<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: congressional</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'congressional'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22congressional%22&t=%22congressional%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:16:22 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>New CBO Numbers Confirm – Once Again – that Modest Spending Restraint Can Balance the Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5158943&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FkYybUa_rHFo%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellThe Congressional Budget Office has just released the update to its Economic and Budget Outlook.
There are several things from this new report that probably deserve commentary, including a new estimate that unemployment will &amp;#8220;remain above 8 percent until 2014.&amp;#8221;
This certainly doesn&amp;#8217;t reflect well on the Obama White House, which claimed that flushing $800 billion down the Washington rathole would prevent the joblessness rate from ever climbing above 8 percent.
Not that I have any faith in CBO estimates. After all, those bureaucrats still embrace Keynesian economics.
But this post is not about the backwards economics at CBO. Instead, I want to look at the new budget forecast and see what degree of fiscal discipline is necessary to get rid of red ink.
Th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5158943</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:34:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5158943</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Debunking the Left’s Tax Burden Deception</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5077664&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5l-dpRVXrKU%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI testified yesterday before the Joint Economic Committee about budget process reform. As part of the Q&amp;A session after the testimony, one of the Democratic members made a big deal about the fact that federal tax revenues today are &amp;#8220;only&amp;#8221; consuming about 15 percent of GDP. And since the long-run average is about 18 percent of GDP, we are all supposed to conclude that a substantial tax hike is needed as part of what President Obama calls a &amp;#8220;balanced approach&amp;#8221; to red ink.
But it&amp;#8217;s not just statist politicians making this argument. After making fun of his assertion that Obama is a conservative, I was hoping to ignore Bruce Bartlett for a while, but I noticed that he has a piece on the New York Times website also implying that America&amp;#821...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5077664</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 12:40:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5077664</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Government Subsidizes and Penalizes Boeing Co.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5050536&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FwUHSFnB7htA%2F</link>
            <description>When an entity is as mammoth and undisciplined as the $3.8 trillion U.S. federal government, it’s inevitable that its programs will be working at cross purposes. Just ask the civil aircraft manufacturer Boeing Company.
Politicians love Boeing because it not only makes valuable products but it also exports billions of dollars worth around the globe. To give a boost to those exports and supposedly create more jobs in the United States, the federal government’s Export-Import Bank offers preferential loans to foreign governments and airlines to help them buy more Boeing aircraft.
As my Cato colleague Sallie James documents in a new study, “Time to X Out the Ex-Im Bank,” 
the number-one user of the Ex-Im Bank is the Boeing Company. Of the 35 aircraft sales supported by Ex-Im in FY2010, ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5050536</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:52:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5050536</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CBO Report Reveals Spending Disaster</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4968470&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fzi2qAyxyu4s%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsNew projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that without reforms rising federal spending will fundamental reshape America’s economy, and not in a good way. Under the CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario,” the federal government will consume an 86 percent greater share of the economy in 2035 than it did a decade ago (33.9 percent of GDP compared to 18.2 percent).
The CBO report and many centrist budget wonks focus more on the problem of rising federal debt than on rising spending. As a result, many wonks clamor for a “balanced” package of spending cuts and tax increases to solve our fiscal problems. But CBO projections show that the long-term debt problem is not a balanced one—it is caused by historic increases in spending, not shortages of revenues...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4968470</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:20:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4968470</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CBO’s Long-Term Budget Outlook</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4960039&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMwSOG5P2eGc%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe Congressional Budget Office released the latest edition of its annual forecast of where the federal government’s budget is headed. The numbers are new but the message is the same: the budget is on an unsustainable path. According to the CBO’s more politically-realistic “alternative scenario,” federal debt as a share of GDP will hit 109 percent in 2021 and would approach 190 percent in 2035.
For those mistaken souls who believe that merely eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in government programs can solve the problem, the CBO has news for you:
In the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO’s) long-term projections of spending, growth in noninterest spending as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is attributable entirely to increases in spending on severa...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4960039</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:39:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4960039</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Will Obama Comply with the War Powers Resolution?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4841427&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fku2dMnrIqz8%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleSix Republican senators are challenging President Obama&amp;#8217;s authority to conduct an open-ended war in Libya without congressional authorization. The six conservative lawmakers (Rand Paul (R-KY), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and John Cornyn (R-TX)) sent a letter to the president on May 18th asking if he intends to comply with the War Powers Resolution. The full text of the letter can be found here.
The law stipulates that the president must terminate military operations within 60 days, unless Congress explicitly authorizes the action, or grants an extension. The clock on the Libya operation started ticking on March 19, 2011. Congress has neither formally approved of the mission, nor has it granted an extension. The...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4841427</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2011 20:49:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4841427</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Spending: Ryan vs. Obama</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684277&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fjerptwu4EFo%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsHouse Budget Committee Chairman, Paul Ryan, introduced his budget resolution for fiscal 2012 and beyond today entitled “The Path to Prosperity.” The plan would cut some spending programs, reduce top income tax rates, and reform Medicare and Medicaid. The following two charts compare spending levels under Chairman Ryan’s plan and President Obama’s recent budget (as scored by the Congressional Budget Office).
Figure 1 shows that spending rises more slowly over the next decade under Ryan’s plan than Obama’s plan. But spending rises substantially under both plans—between 2012 and 2021, spending rises 34 percent under Ryan and 55 percent under Obama.

Figure 2 compares Ryan’s and Obama’s proposed spending levels at the end of the 10-year budget window in 2021. ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684277</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:54:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684277</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bailout Coming for the Postal Service?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4605809&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCMScOf5gXHM%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe U.S. Postal Service is in financial trouble. Undermined by advances in electronic communication, weighed down by excessive labor costs and operationally straitjacketed by Congress, the government’s mail monopoly is running on fumes and faces large unfunded liabilities. Socialism apparently has its limits.
While the Europeans continue to shift away from government-run postal monopolies toward market liberalization, policymakers in the United States still have their heads stuck in the twentieth century. That means looking for an easy way out, which in Washington usually means a bailout.
Self-interested parties – including the postal unions, mailers, and postal management – have coalesced around the notion that the U.S. Treasury owes the USPS somewhere around $50-$75 b...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4605809</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:48:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4605809</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many 215 Orders?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4489637&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNLLJlgI4aWw%2F</link>
            <description>By Julian SanchezThere was an interesting exchange during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing yesterday concerning the use of the Patriot Act's §215 orders for business records and other tangible things. FBI Director Robert Mueller hinted that the orders may have been used to track purchases of hydrogen peroxide purchases in the investigation of aspiring bomber Najibullah Zazi, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) asserted that there is &quot;a huge gap today between how you all are interpreting the PATRIOT Act and what the American people think the PATRIOT Act is all about and it’s going to need to be resolved.&quot;
Let's leave our curiosity about that by the wayside for the moment, though. I'm curious about one simple empirical claim Mueller made in his testimony: That the provision has been use...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4489637</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:27:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4489637</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Budget Follies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477706&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FkBtriqdFwnY%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena asks:
Is the Obama budget a serious stab at deficit reduction? And do congressional Republicans have any credibility in knocking the budget plan since, other than Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), they have not detailed many cuts that would seriously slice the deficit?
My response:
It's Valentine's Day and love is in the air, especially on Capitol Hill where Congress anxiously awaits the 10:00 a.m. arrival of the president's FY 2012 budget. It should be well shredded by noon.
And as it is, across the land we'll be hearing the cries of &quot;Not me, please, not my sinecure&quot; -- no more plaintively than from the minions of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. How will the average Chicago Bears fan endure without the latest BBC soap -- excuse me, Masterpiece Th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477706</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:25:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477706</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>’1099′ Repeal Speaks Volumes About ObamaCare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4445786&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSQe9ZSH2R2w%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonFrom my latest Kaiser Health News op-ed:
When 34 Senate Democrats joined all 47 Republicans last week to repeal ObamaCare's 1099 reporting requirement, their votes confirmed what their talking points still deny: ObamaCare will increase the deficit, no matter what the official cost projections say...
This public-choice dynamic [of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs] is why the Congressional Budget Office, the chief Medicare actuary, and even the International Monetary Fund have discredited the idea that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit. It is one of the principal reasons why, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, &quot;The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.&quot; In other words, the game is rigged in favor of bigger government.
It als...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4445786</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:22:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4445786</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Care Ruling a Victory for Federalism and Individual Liberty</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4419108&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCUMhMgUR9zY%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroToday&amp;#8217;s ruling vindicates the constitutional first principle that ours is a government of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers. Like Judge Hudson in the Virginia case, Judge Vinson recognized that the individual mandate represents an unprecedented and improper incursion beyond those powers: the federal government, under the guise of regulating commerce, cannot require that people engage in economic activity. 
And this is as it should be: if the only limit on congressional power were Congress&amp;#8217; own assessment of the wisdom of each assertion of such power, the Constitution would be obsolete &amp;#8212; as would any conception of checks and balances. James Madison, the author of the Federalist Paper (51) explaining how man&amp;#8217;s non-angelic nature requires ex...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4419108</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2011 20:17:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4419108</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New CBO Numbers Re-Confirm that Balancing the Budget Is Simple with Modest Fiscal Restraint</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4405756&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fi_fqsUVGRmQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellMany of the politicians in Washington, including President Obama during his State of the Union address, piously tell us that there is no way to balance the budget without tax increases. Trying to get rid of red ink without higher taxes, they tell us, would require &amp;#8220;savage&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;draconian&amp;#8221; budget cuts.
I would like to slash the budget and free up resources for private-sector growth, so that sounds good to me. But what&amp;#8217;s the truth?
The Congressional Budget Office has just released its 10-year projections for the budget, so I crunched the numbers to determine what it would take to balance the budget without tax hikes. Much to nobody&amp;#8217;s surprise, the politicians are not telling the truth.
The chart below shows that revenues are expected t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4405756</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:00:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4405756</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nondefense Discretionary Spending Freezes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4405760&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSNsR1IcCYoM%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenWhen it comes to reining in federal spending, House Republicans and the president have one idea in common: freezing nondefense discretionary spending. That category accounts for about 18 percent of total spending, so let’s see how such a freeze would affect the overall budget.
Today the Congressional Budget Office released updated budget figures and baseline projections of federal spending through fiscal 2021. Projecting the budgetary future is obviously an inexact science, and the CBO’s baseline reflects unrealistic assumptions. However, it does allow us to get an idea of the impact of a nondefense discretionary freeze on total federal spending.
Three proposals have been put forward:

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed freezing nondefense discret...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4405760</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 15:00:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4405760</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Healthcare Repeal: How Would It Affect Coverage And Cost?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337939&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealthcare-repeal-how-would-it-affect-coverage-and-cost%2F2011.01.11</link>
            <description>[Soon] the new GOP-controlled House of Representatives will be voting on and is expected to pass a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) &amp;#8211; lock, stock, and barrel. There is virtually no chance the repeal bill will get through the Senate, though, which maintains a narrow Democratic majority, and President Obama would veto it if it did.
But let’s say that the seemingly impossible happened, and the ACA was repealed. What would the impact be on healthcare coverage, costs, and the federal deficit?
In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its preliminary estimates of the impact of repeal on the deficit, uninsured, and costs of care, and found that it would make the deficit worse, result in more uninsured persons, and higher premiu...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337939</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337939</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Repealing Healthcare Reform To Gain Campaign Ammunition</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4331015&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Frepealing-healthcare-reform-to-gain-campaign-ammunition%2F2011.01.10</link>
            <description>Repealing healthcare reform has become a way of stockpiling ammunition for the campaign trail. The Republican-led House has scheduled a repeal of healthcare reform for Wednesday, Jan. 12, and they&amp;#8217;d garner as allies some but not all 13 Democrats that voted against healthcare reform to begin with. The House&amp;#8217;s quixotic vote would then promptly die in the Democrat-held Senate.
But recording votes on repeal would put pressure on already vulnerable lawmakers, as well as give a quick boost to incoming ones. A Gallup poll shows 46 percent of Americans want healthcare reform to be repealed, 40 percent don&amp;#8217;t want repeal.
Unfortunately, not only can&amp;#8217;t the law be passed, it would add $230 billion to the federal debt by 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Hous...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4331015</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4331015</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Republican Sellout Watch</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4322491&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FB1rlY0rXtbM%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellGrousing about the GOP&amp;#8217;s timidity in the battle against big government will probably become an ongoing theme over the next few months. Two items don&amp;#8217;t bode well for fiscal discipline.
First, it appears that Republicans didn&amp;#8217;t really mean it when they promised to cut $100 billion of so-called discretionary spending as part of their pledge. According to the New York Times,
As they prepare to take power on Wednesday, Republican leaders are scaling back that number by as much as half, aides say, because the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1, will be nearly half over before spending cuts could become law.
This is hardly good news, particularly since the discretionary portion of the budget contains entire departments, such as Housing and Urban Devel...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4322491</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:37:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4322491</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Healthcare Reform Will Hit Drug Prices: CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4159499&amp;cid=t_261318_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FgwDDlcchpMc%2F</link>
            <description>So what will health care reform mean to prescription drug pricing? In response to a query from Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin who is the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, the US Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 and come up with the following forecasts, which discuss price hikes and rebates&amp;#8230;
For instance, the new law is expected to raise prices paid by pharmacies, less any rebates paid by drugmakers to insurers, by about 1 percent, on average. That increase would slightly raise federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs for some beneficiaries, but the new discounts would make the costs faced by other beneficiaries substantially lower. T...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4159499</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:13:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4159499</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Our Tax Dollars Are Funding Bureaucrats Who Advise Congress that Higher Taxes Increase Prosperity</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4151755&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0pptSTQwFWw%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI&amp;#8217;ve already written about the terrible work of the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO did an awful job on the stimulus, for instance, repeatedly asserting that diverting money from the private sector to government somehow would create jobs. CBO also was a disaster on Obamacare, claiming that a giant new entitlement program would reduce budget deficits. And the legislative bureaucracy even has argued that higher tax rates boost growth.
That sounds absurd (and it is), but CBO is not the only taxpayer-funded bureaucracy on Capitol Hill producing this kind of nonsensical analysis. The Congressional Research Service just published a new report asserting that higher tax rates will boost economic performance. Here&amp;#8217;s an excerpt from that CRS publication.
&amp;#8230...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4151755</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:44:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4151755</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>First Up: A Symbolic Cut in Pay</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4142738&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FaOSbmLJa5V0%2F</link>
            <description>By Jim HarperThe Hill reports that the likely Speaker of the new Republican House, John Boehner (R-OH) will move first to cut representatives&amp;#8217; pay.
Cutting member pay would show voters the new GOP majority in the House is going to lead by example in their efforts to rein in spending and start with their own wallets, say officials with three prominent taxpayer advocacy groups in Washington, D.C. 
Give a read to the whole article, and some themes recur: &amp;#8220;gesture&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;symbols&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;symbolic gestures&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;symbolic moves&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;symbolic things&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;the right message&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;signals and symbols&amp;#8221;, &amp;#8220;symbol to the public&amp;#8221;.
Symbols are great, but they don&amp;#8217;t actually do anything. Rather than symbols, it might be...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4142738</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 07 Nov 2010 02:59:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4142738</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wishful Thinking about ObamaCare Investigations</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4133667&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQG5MLsIH_Zg%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonNPR found two Republicans who caution House Republicans that their efforts to investigate ObamaCare could &amp;#8220;backfire.&amp;#8221;
But all those hearings could also have the opposite effect — giving the administration a chance to make its case in favor of the law, a case that often got drowned out during the election campaign.
&amp;#8220;The next round of this, while there will continue to be the broad sloganeering on both sides, will presumably get a little bit more into the detail,&amp;#8221; says Martin Corry, a health care lobbyist and former official at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Bush administration. &amp;#8220;So if you&amp;#8217;re a family with a 22-year-old still in college, you may not want to see that provision [that lets grown children stay on t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4133667</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:55:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4133667</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Overhauling CBO and JCT Is a Real Test of GOP Resolve, not the ‘Pledge to America’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4018161&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FwUHSuC1bydo%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellWhile I&amp;#8217;m glad Republicans are finally talking about smaller government, I&amp;#8217;ve expressed some disappointment with the GOP Pledge to America. Why &amp;#8220;reform&amp;#8221; Fannie and Freddie, I asked, when the right approach is to get the government completely out of the housing sector. Jacob Sullum of Reason is similarly underwhelmed. He writes:
In the &amp;#8220;Pledge to America&amp;#8221; they unveiled last week, House Republicans promise they will &amp;#8220;launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade.&amp;#8221; Who better for the job than the folks who ran the government for most of that time? &amp;#8230;Republicans, you may recall, had a spending spree of their own during George W. Bush&amp;#8217;s recently conclude...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4018161</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:15:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4018161</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Let’s Regulate Barney Frank’s Pay</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3907583&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FHHS4AV0nPuY%2F</link>
            <description>By David Boaz&amp;#8220;Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Tuesday that he will hold a hearing this fall to examine whether regulators are being tough enough in curbing pay practices at Wall Street firms that can lead to excessively risky practices,&amp;#8221; writes Zachary Goldfarb in the Washington Post.
Hmmm. &amp;#8220;Pay practices that can lead to excessively risky practices.&amp;#8221; Since Barney Frank entered Congress, federal spending has risen from $590 billion in 1980 to $3.7 trillion this year. (U.S. Budget, Historical Tables, Table 1.1) The annual deficit has risen from $74 billion to $1.5 trillion.  Gross federal debt rose from $909 billion to $13.8 trillion &amp;#8212; and to over $15 trillion next year. (Table 7.1) And all this without a major war o...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3907583</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:11:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3907583</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congressional Budget Office Says We Can Maximize Long-Run Economic Output with 100 Percent Tax Rates</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3895870&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FRl1g5JzgfnQ%2F</link>
            <description>I hope the title of this post is an exaggeration, but it&amp;#8217;s certainly a logical conclusion based on what is written in the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s updated Economic and Budget Outlook. The Capitol Hill bureaucracy basically has a deficit-über-alles view of fiscal policy. CBO&amp;#8217;s long-run perspective, as shown by this excerpt, is that deficits reduce output by &amp;#8220;crowding out&amp;#8221; private capital and that anything that results in lower deficits (or larger surpluses) will improve economic performance &amp;#8212; even if this means big increases in tax rates.
CBO has also examined an alternative fiscal scenario reflecting several changes to current law that are widely expected to occur or that would modify some provisions of law that might be difficult to sustain for a ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3895870</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:00:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3895870</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Food Stamps Cut?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3880842&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLtfeF_I5PuQ%2F</link>
            <description>Prior to last week’s passage of another $26 billion in bailout money for state and local governments, I noted that the legislation wasn’t really offset:
Congressional Democrats say the measure is paid for with a combination of spending cuts elsewhere and tax increases. However, the new spending is front loaded and much of the spending cuts wouldn’t be realized until after 2013. For example, the Congressional Budget Office’s score of the legislation shows savings from the food stamps program of $12 billion from 2014-2018. Congress can come back any time before that and rescind the cuts.
It’s typical Beltway budgetary sleight-of-hand: increase spending up front and “cut” spending on the back-end to get a more deficit-friendly score from the CBO. Democrats don’t really intend ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3880842</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:24:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3880842</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘Mountain of Debt’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3861996&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F7JRVnrsWLHs%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe White House Office of Management and Budget homepage currently features the following quote from the president:

President Obama says he wants to “invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt.”
That’s a curious statement because the Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the president’s current budget proposal projects that publicly held debt as a share of the economy would reach levels last seen at the end of the Second World War.
When the CBO’s numbers are plugged into a bar chart, the projected Obama debt levels (red bars) look like…the upward slope of a mountain (!):

To be fair, Obama’s predecessors &amp;#8212; particularly the previous Bush administration &amp;#8212; share in the responsibility for the mountainous rise in federal debt. How...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3861996</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 19:34:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3861996</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Rough Week for ObamaCare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3822900&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZ3mghjxMXd4%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael D. TannerHalf way through the work week, and the White House has had an unusually difficult week concerning the progress of their signature piece of legislation.  Let’s recap:
On Monday, a federal judge cleared a lawsuit brought forth by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli regarding the Constitutionality of the recent health care legislation&amp;#8212;specifically the individual mandate.  This case will almost certainly be decided by the Supreme Court, but this was an important first step in that process.
Later that day, reports came out that Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius had caught heat regarding misleading statements that claimed ObamaCare would simultaneously pay for the coverage of an additional 30 million Americans and extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3822900</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:58:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3822900</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>With Tax Increases Looming, CBO Does About-Face and Frets about Deficits and Debt</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3808662&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1FRwNP5gB4w%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellLike the swallows returning to Capistrano, the Congressional Budget Office follows a predictable pattern of endorsing policies that result in bigger government. During the debate about the so-called stimulus, for instance, CBO said more spending and higher deficits would be good for the economy. It then followed up that analysis by claiming that the faux stimulus worked even though millions of jobs were lost. Then, during the Obamacare debate, CBO actually claimed that a giant new entitlement program would reduce deficits.
Now that tax increases are the main topic (because of the looming expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills), CBO has done a 180-degree turn and has published a document discussing the negative consequences of too much deficits and debt. A snippet:
...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3808662</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:39:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3808662</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Robert Byrd and the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706659&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZhuNkK7P9Ks%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazSenator Robert C. Byrd, who died today at age 92, had a long and varied career. Unlike most senators, Senator Byrd remembered that the Constitution delegates the power to make law and the power to make war to Congress, not the president. He often held up the Cato Institute&amp;#8217;s pocket edition of the Constitution as he made that vital point in Senate debate. I have several emails from colleagues over the years reading &amp;#8220;Senator Byrd is waving the Cato Constitution on the Senate floor right now.&amp;#8221; Alas, if he really took the Constitution seriously, he would have realized that the limited powers it gives the federal government wouldn&amp;#8217;t include many of the New Deal and Great Society programs that opened up whole new vistas for pork in West Virginia.
Justin...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706659</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:20:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706659</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>More Garbage-In-Garbage-Out from CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3603579&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FY8KVrKXofkY%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellYou don&amp;#8217;t need to watch old Gunsmoke episodes if you want to travel into the past. Just read the latest Congressional Budget Office &amp;#8220;research&amp;#8221; claiming that Obama&amp;#8217;s so-called stimulus &amp;#8220;increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million.&amp;#8221; CBO&amp;#8217;s analysis is a throwback to the widely discredited Keynesian theory that assumes you can enrich yourself by switching money from your left pocket to right pocket. For all intents and purposes, CBO wants us to believe their Keynesian model and ignore real world data. This is akin to the famous line attributed to Willie Nelson, who was caught with another woman by his wife and supposedly said, &amp;#8220;Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?&amp;#8221;
Using i...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3603579</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 18:18:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3603579</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Study: Medicaid Provides Lower-Quality Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573667&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYIIXaZb_kDA%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2019, ObamaCare will cover 32 million U.S. residents who would otherwise have been uninsured.  Half of those coverage gains would come from expanding the Medicaid program, which has been criticized for poor-quality care.
A new study in the journal Inquiry gives another indication that Medicaid provides low-quality care:
we find that uninsured and Medicaid patients are treated by lower-quality physicians both because of the hospitals these patients attend and because of sorting within hospitals&amp;#8230;Our study concluded that patients in government hospitals that treat large numbers of uninsured and Medicaid patients are least likely to be treated by a board-certified or top-trained physician.
The study has plenty of limi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573667</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 20:34:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573667</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Transparent Healthcare System: What’s More Clear?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3569803&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fa-transparent-healthcare-system-whats-more-clear%2F2010.05.17</link>
            <description>Congressional democrats want more transparency in healthcare, believing it would further drive down the cost of care, reports Politico.
Hoping to drive competition, some lawmakers are grumbling to force doctors to reveal business negotiations between them and drug and device makers. Opponents worry that manipulating economics would backfire. If everyone knows their competitor&amp;#8217;s business, why bother negotiating lower prices?
But transparency worked for Wisconsin&amp;#8217;s hospitals, not in business dealings but in reporting outcomes, reports The Fiscal Times. By voluntarily revealing clinical outcomes on the Web, the Wisconsin Collaborative for Healthcare Quality was able to spur low-performing hospitals to improve, high-performing facilities to eliminate tests that didn&amp;#8217;t improve...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3569803</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 14:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3569803</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Response to Jonathan Gruber on ObamaCare &amp; Health Care Costs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3563952&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIYrgWkD2khU%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonIn this week&amp;#8217;s New England Journal of Medicine, MIT health economist and Obama administration consultant Jonathan Gruber responds to claims that ObamaCare will increase health care costs.  Gruber acknowledges the Obama administration&amp;#8217;s estimates that ObamaCare will increase health care spending, but compares that to the administration&amp;#8217;s estimate that 34 million otherwise uninsured U.S. residents will obtain coverage under the law:
[B]y 2019, the United States will be spending $46 billion more on medical care than we do today. In 2010 dollars, this amounts to only $800 per newly insured person — quite a low cost as compared (for example) with the $5,000 average single premium for employer-sponsored insurance.
What a bargain!  Of course, Gruber is b...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3563952</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 16:25:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3563952</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sarah Palin Needs New Glasses</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3542571&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FuhzDuJBH_9Y%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazSarah Palin has endorsed Carly Fiorina for U.S. Senate in California, showing commendable charity toward a woman who gave her one of her many Bad Headline Days in September 2008 by telling an interviewer that Palin wouldn&amp;#8217;t be qualified to run a major company. (Fiorina did add, &amp;#8220;But you know what? That&amp;#8217;s not what she&amp;#8217;s running for.&amp;#8221;)
Palin is way off base, though, when she writes:
I support Carly as she fights through a tough primary against a liberal member of the GOP who seems to bear almost no difference to Boxer, one of the most leftwing members of the Senate.
Ignoring conservative Chuck DeVore, who probably has the support of a lot of Palin fans, Palin is taking aim at frontrunning former congressman Tom Campbell. But if her aim was that far ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3542571</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 15:42:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3542571</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is the Obama Mortgage Foreclosure Plan Legal?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3440776&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FChEMsILdlbw%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark A. CalabriaWhile considerable attention has rightly focused on the failure of President Obama&amp;#8217;s various mortgage foreclosure plans to actually lower the rate of foreclosures, few have bothered to even ask whether the plan is allowable under the TARP statute.
Alex Pollock at AEI first raised this issue during testimony before the Congressional Oversight Panel.  Alex&amp;#8217;s point is that TARP only allows the modification of mortgages that are actually acquired by the government.  Recall the original purpose of the TARP was to buy &amp;#8220;troubled assets.&amp;#8221;  In managing those assets, Congress required the executive branch to come up with a plan to assist the borrowers behind those troubled assets.
Apparently unlike the Treasury department, I believe we should go back to ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3440776</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 19:59:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3440776</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Number of Congressional Staff Is the Real Problem</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3424834&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0HqTCpFSekI%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellThere&amp;#8217;s been a bit of buzz about a recent story in Politico revealing a huge increase in the number of congressional staff receiving six-figure salaries.  Some of the details are eye-openers, including a 39 percent increase in the past four years in the number of staffers earning at least $163,358:
Nearly 2,000 House of Representatives staffers pulled down six-figure salaries in 2009, including 43 staffers who earned the maximum $172,500 — or more than three times the median U.S. household income. &amp;#8230;But while these top earners are a small percentage of the overall congressional work force, their numbers are growing at a rapid rate under the Democratic Congress. The number of staffers earning within the upper 3 percent of House salaries — currently $163,...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3424834</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 18:59:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3424834</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Social Security in the Red</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403863&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F9SCL-r3GqNw%2F</link>
            <description>By Doug BandowSocial Security is officially in the red.  The New York Times reports that the system will pay out more than it takes in this year.  Explains the Times:
The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.
This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.
The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403863</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 12:55:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403863</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My Big Fat Greek Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403869&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Ftjws-DzDrxA%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellSince we&amp;#8217;re already depressed by the enactment of Obamacare, we may as well wallow in misery by looking at some long-term budget numbers. The chart below, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s long-run estimates, shows that federal government spending will climb to 45 percent of GDP if we believe CBO&amp;#8217;s more optimistic &amp;#8220;baseline&amp;#8221; estimate. If we prefer the less optimistic &amp;#8220;alternative&amp;#8221; estimate, the burden of federal government spending will climb to 67 percent of economic output. These dismal numbers are driven by two factors, an aging population and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For all intents and purposes, America is on a path to become a European-style welfare state.

If...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3403869</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:18:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3403869</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Yet. Another. Fraudulent. Cost Estimate.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3378449&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FD8FXSTYtAVk%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonHouse Democrats claim that a not-yet-released Congressional Budget Office report puts the cost of their revised health care overhaul at $940 billion over the next 10 years.
Though I have yet to see the CBO score, I&amp;#8217;ll bet anyone a fancy lunch that it does not claim the legislation would cost the federal government just $940 billion from 2010 through 2019.
As former Congressional Budget Office director Donald Marron has explained over and over, the figure that Democrats consistently cite for the cost of their bills is only the CBO&amp;#8217;s estimate of the cost of federal spending related to the expansion of health insurance coverage.  It is not the full cost to the federal government, because each bill also spends taxpayer dollars on other items.
Marron examined th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3378449</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:26:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3378449</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AP: Obama Misleads Voters about ObamaCare’s Effects on Premiums</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3374106&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUA3h7xM7mE4%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe Associated Press reports:
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print&amp;#8230;
The [Congressional Budget Office] concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they&amp;#8217;d reach without the legislation&amp;#8230;
&amp;#8220;People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now,&amp;#8221; said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. &amp;#8220;If they did buy the same value plans &amp;#8230; the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure.&amp;#8221;
Nichols&amp;#8217; comments are also m...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3374106</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:51:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3374106</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Senate Bill Would Increase Health Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3358963&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcTe5RcfvNgw%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEzra Klein quotes the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s latest cost estimate of the Senate health care bill when he writes:
&amp;#8220;CBO expects that the legislation would generate a reduction in the federal budgetary commitment to health care during the decade following 2019,&amp;#8221; which is to say that this bill will cover 30 million people but the cost controls will, within a decade or so, leave us spending less on health care than if we&amp;#8217;d done nothing.  That&amp;#8217;s a pretty good deal. But it&amp;#8217;s not a very well-understood deal.
Indeed, because that&amp;#8217;s not what the CBO said.
First, the CBO said the &amp;#8220;federal budgetary commitment to health care&amp;#8221; would rise by $210 billion between 2010 and 2019 under the Senate bill.  Then, after 2019, it w...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3358963</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:53:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3358963</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Thursday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3354297&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FsCH1nt1xT6c%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Moody
Greece, here we come&amp;#8230;. Congressional Budget Office estimates budget deficits will average nearly $1 trillion per year for the next decade.


Matt Drudge re-titles a Cato op-ed: &amp;#8220;Mob Tactics Used to Push Healthcare Through.&amp;#8221;


Daniel Griswold: &amp;#8220;On trade, as on so much else, the populists have it wrong again. Free trade and globalization are great blessings to families across America.&amp;#8220;


Could Dennis Kucinich bring both sides of the aisle  together to end the war in Afghanistan?


Podcast: &amp;#8220;Seventies Redux?&amp;#8221; featuring John Samples, author of the forthcoming book The Struggle to Limit Government. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3354297</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:44:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3354297</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Fannie, Freddie, Peter, and Barney</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3350256&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F4X94fxr3RvI%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenLast week, after Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) said that holders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s debt shouldn’t be expected to be treated the same as holders of U.S. government debt, the U.S. Treasury took the “unusual” step of reiterating its commitment to back Fannie and Freddie’s debt.
If ever there was case against allowing a few hundred men and women to micromanage the economy, this is it.
Fannie and Freddie, which are under government control, are being used to help prop up the ailing housing market. If investors think there’s a chance Uncle Sam won’t back the mortgage giants’ debt, mortgage interest rates could rise and demand for housing dampen. Therefore, Frank’s comments caused a bit of a stir. However, with the government bailing out anything that walk...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3350256</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:28:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3350256</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Put Housing GSEs in the Budget and then Privatize</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3306820&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqqB5rZzd2mc%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe two large housing government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have been in government receivership since September 2008. The U.S. Treasury has given the housing GSEs $112 billion in cash infusions, and this past Christmas Eve it quietly announced it would cover all of Fannie and Freddie’s losses beyond the original $400 billion limit through 2012.
The president’s latest budget proposal continues to only count the cash infusions, which it projects to be $188 billion through 2020. On the other hand, the Congressional Budget Office also includes in its budget projections the subsidy cost of new loans or loan guarantees made by Fannie and Freddie, which results in a total projected hit of $370 billion through 2020.
The CBO’s rationale for including the...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3306820</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:39:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3306820</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Donations And A Departing Congressman</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3228007&amp;cid=t_261318_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fs0Oh7ogJcQc%2F</link>
            <description>Controversial congressman Steve Buyer, an Indiana Republican, announced late last week he won&amp;#8217;t seek re-election after serving since 1992. He cited his wife&amp;#8217;s recent diagnosis with an &amp;#8220;incurable autoimmune disease,&amp;#8221; although as the Center for Responsive Politics points out, he was also accused of numerous ethics transgressions.
At issue is the Frontier Foundation, which he founded in 2003 to distribute scholarships, although none have been given. Meanwhile, the foundation collected lots of donation money, most of it from drugmakers and lobbyists, including Eli Lilly and PhRMA, according to The Indianapolis Star.
Buyer, it so happens, is a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees health care policy that, of course, affects the pharmaceutical ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3228007</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:50:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3228007</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many Senators Are More Liberal than the Socialist One?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3204841&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FPdBqaf1Ahd8%2F</link>
            <description>By David BoazIn a profile of the poetry-reading chief of staff to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the Washington Post calls Sanders not only &amp;#8220;the only socialist in the U.S. Congress,&amp;#8221; but also &amp;#8220;surely [the Senate's] most liberal [member].&amp;#8221; Surely. I mean, he&amp;#8217;s a socialist, right? (And by the way, that isn&amp;#8217;t a label that Sanders rejects.)
Well, maybe not. According to the National Taxpayers Union, 42 senators in 2008 voted to spend more tax dollars than socialist Bernie Sanders. They include his neighbor Pat Leahy; Californians Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, who just can&amp;#8217;t understand why their home state is in fiscal trouble; and the Eastern Seaboard anti-taxpayer Murderers&amp;#8217; Row of Kerry, Dodd, Lieberman, Clinton, Schumer, Lautenberg, Me...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3204841</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:24:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3204841</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s Other Massachusetts Problem</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3182169&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FleTUXXseucI%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonEven if Democrat Martha Coakley wins 50 percent of the vote in the race to fill the late Sen. Ted Kennedy&amp;#8217;s (ahem) term, there are other numbers emanating from Massachusetts that present a problem for President Obama&amp;#8217;s health plan.
On Wednesday, the Cato Institute will release “The Massachusetts Health Plan: Much Pain, Little Gain,” authored by Cato adjunct scholar Aaron Yelowitz and yours truly. Our study evaluates Massachusetts&amp;#8217; 2006 health law, which bears a &amp;#8220;remarkable resemblance&amp;#8221; to the president&amp;#8217;s plan. We use the same methodology as previous work by the Urban Institute, but ours is the first study to evaluate the effects of the Massachusetts law using Current Population Survey data for 2008 (i.e., from the 2009 March suppl...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3182169</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:12:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3182169</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How ObamaCare Would Keep the Poor Poor</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3171887&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FbbdOwtOl6hM%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonSuppose you&amp;#8217;re a family of four at or near the federal poverty level.  Under current law, if you earn an additional dollar, you get to keep around 60-70 cents.
Under the House and Senate health care bills, however, you would get to keep maybe 38 cents.  Or 26 cents.  Or maybe just 18 cents.
The following graph (from my recent study, “Obama’s Prescription for Low-Wage Workers: High Implicit Taxes, Higher Premiums”) shows that under the House and Senate bills, the combination of (1) a mandate tax and (2) subsidies that disappear as income rises would impose implicit tax rates on poor families that reach as high as 82 percent over broad ranges of income.

This graph actually smooths out some rather bumpy implicit tax rates that spike as high as 174 percent.
...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3171887</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:55:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3171887</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s Health Tax Conundrum</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3167097&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_T4oaMqq1iI%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael D. TannerAs President Obama is finding out, spending a trillion dollars on health care reform is easy; paying for it is a bit harder. 
Both the House and Senate versions contain huge tax increases.  But they take completely different approaches toward which taxes are hiked and who would pay them.  And, as President Obama discovered in yesterday’s contentious meeting with labor bosses, those differences will not be easy to resolve.
The Senate wants to slap a 40 percent excise tax on so-called &amp;#8220;Cadillac&amp;#8221; insurance plans, that is plans with an actuarial value of more than $8,500 for an individual and $23,000 for a family.  The tax technically falls on the insurance company that offers the plan, but there&amp;#8217;s widespread recognition that insurers will merely pas...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3167097</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 19:30:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3167097</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress Chooses the Low Road. Again.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3142518&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FV6vBZ0jwCog%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonIn 2009, congressional Democrats fashioned their health care legislation out of public view.  That enabled them to avoid some public intra-party spats; to hide maybe 60 percent of the cost of the legislation and otherwise game the Congressional Budget Office&amp;#8217;s scoring rules; to deny the public enough time time to learn about how the legislation would work; and to cram the legislation through the Senate the day before Christmas.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid&amp;#8217;s backroom negotiations are rightfully infamous.
Now comes word that, rather than follow the usual conference procedure that we all learned about as children, House and Senate Democrats will conduct informal negotiations &amp;#8212; behind closed doors, all by themselves, with no C-SPAN cameras &amp;#8212;...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3142518</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 02:09:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3142518</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>George W. Bush: Biggest Spender Since LBJ</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3111402&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAakMJhyZahk%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsThe Congressional Budget Office has released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a last look at the Bush administration&amp;#8217;s record on spending from a statistical point of view.
The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents. Presidents were in office for either 4 or 8 budget years, except JFK (3 years), LBJ (5 years), Nixon (6 years), and Ford (2 years).
President George W. Bush&amp;#8217;s last year was fiscal 2009. Outlays that year were $3.522 trillion, according to the CBO. However, $108 billion was spending for the 2009 economic stimulus package passed under President Obama. Bush was thus roughly responsible for $3.414 trillion of spending in 2009, ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3111402</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:26:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3111402</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bush Spending: The Final Cut</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3106720&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUOSayk4FbN8%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsIn November, the Congressional Budget Office released final budget numbers for fiscal year 2009. The numbers allow us to take a final look at the Bush administration&amp;#8217;s record on spending from a statistical point of view.
The following three charts show annual average real (or constant dollar) outlays during the tenures of recent presidents. Presidents were in office for either 4 or 8 budget years, except JFK (3 years), LBJ (5 years), Nixon (5 years), and Ford (3 years).
The last year of spending that President George W. Bush was responsible for was fiscal 2009. The CBO says that outlays that year were $3.522 trillion. However, $108 billion was spending from the 2009 economic stimulus package, according to the CBO, which Bush was not responsible for. So I have as...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3106720</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:26:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3106720</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama on Health Care: Half Right</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3096828&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvG1MFG7RDvc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael D. TannerPresident Obama gave what seems like his thousandth exclusive health care interview last night, this one to ABC News’s Charles Gibson.  In trying to sell his health care plan, the president warned that if Congress does not pass legislation controlling health care costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”  He also warned that unless health care is reformed, “your premiums will go up.”
 The president is absolutely correct about that.  The only problem is that, according to the president’s own chief health care actuary, the bills that Congress is now considering do nothing to restrain either federal health care spending or total health care costs.  In fact, Rick Foster, chief actuary at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) says that...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3096828</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:48:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3096828</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Strange Bedfellows?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3096833&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1qB8tjkB-e8%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonJon Walker at FireDogLake says I&amp;#8217;ve got the wrong smoking gun:
The smoking gun was a manual put out by the CBO in May&amp;#8230;It spelled out exactly how much regulation was “too much” regulation. It explained what was the magical threshold that would cause [CBO director] Doug Elmendorf to declare some private market part of the government budget. Now, I’m angry about this for different reasons than the Cato Institute. I think it is insane that there could be any level of regulation that would make the private market part of the federal budget. Either the money is going through the federal treasury or it is not. I don’t think the the CBO director should have the power to see gray areas on this issue&amp;#8230;There is no real logic to it, he simply decided what h...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3096833</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:52:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3096833</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bland CBO Memo, or Smoking Gun?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3092673&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fl1yte5YcJcI%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThis weekend, the Congressional Budget Office released &amp;#8220;a very strange memo&amp;#8221; titled, &amp;#8220;Budgetary Treatment of Proposals to Regulate Medical Loss Ratios.&amp;#8221;  You wouldn&amp;#8217;t know it from the title, but that little memo is the smoking gun that shows how congressional Democrats have very carefully hidden more than half the cost of their health care bills.
First, a little history.  Like both the House and Senate bills, the Clinton health plan would have mandated that individuals and employers purchase private insurance.  In its 1994 score of the Clinton plan, Bob Reischauer’s CBO included those mandated “private” payments in the federal budget –- i.e., as federal revenues and federal expenditures.
And yet, none of the CBO scores of this ye...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3092673</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:49:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3092673</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ObamaCare Cost Estimate Watch: Day #180</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3092674&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKJKti0Mgo5Q%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonOn Day #179 of the ObamaCare Cost Estimate Watch, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) wrote in The Winchester Star of his involvement in the Senate health care debate:
At the start of this debate I was one of eight senators who called on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to post the text and complete budget scores of the health-care bill on a public web site for review at least 72 hours prior to both the first vote and final passage. This request was agreed to, affording proper transparency in the process.
On the contrary, as I explain in this Richmond Times-Dispatch oped, Reid did not comply with Webb&amp;#8217;s request.
Indeed, a memo recently issued by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that Reid has been working very hard to conceal the legislation&amp;#8217;s full cost all along....</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3092674</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:43:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3092674</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FEHBP Plan Is No ‘Moderate Compromise’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3071132&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FDr-VY5JMWbQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael D. TannerSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced that he has reached a super secret compromise on how to deal with the so-called public option for health reform.  While Reid said the agreement was too important to actually tell anyone what is in it, most of the details have been leaked to the press.
Rather than set-up a completely government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance, Congress would establish a program similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which currently covers government workers, including Members of Congress.  The FEHBP offers a variety of private insurance plans under a program managed by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  Each year OPM uses the Federal procurement process to solicit bids from...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3071132</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:58:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3071132</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma Spending On Detailing Is Up: CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3056885&amp;cid=t_261318_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FLdYhC8jK_Cg%2F</link>
            <description>A new report from the Congressional Budget Office examines promotional spending by drugmakers, including an analysis of direct-to-consumer advertising in recent years. For those in the know, there are probably few surprises. Nonetheless, the summary is interesting and worth noting. Here are some highlights&amp;#8230;
- In 2008, spending on DTC ads totaled $4.7 billion, nearly one-fourth of industry spending for all promotional activities. Promotional spending, which includes detailing, ad journals, meetings and DTC ads, was $20.5 billion last year, or 10.8 percent of US sales last year. The CBO, which says spending was typically between 10 percent and 12 percent since the early 1990&amp;#8217;s, cited sales data reported by PhRMA, which presumably relies on annual reports. DTC advertising has decl...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3056885</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:57:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3056885</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Analyzing the congressional thinking machine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3015377&amp;cid=t_261318_117_f&amp;fid=38158&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drneedles.comhttp%3A%2F%2Famericanacupuncture.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fanalyzing-congressional-thinking.html</link>
            <description>ANALYZING THE CONGRESSIONAL THINKING MACHINE What happens when you let lawyers’ reform health care?&amp;nbsp; We all know that the staff for each congressman must make sure that their boss remains electable. Since elections are very expensive, the congressman cannot offend a big contributor or deeply upset you the voting public.With&amp;nbsp; the&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Senate hosting its 2074 page healthcare bill on the web, public scrutiny has begun.As a medical physician for over 51 years, I strive to give you the best medical information on controversial medical subjects, and help your read betwwen the lines. You must come to your own conclusions. I have no ties to any organization, pharmaceutical, or lobby group. As an practicing medical acupuncturist since 1982, I find western medicine and medical acu...</description>
            <author>Dr. Needles Medical Blogs</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3015377</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:46:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3015377</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reid Health Bill Perpetuates the $1.5 Trillion Fraud</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3008069&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKau_XyoF57Y%2F</link>
            <description>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has finally unveiled his massive 2,074-page health care bill.  The Congressional Budget Office reports that the insurance-expansion provisions would cost the feds $848 billion over 10 years.  To raise those funds, the bill would tax wages, medical devices, prescription drugs, sick people, health insurance premiums (twice), HSAs, FSAs, HRAs, and &amp;#8212; why not? &amp;#8212; cosmetic surgery.  The remainder would supposedly come from $491 billion of Medicare cuts, even though Medicare&amp;#8217;s chief actuary says such cuts are &amp;#8220;unrealistic&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;doubtful.&amp;#8221;  But don&amp;#8217;t worry.  Somehow, this thing&amp;#8217;s gonna reduce the deficit.
Of course, that $848 billion only accounts for part of the federal government&amp;#8217;s share of t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3008069</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:05:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3008069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Recapping the Costs of the REAL ID Revival Bill</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2923236&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKY3gAJpeA5U%2F</link>
            <description>In late July, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed a new version of PASS ID, the REAL ID revival bill. I&amp;#8217;ve posted about various dimensions of it: the national ID question, the politics of PASS ID, whether PASS ID protects privacy, a run-down of the Senate hearing on it, and the inexplicable support of the Center for Democracy and Technology for this national ID law.
Three months later, the committee still has not reported the bill, meaning that the public doesn&amp;#8217;t get access to the version the committee passed. (A resolution in the House would require committees there to publish amendments to bills within 24 hours.) But the Congressional Budget Office scored the bill this week. That is often a signal that legislation is on the move.
So it&amp;#821...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2923236</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:38:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2923236</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Baucus Bill Would Cost More than $2 Trillion</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2876020&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FE0X1L4H-IWA%2F</link>
            <description>Sen. Max Baucus’s (D-MT) health care overhaul would cost more than $2 trillion.  It would expand the deficit.  But he has carefully and methodically hidden those facts – so well that he has completely hoodwinked nearly all the major media.
The media are reporting that the Baucus bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.  Wrong.
The Baucus bill assumes that Congress will allow the “sustainable growth rate” cuts in Medicare’s physician payments to occur beginning in 2012.  Yet Congress has routinely and repeatedly blocked those cuts, making Baucus’s assumption preposterous.  The CBO handled the issue delicately, but essentially said, “Sure, provided that the sun rises in the west in 2012, then yes, this bill would reduce the deficit.”
That means Baucus ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2876020</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:34:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2876020</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links – Health Care Costs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2876021&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fymn1_XTNQfs%2F</link>
            <description>The Congressional Budget Office released a report this week that revealed that the proposed health care bill would not increase the deficit.  But is it that simple? Cato health care policy experts have examined the bill and added up the costs. Here are a few things they have found:

Congress has been cooking the books: &amp;#8220;When it comes to the health care reform debate&amp;#8230;honest budgeting is nowhere to be seen.&amp;#8221;


Costs will only decrease if we give market forces room to breathe.


How some in Congress are hiding the true costs of the health care overhaul.


Healthy Competition: What&amp;#8217;s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It


Podcast: Do You Smell the Books Congress is Cookin&amp;#8217;? (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2876021</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:33:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2876021</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nobody Considers Health Insurance Mandates a Tax? Really??</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2820204&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fu4DpfiwkIDU%2F</link>
            <description>As my colleague Jeffrey Miron noted earlier today, when grilled by George Stephanopolous on whether the so-called &amp;#8220;individual mandate&amp;#8221; is a tax increase, Obama replied, &amp;#8220;Nobody considers that a tax increase&amp;#8230;.You can&amp;#8217;t just make up that language and decide that that&amp;#8217;s called a tax increase&amp;#8230;My critics say everything is a tax increase.&amp;#8221;
Where do Obama&amp;#8217;s critics get these wacky ideas?  From a bunch of nobodies, that&amp;#8217;s who!
Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, quoted by Larry Summers (1987):

[Just because] the fiscal flows triggered by mandate would not flow directly through the public budgets does not detract from the measure&amp;#8217;s status of a bona fide tax.

Economist Larry Summers, Obama&amp;#8217;s National Economic Council chair (1...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2820204</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:05:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2820204</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Taxpayers, Anyone? And How About Tuition Inflation?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2803886&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlMgOXjofQRg%2F</link>
            <description>The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsiblilty Act will probably be approved by the House of Representatives today, and to push it along the bill&amp;#8217;s sponsor, Rep. George Miller (D-CA), makes clear for whom he is working:
Let&amp;#8217;s remember whose voices really matter here. It&amp;#8217;s time to listen to our students and our families.
First of all, do the voices of taxpayers not matter at all? You know, the folks who are going to foot the bill for all this largesse? Oh yeah &amp;#8211; concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. And have students and their families really been trees falling in the wilderness with no one to hear them? With inflation-adjusted aid per full-time-equivalent student (table 3) rising from $4,454 in 1987 to $10,392 in 2007 &amp;#8212; a 134 percent increase &amp;#8212; it sure does...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2803886</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 15:37:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2803886</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>NYT Nonsense on SAFRA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2803894&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fx-wmoGX3J4Q%2F</link>
            <description>With the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) likely to be voted on by the full House or Representatives today, the media is finally giving some space to debate over the bill. Unfortunately, the New York Times only pays attention to the parts it likes, writing in an editorial today that:
The private lenders and those who do their bidding in Congress have recently taken issue with a Congressional Budget Office analysis that showed that the bill would save about $87 billion over the next 10 years.
They argue, absurdly, for example, that the savings would be smaller if the system were analyzed under accounting rules other than the ones that the federal government is required to use. The aim is to mislead taxpayers and members of Congress into believing that the C.B.O. estimate...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2803894</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:29:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2803894</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Government Pays $4 Million for a Bike Rack</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2800366&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FF9_W2dQSGQM%2F</link>
            <description>The $4 million Union Station Bike Transit Center is scheduled to open in Washington, DC on October 2nd.  According to an August Washington Post story, 80 percent of the cost of this opulent bike center is being borne by federal taxpayers via the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Look, I harbor no animosity against bike riders, but under what authority &amp;#8212; legal or moral &amp;#8212; does the federal government tax me in order to build bike centers for parochial, special interests?  The Constitution?
But let&amp;#8217;s pretend &amp;#8212; and I mean pretend &amp;#8211; that such federal expenditures are legitimate.  The Post article say the center will have 150 indoor bike racks and 20 outdoors.  A recent NPR article says it will hold 130 bikes.  Whatever the figure, at a cost of $4 million, it c...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2800366</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:24:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2800366</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Czar of All the Americans</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2800368&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxOw9xtYLqc8%2F</link>
            <description>Anger about Obama&amp;#8217;s many &amp;#8220;czars&amp;#8221; is rising, reports the Washington Post:
On paper, they are special advisers, chairmen of White House boards, special envoys and Cabinet agency deputies, asked by the president to guide high-priority initiatives. But critics call them &amp;#8220;czars&amp;#8221; whose powers are not subject to congressional oversight, and their increasing numbers have become a flash point for conservative anger at President Obama.
Critics of the proliferation of czars say the White House uses the appointments to circumvent the normal vetting process required for Senate confirmation and to avoid congressional oversight.
I have tended not to take concern over &amp;#8220;czars&amp;#8221; very seriously. After all, advisers to the president can&amp;#8217;t exercise any power that ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2800368</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:18:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2800368</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Arizona to Feds: No “Enhanced” Drivers License</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2715918&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F9XBQ3cnpM3g%2F</link>
            <description>Last week, the governor of Arizona signed H.B. 2426, which bars the state from implementing the &amp;#8220;enhanced&amp;#8221; drivers license (EDL) program.
If the federal REAL ID revival bill (PASS ID) becomes law, it will give congressional approval to EDLs, which up to now have been simply a creation of the federal security and state driver licensing bureaucracies.
As governor of Arizona, the current Secretary of Homeland Security signed a memorandum of understanding with the DHS to implement EDLs, and she backs PASS ID even though she signed an anti-REAL ID bill as governor. As I said before, Secretary Napolitano seems to be taking the national ID tar baby in a loving embrace. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2715918</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:04:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2715918</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Real Cost of a Government Takeover of Health Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2681877&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fsj4NH13BlW0%2F</link>
            <description>The Congressional Budget Office estimates that current health care &amp;#8220;reform&amp;#8221; legislation could cost around a trillion dollars over the coming decade.  But that number likely is low. 
Stephen T. Parente of HSI Network LLC says the CBO did not use the most current data.  HSI figures the cost could be double the CBO estimate. 
Warns Parente:
The biggest player in the health-care debate right now isn’t Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or even President Obama. It’s the Congressional Budget Office, which is responsible for estimating the costs of proposed legislation. After the director of the CBO testified on July 16 that none of the health-reform bills in the House or Senate would reduce the rate of increase in federal spending on health care, congressional efforts fell into d...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2681877</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Aug 2009 14:04:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2681877</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Market Bets that ObamaCare Won’t Cut Costs</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2645266&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fi7W1qQskV3k%2F</link>
            <description>According to Don Johnson of The Health Care Blog:
Speculators seem to be betting that a watered down health insurance reform bill won&amp;#8217;t hurt health insurers, hospitals, drug makers or medical device and supply manufacturers.
Stocks for almost all of these health sectors and for exchange trade funds that track health stock indexes turned higher last week.
In other words, those with real money at stake don&amp;#8217;t believe that health reform will hurt the firms that make a living off of America&amp;#8217;s highly inefficient health sector &amp;#8212; President Obama&amp;#8217;s assurances notwithstanding.
Johnson provides seven possible explanations for this development, including:
3. If the very liberal Coastal Democrats who lead Congress and most of the five committees drafting health insurance l...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2645266</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:14:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2645266</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is an Independent Fed Better?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2613827&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FN0C09Kl2jwA%2F</link>
            <description>Rep. Ron Paul now has a majority of the House of Representatives supporting his bill for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve System. He presented his case at a Cato Policy Forum recently, with vigorous responses from Bert Ely and Gilbert Schwartz.
Now more than 200 economists have signed a petition calling on Congress to “defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability.” The petition seems implicitly a rebuttal to Paul&amp;#8217;s bill.
Allan Meltzer, a leading monetary scholar and frequent participant in Cato&amp;#8217;s annual monetary conferences, declined to sign the petition and explained why: “I wrote them back and said, ‘the Fed has rarely been independent and it strikes me that being independent is very unlikely’” in th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2613827</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:05:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2613827</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Fed Independence?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2613838&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fk4KyMt3g-yk%2F</link>
            <description>More than 250 economists have signed an “Open Letter to Congress and the Executive Branch” calling upon them to “defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability.”
Allan Meltzer is not a signatory to the petition and he has explained why not.  The Fed has frequently not shown independence in the past, and there is no reason to expect it to do so reliably in the future.  Professor Meltzer has just completed a multi-volume history of the Fed and knows all-too-well of the Fed’s willingness to accommodate the policies of administrations from FDRs to Lyndon Johnson’s. 
I would add that the Fed’s behavior under Chairman Bernanke breaks new ground in aligning the central bank’s policy with Treasury’s.  Much of what the Fed has...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2613838</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:37:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2613838</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CBO: Democrats Bend Health Care Cost Curve — in the Wrong Direction</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2610882&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FbOKerDexnw8%2F</link>
            <description>This is too good.  Directly from the ABC News blog post, &amp;#8220;CBO Sees No Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans:&amp;#8221;
Here&amp;#8217;s a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform.
One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs.
Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Answering questions from Democrat Kent Conrad of North Dakota at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee today, Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.
Conrad:  Dr. Elmendorf, I am going to really put you...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2610882</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:09:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2610882</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Misinformation from Heritage</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2517206&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FXZPaps-1-Nw%2F</link>
            <description>The Heritage Foundation has a chart up on its blog, showing defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product and declaring that &amp;#8220;Obama plan cuts defense spending to pre-9/11 levels.&amp;#8221;
This is a standard rhetorical device for defense hawks (see the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Mitt Romney and lots of others) so it&amp;#8217;s worth pointing out that it&amp;#8217;s misleading. The unfortunate truth is that Obama is increasing non-war defense spending this year and seems likely to increase it at least by inflation in the near future.
It&amp;#8217;s true that defense spending will probably decline as a percentage of GDP, assuming the economy recovers. But that&amp;#8217;s because GDP grows. Ours is more than six times bigger than it was in 1950.  Meanwhile, we spend more on de...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2517206</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:09:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2517206</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Many Uninsured Are There?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2510271&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEX0rLLmjFCE%2F</link>
            <description>The Wall Street Journal&amp;#8217;s Numbers Guy tackles the question:
The Census Bureau estimates that the number of uninsured amounts to 45.7 million people. But the agency might be over-counting by millions due to faulty assumptions&amp;#8230;
Even though legislation won&amp;#8217;t cover many of them, illegal immigrants are especially difficult to enumerate: Few raise their hands to be counted. Prof. [Jonathan] Gruber estimates they make up about 13% of the uninsured today, or nearly six million people of that 45 million number&amp;#8230;
Of the rest, some people are eligible for health insurance but don&amp;#8217;t know it and many can afford it but don&amp;#8217;t want it. About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level, according to a report released Tuesday by...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2510271</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:53:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2510271</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cohn vs. AFP</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2441178&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fpp5du9uDC64%2F</link>
            <description>The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn accuses Americans for Prosperity (AFP) of “lies” for running an ad that claims “Washington wants to bring Canadian-style healthcare to the U.S.”
AFP’s ad is more defensible than Cohn’s criticisms of it.
Cohn elides the question of whether Shana Holmes (the woman featured in the ad) was almost killed by Canada’s Medicare system.  For a supporter of single-payer like Cohn, that is tantamount to admitting that, yeah, socialized medicine sometimes kills people.
Cohn argues that the ad is unfair because Canada has many advantages over the U.S. health care sector.  That may be true, but the ad doesn’t appear to defend American health care.  It merely says, “government should never come in between your family and your doctor” and “Don’...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2441178</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 12:43:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2441178</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Social Security: Debating the Ostriches</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2424033&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3dH6-XcTItA%2F</link>
            <description>Over at Salon, Michael Lind takes me to task for raising the alarm about the latest Social Security Trustees report showing that a) Social Security’s insolvency date is growing closer, and b) the system’s unfunded liabilities have increased dramatically since last year’s report.
Like most of those who resist having an honest debate about Social security’s finances, Lind relies on a combination of economic flim-flam and political sophistry to obscure the true problem. For example, Lind points out that when I quote the Trustee’s assertion that the system’s unfunded liabilities currently top $17.5 trillion, that “assumes there are no changes made between now and eternity.” Well, duh! All estimates of US budget deficits assume that spending won’t be cut or taxes raised enough...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2424033</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 15:26:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2424033</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Church of Universal Coverage Begins Its Campaign against that Pesky CBO</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2416803&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FcRUH9mrbSMI%2F</link>
            <description>Last Monday, when lobbyists for the six biggest health care industry groups joined President Obama to announce their support for reducing health care spending by $2 trillion over 10 years, I penned and voiced my suspicion that the real motivation was to pressure the Congressional Budget Office to assume that Democrats&amp;#8217; health care reforms would reduce spending, despite the lack of evidence.  My wife said that hypothesis sounded a little . . . conspiratorial.
Last Thursday, when it was revealed that there was no actual agreement and that the White House basically manipulated the industry to get a week&amp;#8217;s worth of good health care press, I started to doubt whether strong-arming the CBO was really the goal of that media stunt.  Then Jonathan Cohn set me straight.
In an article fo...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2416803</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 14:33:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2416803</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The NHMA Forum on Health Care Reform offers an opportunity to impact health reform legislation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2414728&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FO4Y-MN-prmM%2F</link>
            <description>I wanted to let you all know about an excellent opportunity that has been presented to the National Hispanic Medical Association. NHMA has been invited to participate in the development of health care reform legislation for Senators Kennedy and Baucus, Congressmen Waxman, Rangel, and Miller and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Their respective staff will be introducing and distributing their bills starting in June for public comment. We have been asked to submit our recommendations on reforming the system for inclusion into these bills by June 1st; this gives us a narrow window of three weeks or less to prepare a document for submission to congressional staff.
The magnitude of the debate is broad; Congress is asking us for specific strategies that respond to four topics: 1) the expansion...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2414728</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 18:54:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2414728</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Does It Feel to Be at the Table Now?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2414747&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fvoum9yQVfCs%2F</link>
            <description>On Monday, the Obama administration held a well-publicized love-fest with lobbyists for the health care industry.  It turns out that rather than a &amp;#8220;game-changer,&amp;#8221; the event was a fraud.  And the industry got burned.
At the time, President Obama called it a &amp;#8220;a watershed event in the long and elusive quest for health care reform&amp;#8220;:
Over the next 10 years — from 2010 to 2019 — [these industry lobbyists] are pledging to cut the rate of growth of national health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year — an amount that&amp;#8217;s equal to over $2 trillion.
By an amazing coincidence, $2 trillion is just enough to pay for Obama&amp;#8217;s proposed government takeover of the health care sector.
Yet The New York Times reports that isn&amp;#8217;t the magnitude of sp...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2414747</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 17:52:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2414747</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>So Much for the Obama Administration’s Fiscal Free Lunch</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2386828&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyYxaQssHdR0%2F</link>
            <description>So far the Obama administration has been enjoying the ultimate fiscal free lunch.  Massive borrowing, massive spending, lower taxes, and low interest rates.
Alas, all good things must come to an end.
Reports the New York Times:
The nation’s debt clock is ticking faster than ever — and Wall Street is getting worried.
As the Obama administration racks up an unprecedented spending bill for bank bailouts, Detroit rescues, health care overhauls and stimulus plans, the bond market is starting to push up the cost of trillions of dollars in borrowing for the government.
Last week, the yield on 10-year Treasury notes rose to its highest level since November, briefly touching 3.17 percent, a sign that investors are demanding larger returns on the masses of United States debt being issued to ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2386828</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 12:50:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2386828</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congressional Bonuses</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2306734&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1BE9WuGaNhc%2F</link>
            <description>The Wall Street Journal reports,
While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash — also courtesy of taxpayers.
And at the very time that Congress was mishandling the financial crisis and trying to direct popular outrage at Wall Street, not Washington, the bonuses were getting bigger:
Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data.
LegiStorm is a pretty scary website for congressional staff members and privacy advocates. It ma...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2306734</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:01:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2306734</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama First Dem President to Support Vouchers</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2255976&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Flf3PXVeEkP0%2F</link>
            <description>Through his press secretary Robert Gibbs, president Obama has declared that he will reverse congressional Democrats&amp;#8217; phase-out of the DC Opportunity Scholarships program. The scholarships make private schooling affordable for 1,700 poor DC children, most of whom would be forced back into the District&amp;#8217;s broken public school system if it were to end.
However &amp;#8212; yes, there&amp;#8217;s always a however &amp;#8212; there&amp;#8217;s every indication that president Obama will do the minimum necessary to keep the program going at its current size, and will not help to expand it.
This is nevertheless a crucial milestone. There is finally a major national Democratic leader who is beginning to catch up to his state-level peers. Democrats all around the country have been supporting and signing...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2255976</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:01:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2255976</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Call For Congressional Investigation Of The HIT Industry - Is This Industry Trying to Kill People? Part 5 of a Series</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2222464&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F02%2Fare-health-it-designers-testers-and_27.html</link>
            <description>(Note: part 1 is here, part 2 is here and part 3 is here, and part 4 is here)In this installment of illustrating defects in today's contemporary health IT, I was going to present more sketches (since contractual clauses between HIT vendors and hospitals tend to forbid sharing of actual screens or defects) of the &quot;let's play peek a boo&quot; variety. I will present them in part 6 instead. These are screens in which clinicians must scroll extensively to, say, match an INR with a coumadin dose, FiO2 with oximetry result, match systolic with diastolic blood pressure, search around nearly empty screens to reveal a single value many rows down, enter a few common diagnoses via the &quot;clickorrhea&quot; of almost fifty clicks, and other patent absurdities from technology touted as &quot;improving medicine.&quot;I am usi...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2222464</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:57:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2222464</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Biogenerics Would Save How Much?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1546986&amp;cid=t_261318_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F320500932%2F</link>
            <description>The Congressional Budget Office has released its long-awaited assessment of the cost of a Senate biogenerics bill and found that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce total expenditures on biologics in the US by $25 billion between 2009 and 2018. Over that 10-year period, savings would equal roughly 0.5 percent of national spending on prescription drugs, valued at wholesale prices. Moreover, the bill would reduce budget deficits - or increase surpluses, depending on your point of view - by $6.6 billion over the same period. 
A few other CBO calculations: Direct spending by the federal government would decrease by $46 million over the 2009-2013 period, and by $5.9 billion over the 2009-2018 period; most of those savings would accrue to the Medicare program. Federal revenues would increa...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1546986</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:48:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1546986</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharma should demand the same treatment!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522012&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=34765&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhcrenewal.blogspot.com%2F2008%2F06%2Fpharma-should-demand-same-treatment.html</link>
            <description>Imagine a government report about pharma that glosses over the rough edges. Imagine a report where the most critical issues in pharma are reluctant doctors, difficulty measuring ROI of drugs, and the criteria for the quality of drugs being solely dependent on whether users take them correctly.Well, no such pharma report exists (the opposite is true - pharma is put under a microscope and excoriated harshly by the government, media, activist groups, etc. for even the slightest &quot;deviation&quot;), but in Health IT, it is a different matter.In the milquetoast May 2008 report &quot;Evidence on the Costs and Benefits of Health Information Technology&quot; (PDF), the Congressional Budget Office essentially whitewashes the downsides and difficulties of Health IT. All of the potential (and largely unrealized) bene...</description>
            <author>Health Care Renewal</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522012</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 12:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522012</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Day By Day by Chris Muir May 20, 2008</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1454287&amp;cid=t_261318_125_f&amp;fid=34819&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fflapsblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D7003</link>
            <description>Day By Day by Chris Muir
If the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (NRCC) wishes to CONTAIN their losses this November they must aggressively produce and campaign on a national agenda. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich the architect of the Contract with America and who successfully won GOP control of the House has produced one such plan.
The NRCC has two choices:

FIGHT


SURRENDER

Which will it be?
Previous:
The Day By Day Archive (Source: FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog)</description>
            <author>FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1454287</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 15:56:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1454287</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Newt Gingrich Watch: A Change Election or Else</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1423072&amp;cid=t_261318_125_f&amp;fid=34819&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fflapsblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D6923</link>
            <description>Former GOP Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich sounds the warning for the Fall elections: My Plea to Republicans: It&amp;#8217;s Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster
Key graphs:

Two GOP Losses That Validate a National Pattern


Congressional Republicans Can&amp;#8217;t Take Comfort in McCain&amp;#8217;s Poll Numbers


The Anti-Obama, Anti-Wright, and Anti-Clinton GOP Model Has Been Tested &amp;#8212; And It Failed


Republicans Have Lost the Advantage on Every Single-Issue Poll


House Republicans Should Call an Emergency, Members-Only Conference


Nine Acts of Real Change That Could Restore the GOP Brand

1. Repeal the gas tax for the summer, and pay for the repeal by cutting domestic discretionary spending
2. Redirect the oil being put into the national petroleum reserve onto the open market.
3. ...</description>
            <author>FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1423072</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 20:14:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1423072</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>GOP Using Obama to Win Congressional Seats</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1417838&amp;cid=t_261318_125_f&amp;fid=34819&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fflapsblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D6899</link>
            <description>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWHvbLvT_38

Fox News profiled the upcoming special election in MS-01 in which Democrat Travis Childers tries to deny being endorsed by ultra-liberal Barack Obama after receiving his endorsement and receiving support from Obama supporters. The segment shows just how volatile Barack Obama will be in numerous districts nationwide.
Of course, the GOP is going to use the Jeremiah Wright - Barack Obama flap for partisan advantage and why not?
Turns out Louisiana and Mississippi weren&amp;#8217;t quite finished with the Democratic presidential campaign.
Sen. Barack Obama won each state&amp;#8217;s primary earlier this year. But these days his face still appears in television ads in both states, this time from Republicans trying to turn him into a liability for Democrats in...</description>
            <author>FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1417838</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 03 May 2008 00:32:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1417838</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kevorkian to Run for Congress on Human Vivisection Party Plank</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1297677&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=34825&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wesleyjsmith.com%2Fblog%2F2008%2F03%2Fkevorkian-to-run-for-congress-on-human.html</link>
            <description>Jack Kevorkian is running for Congress. From the story: Assisted suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian is planning to run for Congress in Michigan. Kevorkian is on parole since being released from prison last year.He tells The Oakland Press newspaper that he plans to run without party affiliation for the congressional sea now held by Republican Joe Knollenberg.I made up the Human Vivisection Party to highlight an important point about Kevorkian that the media simply refuse to report or explore: Kevorkian's goal was never to alleviate suffering but engage in human vivisection of those he was euthanizing, as this excerpt from page 214 of Kevorkian's 1991 book Prescription Medicide makes clear: I feel it is only decent and fair to explain my ultimate aim...It is not simply to help suffering or doom...</description>
            <author>Secondhand Smoke</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1297677</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:38:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1297677</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Mother of All Tax Increases Goes Hollywood While Nancy Pelosi Retreats</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=991773&amp;cid=t_261318_125_f&amp;fid=34819&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fflapsblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D5800</link>
            <description>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqHmnmxK4co

But, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi is FINESSING Charlie Rangel&amp;#8217;s tax measure.
Guess they cannot reconcile their positions on what the definition of rich. Go figure.
Anyone want to bet they come together if and when Hillary is elected President?
Previous:
The Mother of All Tax Increases Brought to You by the Democrats
Technorati Tags: John Ensign, Charles Rangel, Democrats, Tax Increase

 


 






Subscribe to FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog by Email
Facebook Flap! (Source: FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog)</description>
            <author>FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=991773</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:48:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">991773</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Presidential candidates say fighting diabetes vital</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=764203&amp;cid=t_261318_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F28%2Fpresidential-candidates-say-fighting-diabetes-vital%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 1, Type 2, Opinion, Care, PersonalitiesThe Democratic presidential candidates all know this: whoever gets the nomination has an excellent shot at making it to the White House. First, though, is the long, hard, down and dirty campaign slog in which each candidate has to do the impossible - try and be all things to all people.One thing we can except is that they all devote a little time to addressing diabetes. Specifically, finding a cure for type 1 diabetes and strategies for containing the unprecedented spread of type 2 diabetes. The type 2 &quot;epidemic&quot; (as it is sometimes called) is all the more serious because of the strain it is adding to the US healthcare system, a system already failing to meet the needs of many Americans.During Monday night's CNN/YouTube debate, the c...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=764203</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">764203</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

