Tag: National Journal

National Journal: Top Obama Advisers Admit IRS Could Have Been Asked to Suppress Political Dissidents

I have already blogged about Ron Fournier’s remarkable National Journal column on how President Obama’s many scandals make it hard to support big government. But there’s an item buried in that column that bears highlighting:

If investigators uncover even a single email or conversation between conservative-targeting IRS agents and either the White House or Obama’s campaign, incompetence will be the least of the president’s problems.

Team Obama has publicly denied any knowledge of (or involvement in) the targeting. Privately, top advisers admit that they don’t know if the denials are true, because a thorough investigation has yet to be conducted. No emails have been subpoenaed. No Obama aides put under oath.

It seems Fournier has multiple sources close to the president who have basically said, “Did someone in the administration tell the IRS to suppress our opponents? Ehh, maybe.”

Pell Grants Best for Buying Votes

Quite simply, Pell Grants are not supposed to be for the middle class. As the U.S. Department of Education’s website makes clear, Pell is supposed to be for “low-income undergraduate and certain postbaccalaureate students.”

So why characterize Pell as a benefit for the middle class? Because lots of people consider themselves to be in that group — which federal politicians rarely define — and policymakers want their votes.

Unfortunately, as Rep. George Miller (D-CA) recently demonstrated, saying Pell is intended for the middle class also makes it a valuable weapon in waging class warfare.

“Pell is the reason they are able to go to college and get ahead,” Miller said in response to congressional Republicans purportedly looking to trim the program as part of debt reduction. “It’s a shameful excuse and an attack on middle class families.”

Other than their usefulness in browbeating those who’d dare propose education cuts, Pell Grants are, at best, of limited value. Yes, they are needed by some people to go to college, but that’s because they are largely built into college prices. Basically, give me a dollar more to pay for school and my college will charge me another buck.

Of course it’s not just Pell that influences prices — there are lots of other sources of aid, and colleges confront numerous variables that affect their costs — but subsidize something and prices will go up. And boy, do they go up in higher education!

One last consideration is crucial but rarely mentioned. One of the great political benefits of Pell is that to recipients it’s free dough — no need to pay it back. That lets politicians play Santa Claus, not the mean banker who sinisterly comes after you to return student-loan money, plus interest. But keep in mind what, in most cases, college is ultimately for: to enable attendees to greatly increase their earnings. In light of that, how can politicians justify simply giving away money from taxpayers? Quick answer: They can’t.

Were you or I to do that it would be called “stealing.” When government does it, apparently, it’s called “helping the middle-class.”

C/P from the National Journal’sEducation Experts” blog.

Will the Deficit Compel Congress to Cut Military Spending?

Over at National Journal’s National Security Experts blog, Megan Scully notes the military spending cuts contained within a proposal by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the president’s deficit reduction commission. Scully asks: “How feasible would it be for lawmakers to make these kinds of cuts to defense?…What kind of sway will fiscal hawks have in the next Congress - and will it be enough to push through sweeping defense cuts over the objections from pro-defense members of their party?”

Government spending across the board must be cut, I explain, beginning especially with entitlements.  I continue:

Other spending must also be on the table, however, and that includes the roughly 23 percent of the federal budget that goes to the military. This often poses a particular challenge for Republicans given their traditional support for military spending and their professed commitment to fiscal discipline. But it need not be particularly difficult. If Republicans reaffirm that the core function of government, many would say one of the only core functions of government, is defense (strictly speaking), then the path to a politically sustainable and economically sound defense posture is clear: a military geared to defending the United States and its vital national interests, and not permanently deployed as the world’s policeman and armed social worker. Such a posture would allow for a smaller Army and Marine Corps as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are drawn to a close (as they should be), deep cuts in the Pentagon’s civilian work force, which has grown dramatically over the past 10 years, and sensible reductions in the nuclear arsenal. More modest cuts are warranted in intelligence and R&D. Finally, significant changes in a number of costly and unnecessary weapons and platforms, including terminating the V-22 Osprey and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, and greater scrutiny of the F-35 program, for example, must also be in the mix….

Serious cuts to military spending… must be part of a broader strategic reset that ends the free-riding of wealthy and stable allies around the world, and that takes a more balanced and objective view of our relative strategic advantages and our enviable security.

 You can read the rest of my response here.

Secretary Sebelius Slips on the Brass Knuckles

This week saw more bad news for ObamaCare.  So the Obama administration slipped on the brass knuckles.

Last week brought news that health insurance premiums grew by a smaller increment in 2010 than in any of the past 10 years.  On Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that ObamaCare appears to be turning that around:

Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators.

The Journal even included this handy chart, where the blue bars show how much ObamaCare will add to the cost of certain health plans in 2011.

Source: Wall Street Journal

In addition, a Mercer survey of employers found that 79 percent expect they will lose their “grandfathered” status by 2014, and therefore will become subject to many more of ObamaCare’s new mandates—a much higher figure than the administration had estimated.  Employers expect those additional mandates will increase premiums by 2.3 percent, on average, and boost the overall growth of premiums from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent in 2011.

In response to the health insurers’ claims, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius fired off a letter to the head of the health insurance lobby.  The news release on the HHS website makes her purpose plain:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act.  Sebelius noted that the consumer protections and out-of-pocket savings provided for in the Affordable Care Act should result in a minimal impact on premiums for most Americans.  Further, she reminded health plans that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.

In the letter, Sebelius cites HHS’s internal analyses and those of Mercer and other groups to support her claim that ObamaCare’s impact on premiums “will be minimal” — somewhere in the range of 1 percent to 2.3 percent, on average.  Sebelius tells insurers that she will show “zero tolerance” for insurers who “falsely” blame premium increases on ObamaCare, and promises aggressive action against those who do:


[We] will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers… We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014.  Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.

First of all, how does Sebelius know these claims are false?  The analyses she cites project a 1-2 percent average increase in premiums. As I blogged back in June, her own agency estimated that just a couple of ObamaCare’s mandates will increase premiums for some health plans by 7 percent or more.  Is 9 percent really that far off?  Didn’t her own agency write that a “paucity of data” means there is “tremendous,” “substantial,” and “considerable” uncertainty about the reliability of their own estimates?

More important: so what if insurers believe that ObamaCare is increasing premiums by 9 percent, while Sebelius believes it only increased premiums 7 percent?  What business does she have threatening insurers because they disagree with her in public?  ObamaCare gave the HHS secretary considerable new powers.  Is one of those the power to regulate what insurers say about ObamaCare?  Excluding insurers from ObamaCare’s exchanges is not a minor threat.  Medicare’s chief actuary predicts that in the future, “essentially all” Americans will get their health insurance through those exchanges.  Does anyone seriously doubt that Sebelius’ threat is about protecting politicians rather than consumers?

When President Obama promised that he would sell ObamaCare to the American people, most people probably assumed he meant with his rhetorical skills.  But National Journal reports, “Remember how the administration was going ‘to sell’ the controversial legislation once it passed? Obama is not doing much pitching.”  He can’t even sell Jon Stewart on ObamaCare.  The administration seems to have settled on a different sales strategy: intimidate those who say unflattering things about ObamaCare.

Earlier this year, I predicted that ObamaCare would get uglier and more corrupt over time.  I didn’t know I’d be proven right so quickly.

Credit Where It’s Due, National Journal Edition

A week ago today, I questioned both the premises and purpose of an upcoming National Journal forum on ObamaCare and job creation.  The forum’s promotional materials touted the new health care jobs that the law will create as a Good Thing, even though we already have too many health care jobs.  All in all, it looked to be a very dignified pro-Obama(Care) rally, funded by one of ObamaCare’s biggest beneficiaries, the drugmaker Eli Lilly.  The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney picked up on the story.  Then Instapundit added his own pithy interpretation: “Hey, the Atlantic media empire needs money. Eli Lilly has it. Plus, it boosts Obama. Win-win!”  (Actually, I believe that would be win-win-win.)

To its credit, National Journal has since added balance to the forum and its panel.  I received a promotional email today that reframes the event by asking, “are the right jobs being created?” (Emphasis mine.)  They’ve also added AEI’s Tom Miller to the panel, who I’m guessing will cast a skeptical eye on the value added by these new health care jobs. Now the event looks to be a dignified and balanced discussion of ObamaCare.

National Journal still describes ObamaCare as “reform,” which I submit compromises objectivity.  But this is progress.  Kudos to them.

Is National Journal Giving ObamaCare a Big, Wet Smooch?

Come September, National Journal will host a policy summit titled “Prescription For Growth,” funded by Eli Lilly, that will probe “the potential impact of recently passed health care reform as an economic engine” and ask whether “health care reform [will] serve as a jobs creator and accelerate growth in health-related industries?”

Oy, where to begin?

I suppose I could start with how a news organization that bills itself as “the leading source of nonpartisan reporting” could lend ObamaCare a positive gloss by calling it “reform” – a term that even NPR declines to ascribe to actual legislation (for that reason).

Next, there’s this inane question of whether ObamaCare will spur job growth in the health care sector.  With two new health care entitlements and maybe a trillion dollars of new health spending…gosh, d’ya think?

But then there’s the presumption that creating new health care jobs is a good thing.  You’d think it would be.  After all, unemployment is near 10 percent.  But one of our biggest health care problems is that there are too many health care jobs.  The Dartmouth Institute’s Elliot Fisher has quipped, “In theory, we could send a third of the U.S. health care workforce to Africa and improve the health of both continents.”  ObamaCare will just make this country’s health care sector even more bloated and inefficient.

Wrap your head around all that this summit aims to accomplish.  It could give a boost to an unpopular and embattled law by taking one of the law’s biggest liabilities and dressing it up as an asset.  It could create a meme that helps turn around President Obama’s low approval rating on the economy – never mind that ObamaCare is stifling the right kind of job creation.

Of course, I may have this summit all wrong.  It may give all these issues a fair hearing.

Did I mention the summit’s sponsor is one of the biggest special-interest beneficiaries of ObamaCare?  (Tim Carney, call your office.)