are going to stand. You see, a Congress that has to borrow money from China to keep Granny from being thrown into the street doesn't want to have to explain why her doctor won't see her anymore.
How much longer the American people are going to let the lunatics run the asylum remains to be seen. But the longer it takes to throw the bums out the tighter we are going to have to cinch our belts to dig out of this hole. At least for those of us that don't depart for better climes.
Bill Frezza is a partner at Adams Capital Management, an early-stage venture capital firm. He can be reached at bill@vereverus.com. If you would like to subscribe to his weekly column, drop a note to publisher@vereverus.com.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/08/09/not_in_25_years_social_security_is_bankrupt_now_98611.html
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
U.S. SENATE BATTLEGROUND SURVEY CONDUCTED
Methodology
Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey in 13 states with competitive U.S. Senate races (as
defined by The Cook Report). The survey was conducted among 1,300 likely voters on August 2-5, 2010. The survey has a margin of error of +2.72% in 95 out of 100 cases. The states surveyed were Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
The survey questionnaire was nearly identical to the one used by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research (GQR) for the June NPR survey of House Battleground districts. Neither GQR nor NPR was involved at all in this poll. A few demographic and ballot
intensity questions were cut from this survey, as was one issue question asking favor/oppose a bill “Congress is considering that would create new rules for banks and other financial institutions.”
Key Findings
1. The Battleground Senate states do not look good for the Democrats.
The Republican candidate leads on the ballot 47%-39% across the 13 Battleground
Senate states. The lead is 45%-37% in the Republican-held states (Florida, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio), and 47%-40% in Democratic-held states
(Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and
Washington). U.S. Senate Battleground Survey
This is not the same as a generic ballot. We tested the specific candidates by name and party in every state but Colorado (where there are no clear primary frontrunners) in which case we tested “Republican” versus “Democratic” candidate. In Florida, we included Charlie Crist as a no party affiliation candidate.
Key findings in the crosstabs include:
* Independents are voting Republican by 47%-25% across the Battleground states.
* In the four states John McCain won in 2008, the GOPer leads 46%-36%. In the nine states Barack Obama won, the GOPer still leads 47%-40%, including 50%-38% in the five states Obama won with less than 55%, and 43%-42% in the fourObama 55%+ states.
* There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while women
split 42% GOP/44% Dem.
* As seen nearly everywhere else, the Democratic candidates face a wide
enthusiasm gap. The GOPer leads 52%-36% among high interest voters (rating
their interest as 8-10 on a 1-10 scale, which is 74% of the sample).
2. The political environment in these 13 Battleground Senate states is similar to the national picture.
Only 33% of voters say the country is going in the right direction, and 61% say the country is pretty seriously off on the wrong track. Among Independents, only 21% say right direction, while 68% say wrong track.
President Obama has a polarized 47% approve/50% disapprove job rating. By intensity,28% strongly approve, and 41% strongly disapprove. Independents are slightly more negative – 42% approve/50% disapprove.
3. There is a gale force wind blowing against the four Democratic incumbents running in these battleground states.
Respondents were asked to rate the job their Senator (specifically named) is doing and whether he/she deserves re-election, the results don’t look positive for those four incumbents. Only 42% approve and 44% disapprove of their incumbent Senator. And,on the re-elect/new person question, just 34% would vote to re-elect their incumbent Senator, while 55% prefer a new person.(The four incumbents are Blanche Lincoln, Michael Bennet, Harry Reid, and Patty Murray. Each were named on those two questions in the interviews done in their states.)
4. There is a massive fight brewing on the economy.
We split sampled two questions about the economy, underscoring that the messaging on the economy is crucial to the perspective voters take. The
first question was:
53% President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses.
...or...
43% President Obama’s economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis, and are laying the foundation for our eventual economic recovery.
The second question was:
33% President Obama is more responsible for the problems with the economy.
...or...
52% Former President Bush is more responsible for the problems with the economy.
Thus, Democrats will want the fight to focus on former President Bush, while Republicans will want the campaign message about the economy to focus on the impact and result of President Obama’s policies.
5. Republicans win four of the main policy fights of the campaign – jobs/economy, health care, Wall Street, and the perspective of the last two years.
These message fights were the same as tested on the bi-partisan NPR survey in June. The Republican messages were developed by Glen Bolger, and the Democratic messages were written by Stan Greenberg back in June (Stan Greenberg IS NOT AWARE OF this adaptation of the earlier project). Rather than change the messaging on one side or the other, for comparison with that project we left the wording the same. The advantage for the GOP was not as sizable on all of the messages as it was in the House Battleground poll, but it was substantial nonetheless:
* The Republican message on jobs and the economy won by eight points, 52%-
44%. In the eight Democratic-held seats (incumbent plus open), the GOPer won 51%-46%.
* Health care was the closest fight, a 51%-46% GOP win. It was a tie in the eight Democratic seats (49% each).
* On financial reform, the GOP message won 52%-44%, and 51%-45% in the eight Democratic seats.
* The biggest GOP win came on the overall message fight by a 54%-42% margin
(same result in just the eight Democratic held seats). Thus, the broader the narrative, the more difficult it is for the Democrats.
The Bottom Line
Voters in the 13 Battleground Senate seats – five held by Republicans, eight by Democrats – want to vote for Republicans. Voters in the four seats held by Democratic incumbents are unhappy with those incumbents and are in a mood for change. Delving into the survey, the crosstab data shows even more of an opportunity for Republicans to make major gains in these U.S. Senate seats than even the positive topline data indicates.
Independents are breaking heavily to the Republican candidates, and high interest voters provide significantly more support to the Republican candidates than the electorate overall.
Democrats in these Battleground Senate races are not only facing an enthusiasm gap, they are also facing a message gap. It is possible, albeit unlikely, that they can make up for with money what they are losing on turnout interest and on message. But, as recent elections have once
again shown, when voters are unhappy with the party running Washington, problems of message and turnout trump financial advantages. While some of the Democratic candidates in these thirteen Battleground Senate states may survive, given the way the electorate is moving against them, most of them will not.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_american_crossroads_survey_memo.html
Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey in 13 states with competitive U.S. Senate races (as
defined by The Cook Report). The survey was conducted among 1,300 likely voters on August 2-5, 2010. The survey has a margin of error of +2.72% in 95 out of 100 cases. The states surveyed were Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
The survey questionnaire was nearly identical to the one used by Public Opinion Strategies and Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research (GQR) for the June NPR survey of House Battleground districts. Neither GQR nor NPR was involved at all in this poll. A few demographic and ballot
intensity questions were cut from this survey, as was one issue question asking favor/oppose a bill “Congress is considering that would create new rules for banks and other financial institutions.”
Key Findings
1. The Battleground Senate states do not look good for the Democrats.
The Republican candidate leads on the ballot 47%-39% across the 13 Battleground
Senate states. The lead is 45%-37% in the Republican-held states (Florida, Kentucky,
Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio), and 47%-40% in Democratic-held states
(Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and
Washington). U.S. Senate Battleground Survey
This is not the same as a generic ballot. We tested the specific candidates by name and party in every state but Colorado (where there are no clear primary frontrunners) in which case we tested “Republican” versus “Democratic” candidate. In Florida, we included Charlie Crist as a no party affiliation candidate.
Key findings in the crosstabs include:
* Independents are voting Republican by 47%-25% across the Battleground states.
* In the four states John McCain won in 2008, the GOPer leads 46%-36%. In the nine states Barack Obama won, the GOPer still leads 47%-40%, including 50%-38% in the five states Obama won with less than 55%, and 43%-42% in the fourObama 55%+ states.
* There is a 21 point gender gap. Men are voting GOP 52%-33%, while women
split 42% GOP/44% Dem.
* As seen nearly everywhere else, the Democratic candidates face a wide
enthusiasm gap. The GOPer leads 52%-36% among high interest voters (rating
their interest as 8-10 on a 1-10 scale, which is 74% of the sample).
2. The political environment in these 13 Battleground Senate states is similar to the national picture.
Only 33% of voters say the country is going in the right direction, and 61% say the country is pretty seriously off on the wrong track. Among Independents, only 21% say right direction, while 68% say wrong track.
President Obama has a polarized 47% approve/50% disapprove job rating. By intensity,28% strongly approve, and 41% strongly disapprove. Independents are slightly more negative – 42% approve/50% disapprove.
3. There is a gale force wind blowing against the four Democratic incumbents running in these battleground states.
Respondents were asked to rate the job their Senator (specifically named) is doing and whether he/she deserves re-election, the results don’t look positive for those four incumbents. Only 42% approve and 44% disapprove of their incumbent Senator. And,on the re-elect/new person question, just 34% would vote to re-elect their incumbent Senator, while 55% prefer a new person.(The four incumbents are Blanche Lincoln, Michael Bennet, Harry Reid, and Patty Murray. Each were named on those two questions in the interviews done in their states.)
4. There is a massive fight brewing on the economy.
We split sampled two questions about the economy, underscoring that the messaging on the economy is crucial to the perspective voters take. The
first question was:
53% President Obama’s economic policies have run up a record federal deficit while failing to end the recession or slow the record pace of job losses.
...or...
43% President Obama’s economic policies helped avert an even worse crisis, and are laying the foundation for our eventual economic recovery.
The second question was:
33% President Obama is more responsible for the problems with the economy.
...or...
52% Former President Bush is more responsible for the problems with the economy.
Thus, Democrats will want the fight to focus on former President Bush, while Republicans will want the campaign message about the economy to focus on the impact and result of President Obama’s policies.
5. Republicans win four of the main policy fights of the campaign – jobs/economy, health care, Wall Street, and the perspective of the last two years.
These message fights were the same as tested on the bi-partisan NPR survey in June. The Republican messages were developed by Glen Bolger, and the Democratic messages were written by Stan Greenberg back in June (Stan Greenberg IS NOT AWARE OF this adaptation of the earlier project). Rather than change the messaging on one side or the other, for comparison with that project we left the wording the same. The advantage for the GOP was not as sizable on all of the messages as it was in the House Battleground poll, but it was substantial nonetheless:
* The Republican message on jobs and the economy won by eight points, 52%-
44%. In the eight Democratic-held seats (incumbent plus open), the GOPer won 51%-46%.
* Health care was the closest fight, a 51%-46% GOP win. It was a tie in the eight Democratic seats (49% each).
* On financial reform, the GOP message won 52%-44%, and 51%-45% in the eight Democratic seats.
* The biggest GOP win came on the overall message fight by a 54%-42% margin
(same result in just the eight Democratic held seats). Thus, the broader the narrative, the more difficult it is for the Democrats.
The Bottom Line
Voters in the 13 Battleground Senate seats – five held by Republicans, eight by Democrats – want to vote for Republicans. Voters in the four seats held by Democratic incumbents are unhappy with those incumbents and are in a mood for change. Delving into the survey, the crosstab data shows even more of an opportunity for Republicans to make major gains in these U.S. Senate seats than even the positive topline data indicates.
Independents are breaking heavily to the Republican candidates, and high interest voters provide significantly more support to the Republican candidates than the electorate overall.
Democrats in these Battleground Senate races are not only facing an enthusiasm gap, they are also facing a message gap. It is possible, albeit unlikely, that they can make up for with money what they are losing on turnout interest and on message. But, as recent elections have once
again shown, when voters are unhappy with the party running Washington, problems of message and turnout trump financial advantages. While some of the Democratic candidates in these thirteen Battleground Senate states may survive, given the way the electorate is moving against them, most of them will not.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM156_american_crossroads_survey_memo.html
HATCH INTRODUCES BILL TO REDUCE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO 2009 LEVELS
August 5th, 2010 Press Release
WASHINGTON –Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation today aimed at cutting the bloated federal government down to size. The Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act
would reduce and limit the number of civilian federal workers to February 2009 levels.
“If we are to get our deficit under control, we need to rein in the runaway growth of our federal government,” Hatch said. “Simply put, the federal government is growing at breakneck speed and it is time to apply the brakes before it bankrupts the nation and the taxpayers. My bill is a commonsense approach to putting a halt to big government.”
Hatch said the numbers show why his legislation is needed. In 2008, there were 1.2 million civilian workers. In 2010, that number jumps to 1.43 million federal workers.
“That’s a 20 percent increase since 2008,” Hatch said. “In 1974, former President Gerald Ford said: ‘A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.’ Today, we have an administration that seems hell bent on doing just that. That is unacceptable.”
The legislation would require the following:
• Three months after enactment, the head of each government agency – other than the CIA, FBI, Secret Service and Executive Office of President – will report the number of civilian employees within that agency on Feb 16, 2009, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
• If the number of employees is greater than existed on Feb 16, 2009, then each agency (except the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security) must, through attrition, reduce the number of employees to Feb. 16, 2009, levels
• Once the number of employees reaches Feb 16, 2009, levels, the head of each agency must ensure that those numbers remain the same. Thus, a hiring of a full time employee would require the reduction of another employee.
• The OMB would publicly disclose the total number of federal employees, the number of federal employees in each agency, and the salary of each federal employee.
• The Director of National Intelligence can exclude any employee from the above requirements if the director determines that such a disclosure would pose a threat to national security.
Hatch’s bill legislation is supported by the American Conservative Union, Americans for Limited Government and Americans for Tax Reform .
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=4415a1f0-1b78-be3e-e0fa-fbe5e6b03e71&suppresslayouts=true
WASHINGTON –Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced legislation today aimed at cutting the bloated federal government down to size. The Reduce and Cap the Federal Workforce Act
would reduce and limit the number of civilian federal workers to February 2009 levels.
“If we are to get our deficit under control, we need to rein in the runaway growth of our federal government,” Hatch said. “Simply put, the federal government is growing at breakneck speed and it is time to apply the brakes before it bankrupts the nation and the taxpayers. My bill is a commonsense approach to putting a halt to big government.”
Hatch said the numbers show why his legislation is needed. In 2008, there were 1.2 million civilian workers. In 2010, that number jumps to 1.43 million federal workers.
“That’s a 20 percent increase since 2008,” Hatch said. “In 1974, former President Gerald Ford said: ‘A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.’ Today, we have an administration that seems hell bent on doing just that. That is unacceptable.”
The legislation would require the following:
• Three months after enactment, the head of each government agency – other than the CIA, FBI, Secret Service and Executive Office of President – will report the number of civilian employees within that agency on Feb 16, 2009, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
• If the number of employees is greater than existed on Feb 16, 2009, then each agency (except the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security) must, through attrition, reduce the number of employees to Feb. 16, 2009, levels
• Once the number of employees reaches Feb 16, 2009, levels, the head of each agency must ensure that those numbers remain the same. Thus, a hiring of a full time employee would require the reduction of another employee.
• The OMB would publicly disclose the total number of federal employees, the number of federal employees in each agency, and the salary of each federal employee.
• The Director of National Intelligence can exclude any employee from the above requirements if the director determines that such a disclosure would pose a threat to national security.
Hatch’s bill legislation is supported by the American Conservative Union, Americans for Limited Government and Americans for Tax Reform .
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Print&PressRelease_id=4415a1f0-1b78-be3e-e0fa-fbe5e6b03e71&suppresslayouts=true
Federal workers earning double their private counterparts
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.
What the data show:
•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.
•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.
•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm
Monday, August 9, 2010
The Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime:
Extravagant and out of touch with the American people
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: August 7th, 2010
What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.
The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.
The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”
There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050002/the-obama-presidency-increasingly-resembles-a-modern-day-ancien-regime-extravagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: August 7th, 2010
What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.
It is the kind of impunity that has been highlighted on the world stage this week by Michelle Obama’s hugely costly trip to Spain, which has prompted a New York Post columnist Andrea Tantaros to dub the First Lady a contemporary Marie Antoinette. As The Telegraph reports, while the Obamas are covering their own vacation expenses such as accommodation, the trip may cost US taxpayers as much as $375,000 in terms of secret service security and flight costs on Air Force Two.
The timing of this lavish European vacation could not have come at a worse moment, when unemployment in America stands at 10 percent, and large numbers of Americans are fighting to survive financially in the wake of the global economic downturn. It sends a message of indifference, even contempt, for the millions of Americans who are struggling just to feed their families on a daily basis and pay the mortgage, while the size of the national debt balloons to Greek-style proportions.
While the liberal-dominated US mainstream media have largely ignored the story, it is all over the blogosphere and talk radio, and will undoubtedly add to the President’s free falling poll ratings. As much as the media establishment turn a blind eye to stories like this, which are major news in the international media, the American public is increasingly turning to alternative news sources, including the British press, which has a far less deferential approach towards the White House.
The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Marbella and the complete disregard for public opinion and concerns over excessive government spending is symbolic of a far wider problem with the Obama presidency – the overarching disdain for the principles of limited government, individual liberty and free enterprise that have built the United States over the course of nearly two and a half centuries into the most powerful and free nation on earth.
It is epitomised above all by the President’s relentless drive towards big government against the will of the American people, and the dramatic increases in government spending and borrowing, which threaten to leave the US hugely in debt for generations. It is also showcased by Barack Obama’s drive towards a socialised health care system, which, as I’ve noted before, is “a thinly disguised vanity project for a president who is committed to transforming the United States from the world’s most successful large-scale free enterprise economy, to a highly interventionist society with a massive role for centralized government.”
There is however a political revolution fast approaching Washington that is driven not by mob rule but by the power of ideas and principles, based upon the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution. It is a distinctly conservative revolution that is sweeping America and is reflected in almost every poll ahead of this November’s mid-terms. It is based on a belief in individual liberty, limited government, and above all, political accountability from the ruling elites. The Obama administration’s mantra may well be “let them eat cake”, as it continues to gorge itself on taxpayers’ money, but it will be looking nervously over its shoulder as public unease mounts.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050002/the-obama-presidency-increasingly-resembles-a-modern-day-ancien-regime-extravagant-and-out-of-touch-with-ordinary-people/
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Housing Policy’s Third Rail
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: August 7, 2010
WHILE Congress toiled on the financial overhaul last spring, precious little was said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies that collapsed spectacularly two years ago.
Indeed, these wards of the state got just two mentions in the 1,500-page law known as Dodd-Frank: first, when it ordered the Treasury to produce a study on ending the taxpayer-owned status of the companies and, second, in a “sense of the Congress” passage stating that efforts to improve the nation’s mortgage credit system “would be incomplete without enactment of meaningful structural reforms” of Fannie and Freddie.
No kidding.
With midterm elections near, though, there will be talk aplenty about dealing with the companies precisely because Dodd-Frank didn’t address them. Unfortunately, if past is prologue, this talk is likely to be more political than practical.
Fannie and Freddie amplified the housing boom by buying mortgages from lenders, allowing them to originate even more loans. They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T. But after both companies bought boatloads of risky mortgages, they required a federal rescue.
The Treasury’s study on Fannie, Freddie and housing finance must be delivered to Congress by the end of January 2011. In a speech last week, Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, told a New York audience that resolving the companies isn’t “rocket science.”
But attaining genuine remedies for our housing finance system could actually be harder than rocket science. That’s because it would require an honest dialogue about the role the federal government should play in housing. It also requires a candid conversation about whether promoting homeownership through tax policy and other federal efforts remains a good idea, given the economic disaster we’ve just lived through.
Alas, honest dialogues on third-rail topics like housing have proved to be a bridge too far for many in Washington. So, what we may hear instead about Fannie and Freddie before the elections is a lot of sound and fury signifying a stealthy return to the status quo.
This would be unfortunate, not only because the financial crisis presents a rare opportunity to reassess the supposed benefits of homeownership but also because there was a lot not to like about the way these companies operated and the ways their friends in Congress enabled that behavior.
Outwardly, Fannie and Freddie wrapped themselves in the American flag and the dream of homeownership. But internally, they were relentless in their pursuit of profits from partners in the mortgage boom. One of their biggest and most steadfast collaborators was Countrywide, the subprime lending machine run by Angelo R. Mozilo.
Countrywide was the biggest supplier of loans to Fannie during the mania; in 2004, it sold 26 percent of the loans Fannie bought. Three years later, it was selling 28 percent. What Countrywide got out of the relationship was clear — a buyer for its dubious loans. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for those losses.
But what was in it for Fannie?
An internal Fannie document from 2004 obtained by The New York Times sheds light on this question. A “Customer Engagement Plan” for Countrywide, it shows how assiduously Fannie pursued Mr. Mozilo and 14 of his lieutenants to make sure the company continued to shovel loans its way.
Nine bullet points fall under the heading “Fannie Mae’s Top Strategic Business Objectives With Lender.” The first: “Deepen relationship at all levels throughout CHL and Fannie Mae to foster alignment and collaboration between our companies at every opportunity.” (CHL refers to Countrywide Home Loans.) No. 2: “Create barriers to exit partnership.” Next: “Disciplined Risk/Servicing Management” and “Achieve Fannie Mae Profitability Goals.”
(Later in 2004, by the way, the Securities and Exchange Commission found that Fannie had used improper accounting and ordered it to restate its earnings for the previous four years. Some $6.3 billion in profit was wiped out.)
The engagement plan also recommends ways that Fannie executives should mingle with Countrywide’s top management, because “fostering more direct senior level engagements with key influencers throughout their organization will be beneficial in ensuring strategic alignment and building organizational loyalty.”
RECOMMENDATIONS included conferring with Mr. Mozilo at Habitat for Humanity golf tournaments and Mortgage Bankers Association conventions. Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s C.E.O., and Daniel H. Mudd, then its chief operating officer, were advised to see Mr. Mozilo twice a year. “We will be successful when Angelo influences the industry or his organization on our behalf,” the document says. Mr. Raines didn’t respond to e-mails requesting comment last Friday; he left Fannie in December 2004.
The memo advised pursuing other Countrywide executives: “Deep Rapport” should be the goal with David E. Sambol, the lender’s president, but because he did not “heavily attend outside events” Fannie executives should “look for opportunities for meetings” at Countrywide headquarters.
“We will be successful if we can foster ongoing communication channels that allow us to understand and leverage Sambol’s priorities and demonstrate our commitment to making him successful,” the memo stated. Mr. Sambol and Mr. Mozilo could not be reached for comment.
For his part, Mr. Mudd, now the chief executive of the Fortress Investment Group, said Fannie’s courting of Countrywide was not unusual. “We tried to build a program that was based on having multiple strong relationships with our main customers,” he said. “You want to be sure that the first call is not the last call, that a customer is not doing business with you anymore.”
But Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he has concerns about such mating dances.
“Lost in the debate over how best to legislate the aftermath of the financial crisis has been the necessity to conduct an inward examination of the too-cozy relationship between government enterprises and private industry,” Mr. Issa said. “The true nature of this strategic partnership between Countrywide and Fannie-Freddie should be exposed so we can measure the extent to which it fostered the conditions leading to the financial meltdown.”
Understanding how these companies operated is crucial if we want to avoid repeating the mistakes of our recent past. So, when you hear about Fannie and Freddie reform this fall, remember that we still don’t know the half of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html
Published: August 7, 2010
WHILE Congress toiled on the financial overhaul last spring, precious little was said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies that collapsed spectacularly two years ago.
Indeed, these wards of the state got just two mentions in the 1,500-page law known as Dodd-Frank: first, when it ordered the Treasury to produce a study on ending the taxpayer-owned status of the companies and, second, in a “sense of the Congress” passage stating that efforts to improve the nation’s mortgage credit system “would be incomplete without enactment of meaningful structural reforms” of Fannie and Freddie.
No kidding.
With midterm elections near, though, there will be talk aplenty about dealing with the companies precisely because Dodd-Frank didn’t address them. Unfortunately, if past is prologue, this talk is likely to be more political than practical.
Fannie and Freddie amplified the housing boom by buying mortgages from lenders, allowing them to originate even more loans. They grew into behemoths because they lobbied aggressively and played the Washington political game to a T. But after both companies bought boatloads of risky mortgages, they required a federal rescue.
The Treasury’s study on Fannie, Freddie and housing finance must be delivered to Congress by the end of January 2011. In a speech last week, Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, told a New York audience that resolving the companies isn’t “rocket science.”
But attaining genuine remedies for our housing finance system could actually be harder than rocket science. That’s because it would require an honest dialogue about the role the federal government should play in housing. It also requires a candid conversation about whether promoting homeownership through tax policy and other federal efforts remains a good idea, given the economic disaster we’ve just lived through.
Alas, honest dialogues on third-rail topics like housing have proved to be a bridge too far for many in Washington. So, what we may hear instead about Fannie and Freddie before the elections is a lot of sound and fury signifying a stealthy return to the status quo.
This would be unfortunate, not only because the financial crisis presents a rare opportunity to reassess the supposed benefits of homeownership but also because there was a lot not to like about the way these companies operated and the ways their friends in Congress enabled that behavior.
Outwardly, Fannie and Freddie wrapped themselves in the American flag and the dream of homeownership. But internally, they were relentless in their pursuit of profits from partners in the mortgage boom. One of their biggest and most steadfast collaborators was Countrywide, the subprime lending machine run by Angelo R. Mozilo.
Countrywide was the biggest supplier of loans to Fannie during the mania; in 2004, it sold 26 percent of the loans Fannie bought. Three years later, it was selling 28 percent. What Countrywide got out of the relationship was clear — a buyer for its dubious loans. Now the taxpayer is on the hook for those losses.
But what was in it for Fannie?
An internal Fannie document from 2004 obtained by The New York Times sheds light on this question. A “Customer Engagement Plan” for Countrywide, it shows how assiduously Fannie pursued Mr. Mozilo and 14 of his lieutenants to make sure the company continued to shovel loans its way.
Nine bullet points fall under the heading “Fannie Mae’s Top Strategic Business Objectives With Lender.” The first: “Deepen relationship at all levels throughout CHL and Fannie Mae to foster alignment and collaboration between our companies at every opportunity.” (CHL refers to Countrywide Home Loans.) No. 2: “Create barriers to exit partnership.” Next: “Disciplined Risk/Servicing Management” and “Achieve Fannie Mae Profitability Goals.”
(Later in 2004, by the way, the Securities and Exchange Commission found that Fannie had used improper accounting and ordered it to restate its earnings for the previous four years. Some $6.3 billion in profit was wiped out.)
The engagement plan also recommends ways that Fannie executives should mingle with Countrywide’s top management, because “fostering more direct senior level engagements with key influencers throughout their organization will be beneficial in ensuring strategic alignment and building organizational loyalty.”
RECOMMENDATIONS included conferring with Mr. Mozilo at Habitat for Humanity golf tournaments and Mortgage Bankers Association conventions. Franklin D. Raines, then Fannie’s C.E.O., and Daniel H. Mudd, then its chief operating officer, were advised to see Mr. Mozilo twice a year. “We will be successful when Angelo influences the industry or his organization on our behalf,” the document says. Mr. Raines didn’t respond to e-mails requesting comment last Friday; he left Fannie in December 2004.
The memo advised pursuing other Countrywide executives: “Deep Rapport” should be the goal with David E. Sambol, the lender’s president, but because he did not “heavily attend outside events” Fannie executives should “look for opportunities for meetings” at Countrywide headquarters.
“We will be successful if we can foster ongoing communication channels that allow us to understand and leverage Sambol’s priorities and demonstrate our commitment to making him successful,” the memo stated. Mr. Sambol and Mr. Mozilo could not be reached for comment.
For his part, Mr. Mudd, now the chief executive of the Fortress Investment Group, said Fannie’s courting of Countrywide was not unusual. “We tried to build a program that was based on having multiple strong relationships with our main customers,” he said. “You want to be sure that the first call is not the last call, that a customer is not doing business with you anymore.”
But Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he has concerns about such mating dances.
“Lost in the debate over how best to legislate the aftermath of the financial crisis has been the necessity to conduct an inward examination of the too-cozy relationship between government enterprises and private industry,” Mr. Issa said. “The true nature of this strategic partnership between Countrywide and Fannie-Freddie should be exposed so we can measure the extent to which it fostered the conditions leading to the financial meltdown.”
Understanding how these companies operated is crucial if we want to avoid repeating the mistakes of our recent past. So, when you hear about Fannie and Freddie reform this fall, remember that we still don’t know the half of it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/business/08gret.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)