<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: federal budget</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 'federal budget'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22federal+budget%22&t=%22federal+budget%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:48:42 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>A Turning Point?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5096173&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FF6-7Vn4OSSM%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesGreg Sargent cites a CNN poll question:
As you may know, the agreement would cut about one trillion dollars in government spending over the next ten years with provisions to make additional spending cuts in the future. Regardless of how you feel about the overall agreement, do you approve or disapprove of the cuts in government spending included in the debt ceiling agreement?
Approve 65
Disapprove 30
Sargent continues:
Sixty five percent approve of deal’s spending cuts. But it gets worse. Of the 30 percent who disapprove, 13 percent think the cuts haven’t gotten far enough, and only 15 percent think the cuts go too far. One sixth of Americans agree with the liberal argument about the deal.
About 20 percent of Americans self-identify as liberals. This would suggest that ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5096173</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 20:18:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5096173</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>$2 Trillion in Cuts in Perspective</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4984422&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FgrDzfzJqs_M%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenCongressional Republicans have said that spending cuts must be at least as large as an increase in the debt ceiling. Negotiations over lifting the debt ceiling are ongoing, but the “magic number,” so-to-speak, would be around $2 trillion in spending cuts.
Cutting $2 trillion in federal spending sounds like a lot, but it’s actually relatively small because the cuts would likely occur over ten years. According to the Congressional Budget Office’s most recent budget baseline, the federal government will spend almost $46 trillion over the next ten years.
The following chart shows what $2 trillion in spending cuts over the next ten years looks like when measured against the CBO’s baseline. Even with the cuts, federal spending would still increase by $1.8 trillion:

Rathe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4984422</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:23:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4984422</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>CBO’s Long-Term Budget Outlook</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4960039&amp;cid=t_104720_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>Seven Reasons to Oppose Higher Taxes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4789224&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F_T6uSP5kDhU%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellAs I have explained elsewhere, tax increases are a bad idea &amp;#8211; unless you favor bigger government.
And I&amp;#8217;ve already added my two cents to the tax debate between Senator Coburn and Grover Norquist regarding the desirability of higher taxes.
So it won&amp;#8217;t surprise anyone to know that I fully agree with this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, which offers seven reasons why higher taxes are a bad idea.

The video is narrated by Piyali Bhattacharya of Young Americans for Liberty, and here are her seven reasons.

Tax increases are not needed
Tax increases encourage more spending
Tax increases harm economic performance
Tax increases foment social discord
Tax increases almost never raise as much revenue as projected
Tax increases encourage mor...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4789224</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 May 2011 13:58:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4789224</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4758740&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAL-eC2nmqmc%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
New research suggests that there has been more monetary and macroeconomic instability since the Federal Reserve&amp;#8217;s inception than in the decades preceding it.
New thinking about the usefulness of government programs will help us from restore fiscal balance and economic well-being in America.
New geopolitical circumstances should make us wonder: why are we still a part of NATO?
New Deal-era jurisprudence may soon be overturned as challenges to the Affordable Care Act reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
New means of funding public roads will increase efficiency by confronting drivers with the costs of using them, and reducing congestion:


Reminder: If you&amp;#8217;re in the DC area, please join us this Friday at 4:00 p.m. Eastern for a special sneak preview of Free or Equal a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4758740</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:01:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4758740</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Updated Cato Budget Plan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4753669&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEWH5eRgfepA%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenOver at Downsizing the Federal Government, Chris Edwards has released an updated version of his &amp;#8220;Plan to Cut Spending and Balance the Federal Budget.&amp;#8221; The plan proposes spending cuts of more than $1 trillion annually by 2021, which would balance the budget without resorting to damaging tax increases. Federal spending would be reduced to 18 percent of gross domestic product by 2021 under the plan, which compares to President Obama&amp;#8217;s projected spending that year of 24.2 percent of GDP.


Some key points:

No sacred cows are spared.   Defense, domestic, and so-called entitlement programs are all cut.


The plan recognizes that   the scope of federal activities must be curtailed. It would begin the reversal   of decades of federal expansion into hundreds of area...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4753669</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:10:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4753669</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>If There Were An Annual ‘Regulation Day’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4723786&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNFg2b0upjHA%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter OlsonAs Iain Murray points out at National Review&amp;#8216;s &amp;#8220;Corner,&amp;#8221; there&amp;#8217;s no date on the calendar each year that reminds us, the way income tax filing day does, of the huge share of our economic labors that the government commands in the name of regulation. In part this is because the costs of regulation are even better disguised than those of taxation: while paycheck withholding may lull us into complacency about our income tax burden, it is downright transparent compared with the costs of regulation, which the ordinary citizen may never recognize when passed along in the form of higher utility bills or sluggish performance by some sector of the economy. Iain notes the good work done by his colleagues at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: 
Regulations cost...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4723786</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:19:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4723786</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Happy Tax Day! Rest Assured. Your Money Is Well Spent Defending Rich Allies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4719885&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FjFmU0d2pZjw%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleA little over a year ago, I posted two different graphs (with the help of my colleague Charles Zakaib) that showed the growth of U.S. national security spending vs. that of other NATO allies over the last ten years. The data, based on the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ annual Military Balance, showed that U.S. taxpayers spend far more on our military, both as a share of total economic output, and on a per capita basis, than do any of our allies.
New data, for 2009, was made available in IISS’s Military Balance 2011, and the revised graphs are shown below. (Again, thanks to Charles for his help). As I suspected, the gap remains as wide as ever. In a few cases, it has grown wider.


As you can see, the $2,101 that every American man, woman, and child ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4719885</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:37:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4719885</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Happy Tax Freedom Day!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4704621&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FWDzxhAgxFEM%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellIf you are an average American, today is a great day. According to the Tax Foundation, you have finally worked long enough and earned enough money to satisfy the annual tax demands of federal, state, and local governments.
This means you now get to keep any additional income you earn.
That&amp;#8217;s the good news. The bad news is that Tax Freedom Day only measures the direct and immediate impact of taxation. It doesn&amp;#8217;t measure the overall burden of government. This chart from the Tax Foundation shows that the fiscal burden of government has jumped enormously since the end of the Clinton years.

Happy Tax Freedom Day! is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4704621</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:03:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4704621</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>It’s Bigger Than the Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4704626&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCDMCl8OnIqI%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday POLITICO Arena asks:
Do the cuts (and increases) contained in the six-month spending bill House Republicans posted overnight make sense, and do they go far enough in attacking the deficit and national debt?
My response:
Today’s Arena question captures perfectly what’s missing from our current budget debate. In listing a few of the compromises contained in the six-month spending bill House Republicans posted overnight, and asking whether those cuts (and increases) go far enough in attacking the deficit and national debt, it invites us to imagine that America is one big family, arguing over how “we” should spend “our” money.
We’re not. As I wrote in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, we&amp;#8217;re a constitutional republic, populated by discrete individual...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4704626</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:33:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4704626</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Kiss-Your-Sister Budget Deal Is Finalized, but Claudia Schiffer Still Ain’t Your Sibling</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4696611&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIEBJ9rrQycA%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellThere were reports about 10 days ago that the crowd in Washington reached a budget deal, for the remainder of the 2011 fiscal year, with $33 billion of cuts. That number was disappointingly low. I wrote at the time that if this was a kiss-your-sister deal, we didn&amp;#8217;t have any siblings that looked like Claudia Schiffer.
I knew it was unrealistic to expect the full $61 billion, but I explained that $45 billion was a realistic target.
We now have a new agreement, which supposedly is final, and the amount of budget cuts has climbed to $38 billion. So our sister is getting prettier, but she still isn&amp;#8217;t close to being a supermodel. Here are the highlights (or lowlights) from the New York Times story.
Congressional leaders and President Obama headed off a shutdown ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4696611</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 09 Apr 2011 22:40:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4696611</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Should Social Insurance Reform Not Affect Those Over Age 54?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684266&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FWOltDcKDhrY%2F</link>
            <description>By Jagadeesh GokhaleHouse Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan is ostensibly for FY 2012, but it contains reforms with far-reaching implications for the nation's fiscal condition.
Most of the action in his plan is on the spending side and mainly on health care entitlements: Medicare and Medicaid.  Many pundits on the left are claiming it is a political document rather than a serious budget proposal, especially because it lacks details on many of its proposed policy changes. 
One thing that stands out, as pointed out by David Leonhardt in the NYT, is that Ryan's plan exempts people older than age 55 from bearing any share of the adjustment costs.  They should, instead, be called upon to share some of the burden, Leonhardt argues — a point that I agree with.  If seniors a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684266</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:16:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684266</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Are Self-Proclaimed Deficit Hawks Unenthusiastic about the Ryan Budget?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684269&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqvHpL0CFepQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellWashington is filled with groups that piously express their devotion to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, so it is rather revealing that some of these groups have less-than-friendly responses to Congressman Ryan's budget plan.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, for instance, portrays itself as a bunch of deficit hawks. So you would think they would be doing cartwheels to celebrate a lawmaker who makes a real proposal that would control red ink. Yet Maya MacGuineas, president of the CRFB, basically rejects Ryan's plan because it fails to increase the tax burden.
...while the proposal deserves praise for being bold, the national discussion has moved beyond just finding a plan with sufficient savings to finding one that can generate enough support t...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684269</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 17:59:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684269</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rep. Ryan’s Budget Avoids Cuts to Military Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684273&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FtiywFcd5qAI%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleFor all the boldness of Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal to reduce projected federal expenditures by $6 trillion, an initiative that I support, the Pentagon’s budget emerges essentially unscathed in Ryan’s plan. This is a mistake on both fiscal and strategic grounds. Significant cuts in military spending must be on the table as the nation struggles to close its fiscal gap without saddling individuals and businesses with burdensome taxes and future generations with debt. Such cuts will also force a reappraisal of our military’s roles and missions that is long overdue.
The Pentagon’s base budget has nearly doubled during the past decade. Throw in the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus nuclear weapons spending in the Department of Energy, and a smattering ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684273</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:39:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684273</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684274&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FCEIDqKmv1ug%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
It's time for a little less hubris.
It's time for a government shutdown.
It's time to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
It's time for an adult conversation on the federal budget, and Chairman Ryan's plan is a good start.
It's time to rethink our strategy in Afghanistan:



Wednesday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684274</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:46:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684274</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tuesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4684278&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FM-AHhGfm6-Y%2F</link>
            <description>By George Scoville
Republicans have a big opportunity to undo Obamacare and reform Medicaid and Medicare all at once.
It's a good thing, too, because we're facing a big debt crisis and if we don't change course, federal spending will crest 42% of GDP by 2050.
There's also a big elephant in the room in an excessively complicated tax code.
One has to wonder if the Republicans intend to put the big sacred cow of defense spending on the table.
Unrelated to the budget, education choice proponents scored a big victory in the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday in ACSTO v. Winn, a decision that upheld education tax credits:



Tuesday Links is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4684278</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 14:13:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4684278</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congressman Ryan’s Budget Is a Big Step in the Right Direction</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4676756&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fs0h5QDv2r10%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellThe chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, will unveil his FY2012 budget tomorrow. Not all the details are public yet, but what we do know is very encouraging.
Ryan's plan is a broad reform package, including limits on so-called discretionary spending, limits on excessive pay for federal bureaucrats, and steep reductions in corporate welfare.
But the two most exciting parts are entitlement reform and tax reform. Ryan's proposals would simultaneously address the long-run threat of bloated government and put in place tax policies that will boost growth and improve competitiveness.

The long-run fiscal threat to America is entitlement spending. Ryan's plan will address this crisis by block-granting Medicaid to the states (repeating the succe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4676756</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:18:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4676756</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Budget Battle Update: It’s About Preparing for the Inevitable Fight, not Forcing a Shutdown</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4653305&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fckf64u9fopA%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellAccording to news reports, Democrats and Republicans are unlikely to reach any sort of budget agreement before April 8, when a short-term spending bill for the current fiscal year expires.
Barring some new development, this could mean a shutdown of the non-essential parts of the government.
This makes both sides very nervous. Democrats don't want the spending spigot turned off and are worried that voters might conclude that there's no reason to ever re-open departments such as Housing and Urban Development. Republicans, meanwhile, mostly worry that they might look unreasonable and get blamed if certain parts of the government are mothballed and voters can't get passports or visit national parks.
Given this state of play, what's the best strategy for fiscal conservative...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4653305</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:25:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4653305</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Are Republicans Thinking?!?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4642577&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FDUAjXcfKZ1Y%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI posted recently at International Liberty about the stunning political incompetence of Republican Senators, who reportedly are willing to give Obama an increase in the debt limit in exchange for a vote (yes, just a vote) on a balanced budget amendment.
As I explained, there is no way they can get the necessary two-thirds support to approve an amendment, so why trade a meaningless and symbolic vote on a BBA for meaningful and real approval of more borrowing authority for Obama? My analogy yesterday was that this was like trading an all-star baseball player for a utility infielder in the minor leagues.
I did acknowledge that forcing a vote on a BBA was a worthwhile endeavor, but said that the GOP has that power anyhow, so why trade away something valuable to get somethi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4642577</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:29:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4642577</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bailout Coming for the Postal Service?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4605809&amp;cid=t_104720_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>Norquist Is Right, Coburn Is Wrong: Tax Increases Undermine Good Fiscal Policy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4575045&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FhYxQkYpDKeg%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellThere's a significant debate now taking place in Washington — largely behind closed doors, but sometimes covered by the media — on whether fiscal conservatives should maintain a rigid no-tax-increase position. One side of the debate features Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, which is the organization that maintains the no-tax-increase pledge. The other side features Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who is part of a small group of GOP senators who might be willing to increase the tax burden as part of a deal that supposedly reduces deficits.
I'm a huge fan of Senator Coburn, who was in favor of cutting wasteful spending before it became fashionable. His office, for instance, releases a &quot;Pork Report&quot; every couple of days. You shouldn't read it if you have hi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4575045</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:28:29 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4575045</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Republicans Are Right to Cut the IRS Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560252&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIbBKouCMHwQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellOne of my many frustrations of working in Washington is dealing with perpetual-motion-machine assertions. The classic example is Keynesian economics, which is based on the notion that you magically create additional economic activity by having the government spend money instead of allowing the private sector to decide how it gets spent (in an especially bizarre display of this thinking, Nancy Pelosi actually said that subsidizing unemployment was the best way to create jobs).
Another example of this backwards analysis can be found in the debate over the IRS budget. The President is resisting a GOP proposal to modestly trim the IRS's gargantuan $12.5 billion budget and his argument is that we should actually boost funding for the tax collection bureaucracy since that wi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560252</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:54:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560252</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Spending Restraint Works: Examples from Around the World</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4507262&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FA4YRqrIWVIY%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellAmerica faces a fiscal crisis. The burden of federal spending has doubled during the Bush-Obama years, a $2 trillion increase in just 10 years. But that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Because of demographic changes and poorly designed entitlement programs, the federal budget is going to consume larger and larger shares of America's economic output in coming decades.
For all intents and purposes, the United States appears doomed to become a bankrupt welfare state like Greece.
But we can save ourselves. A previous video showed how both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton achieved positive fiscal changes by limiting the growth of federal spending, with particular emphasis on reductions in the burden of domestic spending. This new video from the Center for Freedom an...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4507262</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Feb 2011 14:16:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4507262</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s Budget Means the Burden of Government Spending Will be $2 Trillion Higher in Ten Years</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4482738&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMv71wpKQzWM%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellFiscal policy wonks (like me, I'm forced to admit) sometimes miss the forest because we focus too much on individual trees.
So while I think my posts on the spending and revenue sides of Obama's new budget contained lots of useful information, I didn't pay any attention to the elephant in the room (I'm really going overboard with metaphors, huh?).
The most important number in Obama's budget is that he is proposing $5.7 trillion of spending in 2021, about $2 trillion more than is being spent this year, according to table S-1 of the budget.
Here's everything you need to know about Obama's budget, in one chart.

It's important to make three additional observations. First, Obama's budget is based on all sorts of optimistic assumptions and rosy scenarios, as explained by Br...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4482738</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:40:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4482738</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Deconstructing the Revenue Side of Obama’s Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4482745&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FG2b5b7cI130%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellI looked yesterday at the spending side of Obama's budget and found some good news and bad news. The good news was the absence of any big new initiative to expand the burden of government. That's a welcome relief since the past couple of years have featured budget busting proposals such as the so-called stimulus scheme and a government-run healthcare plan.
The bad news is that the budget does nothing to undo any of the damage of the past two years. Nor does it undo any of the damage of the previous eight years. And because the President's budget refuses to address entitlement spending, it certainly doesn't do anything to avert the damage of rapidly expanding budgets over the next several decades.
Now let's look at the tax side of the fiscal equation. In large part, the...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4482745</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:52:28 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4482745</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Shellacking and the Federal Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477693&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F2_YoSWRJyGU%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsA lot has happened since President Obama introduced his last budget in February 2010. His party took an historic &quot;shellacking&quot; at the polls for its big government policies, his Fiscal Commission recommended serious spending cuts, and European governments have illustrated the severe problems of deficit spending.  
Given all this, did the president adopt a more frugal and prudent approach in his new budget yesterday? Not at all--the spending levels in his new budget are virtually the same as the unsustainably high spending levels in his February 2010 budget.
The chart shows Obama's proposed spending for FY2012 from last year's budget, and his proposed spending for the same year from his new budget.  His new budget proposes slightly more discretionary and ent...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477693</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:07:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477693</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal Budget: Obama Chickens Out</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477697&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FP-8z4iHe-mk%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsDespite the record $1.6 trillion deficit this year, and the consensus that exploding spending and debt is pushing the nation toward catastrophe, the Obama administration has completely chickened out on spending reforms in its new budget.
The president took a “shellacking” in the November elections as a result of his big-government policies. Does his new budget reflect any movement to the fiscal center? Not at all — spending levels in his new budget are virtually the same as in last year’s budget.
Read my post at NRO for full details.
Federal Budget: Obama Chickens Out is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477697</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:16:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477697</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Deconstructing the Spending Side of Obama’s Proposed FY2012 Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477698&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOKdeJvN1w8A%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellPresident Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 has been released and there is lots of rhetoric in Washington about &quot;budget cuts.&quot;
At first glance, this seems warranted. According to the just-released fiscal blueprint, the federal government is spending about $3.8 trillion this year and the President is proposing to spending a bit more than $3.7 trillion next year. In other words, the White House is going beyond a budget freeze and is actually proposing to spend $90 billion less next year than is being spent this year.
That certainly seems consistent with my proposal to solve America's fiscal problems by restraining the growth of spending.
But you won't find a smile on my face. This new budget may be better than Obama's first two fiscal blueprints, but that's da...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477698</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:47:45 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477698</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Nonintervention: the New Isolationism?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477700&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Foc9EGs2cxi8%2F</link>
            <description>By Doug BandowToday, the Obama administration released its FY 2012 budget, and with it the Pentagon’s spending request.  Regrettably, the Pentagon’s plan shows that the federal government’s 4th consecutive $1 trillion-plus annual deficit has not quelled an appetite for a continued quasi-imperial foreign policy that subsidizes a multitude of rich allies around the globe.
Unfortunately, if you argue against such a massive budget, you are immediately labeled an “isolationist.”  Take the example of Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) crusade to cut the federal budget by $500 billion.  Among many other substantive cuts, Senator Paul called for ending U.S. foreign aid around the globe. And when pressed, he included aid to Israel.
Aid to Israel represents less than one percent of his prop...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477700</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:47:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477700</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>To Fix the Budget, Bring Back Reagan…or Even Clinton</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4477705&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FwJFsb7B85WQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellPresident Obama unveiled his fiscal year 2012 budget today, and there's good news and bad news. The good news is that there's no major initiative such as the so-called stimulus scheme or the government-run healthcare proposal. The bad news, though, is that government is far too big and Obama's budget does nothing to address this problem.
But perhaps the folks on Capitol Hill will be more responsible and actually try to save America from becoming a big-government, European-style welfare state. The solution may not be easy, but it is simple. Lawmakers merely need to restrain the growth of government spending so that it grows slower than the private economy.
Actual spending cuts would be the best option, of course, but limiting the growth of spending is all that's needed ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4477705</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 15:17:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4477705</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama the Born-again Budget Cutter?!?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4472946&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqBapCXmGzEg%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellChalk up another victory -- at least on the rhetorical level -- for the Tea Party.
President Obama will release his fiscal year 2012 budget tomorrow and he's apparently become a born-again fiscal conservative. Here are some excerpts from a Washington Post story:
President Obama will respond to a Republican push for a drastic reduction in government spending by proposing sharp cuts of his own in a fiscal 2012 budget blueprint that aims to trim record federal deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade. ...two-thirds of the savings would come from spending cuts that are draconian by Democratic standards... When it lands Monday on Capitol Hill, Obama's plan will launch a bidding war with Republicans over how deeply and swiftly to cut, as the two parties seek a path to ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4472946</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:48:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4472946</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Slashing Popular Programs Contest</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4459944&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQmFdlTYgTFM%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsHouse Republicans proposed some (tiny) spending cuts this week and the Obama administration will likely propose some (tiny) cuts next week in the federal budget.
So get ready for a barrage of slasher stories! National Journal started us off yesterday with the headline “WH Slashes Heat for the Poor.”
Coming down the pike are dozens of stories about how policymakers are planning deep, vicious, and inhumane cuts that will undermine the foundations of the republic. A 5 percent cut to a program that has risen 50 percent in recent years will not be a simple “trim,” but a brutal, gouging “slash.”
Every single one of the upcoming cuts will be to “popular” programs. So policymakers will propose a $1 million cut to mohair subsidies, and the headline will be “Congre...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4459944</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 17:03:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4459944</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The 1993 Clinton Tax Increase Did Not Lead to the Budget Surpluses of the Late 1990s</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4459945&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FYyUJdXxCkbg%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellProponents of higher taxes are fond of claiming that Bill Clinton's 1993 tax increase was a big success because of budget surpluses that began in 1998.
That's certainly a plausible hypothesis, and I'm already on record arguing that Clinton's economic record was much better than Bush's performance.
But this specific assertion it is not supported by the data. In February of 1995, 18 months after the tax increase was signed into law, President Clinton's Office of Management and Budget issued projections of deficits for the next five years if existing policy was maintained (a &quot;baseline&quot; forecast). As the chart illustrates, OMB estimated that future deficits would be about $200 billion and would slightly increase over the five-year period.
In other words, even the Clinton A...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4459945</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 13:49:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4459945</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Robert Kagan for the Defense</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4382749&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvbTJ4BCKkfc%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleThe calls for cutting the federal budget continue to build in Congress as the new GOP members try to make good on their promise to rein in the deficit.  And, right on time, the latest issue of the Weekly Standard features an article by Robert Kagan critiquing the chorus of calls for cuts to military spending. 
I think Kagan’s critique is reasonably fair, certainly more so than others of the recent past.  But his basic premise, that national security spending is unrelated to the national debt, simply is not true.  At the The Skeptics, I address this:
It is of course true that entitlements and mandatory spending pose the greatest threat to the nation’s fiscal health, but $700+ billion [in defense spending] isn’t chump change. The question of what we should spe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4382749</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:48:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4382749</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rep. Brady’s CUTS Act</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4343114&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F0ud79KYaN3E%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenRep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has introduced the Cut Unsustainable and Top-heavy Spending Act, which would cut spending by $44 billion annually.  Brady’s effort moves in the right direction but it is a very modest fiscal reform effort.
The legislation, which Brady calls a “down payment on getting America&amp;#8217;s financial books in order,” chooses targets that have already been proposed by the Obama administration or the president’s Fiscal Commission. Therefore, the proposal should have bipartisan appeal. For example, Brady’s bill would cut Pentagon spending and eliminate subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Many of the targets represent “house cleaning cuts” that would reduce spending on bureaucratic activities such as printing and federal travel. Th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4343114</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:59:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4343114</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>There Ain’t No Such Thing as a Tax Subsidy, Either</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4179307&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FIy0VAwXbGjc%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonI hit a nerve with my post, &amp;#8220;There Ain&amp;#8217;t No Such Thing as a Tax Expenditure.&amp;#8221;  To recap: The federal tax code has credits, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions that reduce tax revenue.  By convention, budget experts call that forgone revenue a &amp;#8220;tax expenditure,&amp;#8221; a &amp;#8220;tax subsidy,&amp;#8221; or even &amp;#8220;backdoor spending in the tax code.&amp;#8221;  This is incorrect.  To claim that forgone tax revenue is a government expenditure implies that the money at stake actually belongs to the government, which is graciously letting taxpayers keep it, rather than to the people who earned it.  Government is not spending that money; it is merely not extracting that money from the private sector.  Statists deliberately use terms like &amp;#8220;tax ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4179307</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:25:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4179307</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Will the Deficit Compel Congress to Cut Military Spending?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4175673&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3fpiOCDUAVM%2F</link>
            <description>By Christopher PrebleOver at National Journal&amp;#8216;s National Security Experts blog, Megan Scully notes the military spending cuts contained within a proposal by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the president&amp;#8217;s deficit reduction commission. Scully asks: &amp;#8220;How feasible would it be for lawmakers to make these kinds of cuts to defense?&amp;#8230;What kind of sway will fiscal hawks have in the next Congress &amp;#8211; and will it be enough to push through sweeping defense cuts over the objections from pro-defense members of their party?&amp;#8221;
Government spending across the board must be cut, I explain, beginning especially with entitlements.  I continue:
Other spending must also be on the table, however, and that includes the roughly 23 percent of the federal budget th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4175673</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Nov 2010 18:31:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4175673</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Spending Should the GOP Cut?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4133681&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fen7NrqAhQxg%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsCongratulations to the wave of Republicans who successfully ran on promises to tackle rising government debt and cut the hugely bloated federal budget. On the campaign trail, most candidates were not very specific about how they would cut the budget, but when they come to Washington they will be looking for good reform targets.
Newcomers to Congress can find a wealth of budget-cutting ideas in recent plans by various D.C. think tanks:

At the Heritage Foundation, Brian Riedl has come up with $343 billion in proposed annual cuts.
At the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Bill Galston and Maya MacGuineas have proposed $400 billion in annual cuts.
Esquire magazine assembled four former senators who came up with $476 billion in annual cuts.
The National Taxpayers Union...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4133681</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 15:55:54 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4133681</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Boehner Endorses More Medicare Spending: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4118890&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQ4l5iBZWyZY%2F</link>
            <description>By Daniel J. MitchellWhile flipping through the radio on my way to pick my son up from school yesterday afternoon, I was dumbfounded to hear Congressman John Boehner talk about repealing Obama&amp;#8217;s Medicare cuts on Sean Hannity&amp;#8217;s show.
I wasn&amp;#8217;t shocked that Boehner was referring to non-existent cuts (Medicare spending is projected to jump from $519 billion in 2010 to $677 billion in 2015 according to the Congressional Budget Office). I&amp;#8217;ve been dealing with Washington&amp;#8217;s dishonest definition of &amp;#8220;spending cuts&amp;#8221; for decades, so I&amp;#8217;m hardly fazed by that type of routine inaccuracy.
But I was amazed that the presumptive future Speaker of the House went on a supposedly conservative talk radio show and said that increasing Medicare spending would be on...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4118890</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:08:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4118890</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Charitable Donations to the Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4082069&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FKaLOrrGZzO4%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe New York Times took a look at people who voluntarily send money to Washington in order to help pay down the federal debt. Last year, the Bureau of the Public Debt received $3.1 million in such donations. Looking at the federal budget, I found a total of $241 million in “gifts and contributions” for fiscal year 2010.
Charitable donations to the federal government are insignificant when compared to donations made to private charities. A Cato essay on welfare spending points out that Americans contribute more than $300 billion a year to organized private charities and volunteer more than 8 billion hours a year to charitable activities, which can be valued at about $158 billion.
Thus when given the choice, people overwhelmingly entrust their donations to private charities...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4082069</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:09:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4082069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama and Infrastructure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4055698&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUOY8BYYyXwM%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe President is continuing his push for the federal government to go deeper into debt in order to fund infrastructure projects. While nobody disputes that the country has infrastructure needs, the precarious nature of federal and state finances indicate that policymakers need to starting thinking outside the box. Specifically, policymakers should be looking to make it easier for the private sector to fund and operate infrastructure projects.
As my colleagues Chris Edwards and Peter Van Doren have explained, the main problem with government infrastructure spending is the lack of efficiency:
More roads and transit capacity may or may not make sense depending on whether the benefits exceed the costs. One sure way to find out is to have private provision and user charges. If use...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4055698</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:43:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4055698</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Thousand Cuts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4022896&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F-PjYTPqpl7I%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThat’s the title of a recent paper from the liberal Center for American Progress, which attempts to demonstrate “what reducing the federal budget deficit through large spending cuts could really look like.”
The authors, Michael Ettlinger and Michael Linden, issue a challenge that I whole-heartedly embrace:
By showing sets of specific spending cuts we hope to deepen the discussion of where deficit reduction is going to come from. The challenge we issue is this: If you think all or most of the deficit problem should be dealt with on the spending side, are you then willing to own the cuts we outline? If not, then it’s time to go public with what your cuts are, with at least the same level of precision we do—no gimmicks, “sunsets,” or other games. No infomercial cla...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4022896</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:48:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4022896</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>GOP’s Pledge to America</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4003239&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FWAlBPvZa85s%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe House Republicans’ release of its “Pledge to America” has been met with criticism from across the ideological spectrum. While excoriation from the left was inevitable, those who were hoping that the GOP would set out a detailed agenda for limiting government were also not satisfied.
The 48-page document contains more pictures of Republican members of Congress than it does evidence that the GOP is seriously prepared to cut spending. While the introductory commentary is designed to appeal to the tea party movement, the actual “plan” to return budgetary sanity to Washington is both timid and incomplete.
The following are some thoughts on the pledge’s “plan to stop out of control spending and reduce the size of government”:

The document immediately   notes th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4003239</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:06:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4003239</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Call To Action! Protect &amp; Expand U.S. Federal Ovarian Cancer Research Funding</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3925054&amp;cid=t_104720_136_f&amp;fid=37846&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthinfoispower.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F09%2F01%2Fcall-to-action-protect-expand-u-s-federal-ovarian-cancer-research-funding%2F</link>
            <description>Do you live in AL, CA, HI, IL, IA, KS, KY, MD, MI, MO, NH, ND, PA, TX, UT, VT, WA or WI? If so, one of your Senators sits on the U.S. Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee that determines how much funding is given to the Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program. Ask your [...] (Source: Libby's H*O*P*E*)</description>
            <author>Libby's H*O*P*E*</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3925054</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:42:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3925054</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Federal vs. Private Pay: A Response to OPM Director John Berry</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3880836&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNQtwAYMGTl4%2F</link>
            <description>The release of updated industry data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which show that the average federal employee continues to earn significantly more in compensation than the average private sector employee, has Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry on the defensive.
In light of Berry’s assertion that Cato and other critics of federal pay are not “advancing a factually-oriented debate,” I’d like to make a few comments:  
First, the Washington Post reports that top OPM officials point to Bureau of Labor Statistics data that “[f]ederal employees made on average 22 percent less than workers in similar private-sector jobs.” To Berry’s credit, he dismissed that figure (along with comparisons made using BEA data) as being “faulty.”
Even if the BLS data com...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3880836</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:26:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3880836</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>GOP Spending Cap</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3757853&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FzlUfcsucppc%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenRepublicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee have announced support for caps on the discretionary spending portion of the federal budget. According to press reports, discretionary spending under the cap for fiscal year 2011 would be approximately $20 billion less than what the president has proposed.
Appropriators &amp;#8212; often referred to as the “third party” in Washington &amp;#8212; exist to do one thing: spend other people’s money. Getting appropriators to agree to place any sort of limit themselves is a plus.
However, it’s hard to get excited about spending $20 billion less than the president. As the following chart shows, discretionary outlays have soared in the past decade:

With three months still to go in the current budget year, the federal deficit has alr...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3757853</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:52:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3757853</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Senate Rejects Capping Fannie/Freddie Losses</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3560219&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FEDFJwoQlI6o%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark A. CalabriaYesterday the Senate rejected an amendment by Senators McCain, Shelby and Gregg that would have capped the taxpayer losses on Fannie and Freddie at $200 billion each.  The amendment would have also brought Fannie and Freddie onto the Federal budget, forcing the government to admit what most of us already suspect: we&amp;#8217;re on the hook for their bad behavior.  All Republicans, with the additions of Democrats Feingold and Bayh, voted for the failed amendment.  As a substitute, which passed along party lines, Senator Dodd proposed that the Treasury Department would &amp;#8220;study&amp;#8221; the issue and report back to Congress.
While it was not surprising that Dodd lead the opposition to the McCain amendment (it is not the first time he&amp;#8217;s protected Fannie and Freddie...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3560219</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 16:15:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3560219</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ed Morrissey on The Struggle to Limit Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3515337&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqIPxW_7tQLc%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesEd Morrissey kindly mentioned The Struggle to Limit Government and responds to the advice for Tea Partiers in my video.
Morrissey says:
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that some Tea Partiers &amp;#8220;like&amp;#8221; big government; it’s more like some aren’t enthusiastic about dismantling as much of the federal government as others, especially the more doctrinaire libertarians.
In the video I noted that polls showed a majority of the people who identify with the Tea Party movement also thought the entitlement programs were worth their cost. My colleague, Jagadeesh Gokhale, has estimated that paying for current entitlements would require 9 percent of GNP in perpetuity. This is unlikely. Entitlements will have to be changed since too much has been promised. People who thi...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3515337</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 20:58:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3515337</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress to Skip the Budget Process—a Transparency Problem at the Very Least</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3467737&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FygqkA3Xq7f0%2F</link>
            <description>By Jim HarperYou are required by law to file your taxes by the end of the day tomorrow, and you get penalized if you don&amp;#8217;t. Meanwhile, Congress will not meet its April 15 requirement to pass a budget resolution. The budget resolution is the plan for FY 2011 revenue and spending that dictates the amounts in forthcoming annual spending bills.
It&amp;#8217;s an understatement to say that skipping the annual budgeting process is a transparency problem. It&amp;#8217;s a management problem, a spending problem, a leadership problem, a responsibility problem . . .
More commentary and a timetable of the congressional budget process is on the WashingtonWatch.com blog. Politico broke the story (so far as I can tell). Reuters quotes Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) saying, &amp;#8220;W...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3467737</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:42:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3467737</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My Big Fat Greek Budget</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3403869&amp;cid=t_104720_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>Federal Health Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3398889&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FT_mrFpIpDEg%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsWhen describing spending growth in federal programs, I often need to use words like &amp;#8220;soaring&amp;#8221; and &amp;#8220;explosive.&amp;#8221; But growth in federal health spending is almost beyond superlatives to describe it, and it will increase even faster as a result of President Obama&amp;#8217;s new health legislation.
This chart shows total real spending by the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Spending has increased almost nine-fold since 1970, and that&amp;#8217;s after adjusting for inflation. And note how the slope of the bars increased around 1990. Health spending is truly skyrocketing and Obama has just put us into orbit.

(Data from the federal budget, historical tables, table 4.1, as deflated) (Source: Ca...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3398889</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:48:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3398889</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Senate Bill Would Increase Health Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3358963&amp;cid=t_104720_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>Fannie, Freddie, Peter, and Barney</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3350256&amp;cid=t_104720_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_104720_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>A New Fed-Treasury Accord</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3302297&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLlTPbV_LI2c%2F</link>
            <description>By Gerald P. O'DriscollCharles Plosser, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, gave an important speech last week.  He mounted a strong defense of what is known as Fed independence.  &amp;#8221;Central bank independence means the central bank can make monetary policy decisions without fear of direct political interference.&amp;#8221;
Toward the end of the speech, Plosser admitted the Fed had brought criticism down on itself by blurring the line between monetary and fiscal policy.  In the process, the central greatly expanded its balance sheet and substituted &amp;#8220;less liquid, long-term assets, such as securities backed by mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for the short-term securities it typically held before the crisis.&amp;#8221;
To extricate it self from condu...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3302297</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:07:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3302297</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Budget Still Goes to the Moon</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3231451&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FSKg9nI2GOcY%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenThe president’s new budget proposes to end NASA’s Constellation program, a Bush initiative intended to put humans back on the moon by 2020. But Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget still goes to the moon figuratively — if you stacked 3.8 trillion $1 bills, the pile would reach the moon with 20,000 miles to spare!
The president’s proposal to end the Constellation isn’t sitting well with those members of Congress who enjoy large NASA spending in their districts. From the Washington Post:
&amp;#8220;The president&amp;#8217;s proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human spaceflight,&amp;#8221; Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) said Monday. &amp;#8220;If this budget is enacted, NASA will no longer be an agency of innovation and hard science. It will be the agency of ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3231451</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:11:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3231451</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>State and Local Subsidies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3220508&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyA0PmluhZ70%2F</link>
            <description>By Tad DeHavenEarlier this week I criticized the U.S. Conference of Mayors for going to Washington and groveling for more federal handouts. Let me provide some more background for my criticisms with a look at federal budget data. The first chart shows that since 1960, total federal subsidies to state and local government have increased an astounding 1,173%.

Several readers have asked me what particular programs account for this large increase in state aid. The federal budget breaks down the total figures into categories. Not surprisingly, health subsidies — mainly Medicaid — account for almost half of the current total and are the driving force behind the massive overall increase:

However, there have been large increases in other activities as well. Here are the changes by federal ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3220508</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:37:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3220508</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>State of the Union Fact Check</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3220515&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdC1O9e04uXY%2F</link>
            <description>By Cato EditorsCato experts put some of President Obama’s core State of the Union claims to the test. Here’s what they found.
THE STIMULUS
Obama’s claim:
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. That&amp;#8217;s right &amp;#8212; the Recovery Act, also known as the Stimulus Bill. Economists on the left and the right say that this bill has helped saved jobs and avert disaster.
Back in reality: At the outset of the economic downturn, Cato ran an ad in the nation’s largest newspapers in which more than 300 economists (Nobel laureates among them) signed a statement saying a massive government spending package was among the worst available options. Since then, Cato economists have published dozens of op-eds in major news outlets poking hol...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3220515</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:54:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3220515</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tax Hike Commission</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3100778&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FtFatODyqKEo%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris EdwardsThe Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is holding hearings today focused on Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Judd Gregg’s (R-NH) idea to set up a special Task Force to draft a deficit-reduction plan. The plan would get fast-tracked through Congress for a vote and &amp;#8220;everything would be on the table.&amp;#8221;
For taxpayers, this idea creates the threat of large tax increases on top of all the other tax increases being discussed in Congress. While the senators supporting a Task Force express valid concerns about the government’s exploding debt, the plan could launch a drive to impose a European-style value-added tax in America.
In theory, such a Task Force could come up with some meaty and long-overdue cuts to the federal budget. But nine of the se...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3100778</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 19:06:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3100778</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Strange Bedfellows?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3096833&amp;cid=t_104720_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_104720_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>Cato Launches New Web Site Exposing Wasteful Government Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2865648&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOU8VBlIASEw%2F</link>
            <description>Did you know that the average American family spends $1,000 each year on the U.S. Department of Agriculture, whether or not it consumes that agency&amp;#8217;s services?  Or that the federal government annually spends $1,500 per household on net interest costs alone?
In an ongoing effort to shed light on runaway government spending and expose wasteful government programs, Cato launched a new Web site today that examines the federal budget department-by-department to see which agencies can be reformed or terminated. DownsizingGovernment.org describes which programs are wasteful, damaging and obsolete in an era of trillion-dollar deficits.
The research exposes that many public outlays—though vigorously defended by the politicians who created them and the constituencies they purport to help...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2865648</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:59:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2865648</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Is Right to Stare Down Congress Over the F-22</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2610879&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FMS8FlZ3UcZI%2F</link>
            <description>If Congress votes to build even more F-22s in the 2010 Defense Authorization bill, it will be a sad example of parochial interests overriding our nation&amp;#8217;s security. The move would defy the wishes of the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Gates, who have wisely called for the program to come to an end.
The Raptor’s whopping price tag—$356 million per aircraft counting costs over the life of the program— and its poor air-to-ground capabilities always undermined the case for building more than the 187 already programmed.
In the past week, Congress has learned more about the F-22&amp;#8217;s poor maintenance record, which has driven the operating costs to more than $44,000 per hour of flying, which is well above those of any comparable fighter. And, of course, the plane hasn&amp;#8217;t seen a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2610879</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:57:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2610879</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The “Culture of Spending” from the Mouths of Babes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2510289&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fsv9adaBOhpI%2F</link>
            <description>Each semester, when I speak to Cato&amp;#8217;s new employees and interns, I give them a quick discussion of some of the reasons that government tends to grow, such as the problem of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs and what James Payne called &amp;#8220;the culture of spending.&amp;#8221; In his book by that title, Payne noted:
The congressman lives in a special world, a curiously isolated world that is dominated by the advocates of government action. He is subjected to a broad chorus of persuasion that incessantly urges the virtues of spending programs. Year after year he hears how necessary government programs are.
Day after day, year after year, people come to the congressman&amp;#8217;s office with stories about why some particular government program is needed &amp;#8212; to help their grandfathe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2510289</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:09:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2510289</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Week in Review: Health Care Battles, Pay Caps and North Korean Prisoners</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2473189&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOVHZMzbFKSM%2F</link>
            <description>Will Obama Raise Middle-Class Taxes to Fund Health Care?
President Obama is promoting an expansion in federal health care spending, and Democratic leaders are scrambling to find ways to pay for it. The plan is expected to cost about $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but the administration has promised that health care legislation won&amp;#8217;t add to already huge federal budget deficits. In a new paper, Cato scholars Michael D. Tanner and Chris Edwards argue that expanding government health care will likely involve huge tax increases on the middle class.
Tanner warns of “Obamacare” to come, saying that Obama’s new health care plan will give “government control over one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and over some of the most important, personal, and private decisions in Americans&amp;#8217...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2473189</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:17:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2473189</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democratic Deficit Hawks?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2441163&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAjEqW0zgX5g%2F</link>
            <description>In a hagiographic profile of Obama budget director Peter Orszag, Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker writes of the &amp;#8220;pressure&amp;#8221; he might get from congressional deficit hawks:
The respective heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, John Spratt, Jr., of South Carolina, and Kent Conrad, of North Dakota, have spent years trying to control the deficit&amp;#8230;
Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has made eradicating the federal budget deficit his life’s work.
Now, you&amp;#8217;d think that if the ranking Democrats on the congressional budget committees had made deficit reduction their life&amp;#8217;s work, the budget wouldn&amp;#8217;t have, you know, skyrocketed over the past decade and more. So let&amp;#8217;s go to the tape.
The National Taxpayers Union has given Spratt a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2441163</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 18:48:39 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2441163</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Does Big Government Breed Corruption and Sleaze?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2353756&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fgo1_ifiSdus%2F</link>
            <description>Washington is riddled with both legal and illegal corruption, but why?
Perhaps it is because government is too big and has too much power. The federal budget redistributes $3.5 trillion through more than 1,800 subsidy programs. The regulatory burden is $1.2 trillion and there have been 51,000 new regulations since 1995. And there are more than 70,000 pages of tax law and regulations.
These are the reasons why Washington is a hornet&amp;#8217;s nest of deal-making, influence-peddling, and back-scratching.
In this new video, produced by the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, I argue that reducing the size and scope of government is the only effective way to control Washington sleaze. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2353756</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:44:48 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2353756</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The President’s Make-Believe Fiscal Conservatism</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2347782&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5HNxxwVlass%2F</link>
            <description>At first, I thought the calendar was wrong and it must be April 1 and the White House was playing an April Fool&amp;#8217;s joke. That seemed like the only logical explanation for a story in today&amp;#8217;s Washington Post stating that the President wants all government departments to identify $100 million in supposed budget cuts. With 14 cabinet-level departments, that adds up to $1.4 billion of savings &amp;#8212; and those savings almost certainly be measured against an ever-increasing budget baseline, which means that they would merely be reductions in planned increases. This is a shallow and insincere stunt to trick taxpayers. This is the same President, after all, that just squandered nearly $800 billion on a so-called stimulus bill. And this is the same President that just rammed through a $3...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2347782</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:15:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2347782</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Chuck Schumer Endorses Hoover Plan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2263794&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FgOtvX_8HppI%2F</link>
            <description>On Meet the Press last Sunday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said
Those on the hard right say, &amp;#8220;Cut government spending, let&amp;#8217;s go back to the old Reagan days.&amp;#8221; Well, the last president who did this when we were in this type of situation was Herbert Hoover.  Herbert Hoover said the government should do nothing when we were in a recession, not a depression.  We did nothing and it related [sic] to a depression.
Reality check: Did President Hoover cut federal spending during the recession that became a depression? Not by a long shot.
 

Source: OMB
Federal spending was $3.1 billion (those were the days!) in 1929, the year Hoover took office and the stock market crashed. It rose modestly for two years, then shot up in 1932. It dropped a bit in nominal terms in 1933, though def...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2263794</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:56:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2263794</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators…and Pork</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2255987&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FJv_oHHR-H1I%2F</link>
            <description>I&amp;#8217;m sympathetic to the oft-repeated saying that there are really three parties in Washington: Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators.  This situation is likely to be demonstrated this evening when Republican members of the Senate Appropriations Committee provide enough votes for Democratic Sen. Harry Reid to close off debate and proceed to final passage of the pork-laden $410 billion fy2009 omnibus appropriations bill.
Greasing the skids for bigger government will be almost $8 billion in earmarks contained in the bill.  Fox News is pointing out that almost all of the Republican Senators expected or likely to support the Democratic measure stand to deliver quite a bit of pork to constituents and special interests.  Not coincidentally, all of the senators named, except Sen. Snowe...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2255987</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:33:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2255987</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Here’s an Idea: Don’t Do Either!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2223520&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FikRmVB1baW4%2F</link>
            <description>One of the biggest pieces of news coming from President Obama’s budget preview is that he’d kill federal guaranteed student lending &amp;#8212; in which the feds subsidize private lenders &amp;#8212; and move everything to direct lending straight from the government. He promises that cutting out the middle man would save about $4 billion a year.
In the short term, that savings figure might be possible, though whether or not that is the case is likely to be hotly contested. Washington does spend a lot subsidizing loans so that they carry almost no risk to the lenders and are, hence, low-interest and abundant. Eliminating those subsidies could save some dough. That said, there is absolutely no reason to believe that making Washington the monopolist student lender will produce any long-term eff...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2223520</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:05:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2223520</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New Mandatory Savings Plan?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217403&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAFTynfat4ik%2F</link>
            <description>I haven&amp;#8217;t seen any media attention paid to it yet, and I don&amp;#8217;t recall the president mentioning it in his speech Tuesday night.  Regardless, p.37 of today&amp;#8217;s budget blueprint calls for &amp;#8220;Making Saving for Retirement Easier as the Economy Recovers.&amp;#8221; Although it sounds innocuous, I believe the contents could be cause for alarm:
&amp;#8220;Over the long-term families need personal savings, in addition to Social Security, to prepare for retirement and to fall back on during tough economic times like these. However, 75 million working Americans—roughly half the workforce—currently lack access to employer-based retirement plans. In addition, the existing incentives to save for retirement are weak or non-existent for the majority of middle and low-income households. Th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217403</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:54:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217403</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FY2009 Deficit = FY2000 Spending</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217405&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FFkgMVWLxRjY%2F</link>
            <description>Total federal spending in FY2000:  $1.79 Trillion.
Total estimated FY2009 deficit according to today&amp;#8217;s budget blueprint: $1.75 Trillion. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217405</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:39:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217405</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s $1.3 Trillion Tax Hike</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217408&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fn-4iXVeOy6U%2F</link>
            <description>Here are some notes on the tax proposals in the new federal budget:  (See Table S-6; All figures are 10-year totals)

There are $770 billion in &amp;#8220;tax cuts for families and individuals.&amp;#8221;  However, the fine print on page 129 shows that $326 billion of that is actually spending, or the &amp;#8220;refundable&amp;#8221; portion of the tax changes. That leaves a net $444 billion in tax cuts for individuals.
The budget would impose a $646 billion tax increase from new &amp;#8220;climate revenues,&amp;#8221; which would create a burden on families in the form of higher energy prices.  Thus, there is a net tax hike on &amp;#8220;families&amp;#8221; of about $202 billion, even aside from the income tax increases at the top end.
Income tax increases on those with higher incomes total $637 billion. No...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217408</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:32:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217408</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama Budget Irresponsibility Inconsistency</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217409&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvMHQDMEqEuQ%2F</link>
            <description>Page 14 of the President&amp;#8217;s FY2010 budget &amp;#8220;blueprint&amp;#8221; contains a section called &amp;#8220;Fiscal Irresponsibility&amp;#8221; that deserves scrutiny:
&amp;#8220;Another manifestation of irresponsibility is the large budget deficits we are inheriting. These deficits, over time, will harm economic growth and impose burdens on our children and grandchildren.&amp;#8221;
True.
&amp;#8220;Between 2000 and 2008, real Government outlays increased at a 3.6 percent annual average rate, three times the 1.2 percent annual average rate between 1992 and 2000&amp;#8230;Furthermore, the amount of debt held by the public has nearly doubled to $6.4 trillion from 2001 to 2008. We are now living with the fallout of this deep fiscal irresponsibility.&amp;#8221;
True.
&amp;#8220;Unfortunately, we are also inheriting the worst...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217409</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:23:26 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217409</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How to Spend a Trillion Dollars without Waste and Fraud</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217410&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FQJUA4oVNryQ%2F</link>
            <description>You can&amp;#8217;t.
And the federal government knows it. On Tuesday,
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, told a House subcommittee that the government&amp;#8217;s experiences in the reconstruction of Iraq, hurricane-relief programs and the 1990s savings-and-loan bailout suggest the rescue program could be ripe for fraud&amp;#8230;.
Gene Dodaro, acting comptroller general of the U.S., told the subcommittee that a reliance on contractors and a lack of written policies could &amp;#8220;increase the risk of wasted government dollars without adequate oversight of contractor performance.&amp;#8221;
With the government having already allocated $700 billion for TARP, and $787 billion for &amp;#8220;stimulus,&amp;#8221; and President Obama now calling for $635 bill...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217410</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:08:49 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217410</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>President Obama’s Budget: Higher Taxes &amp; Bigger Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2217411&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FNiOW6tUALzI%2F</link>
            <description>&amp;#8220;As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President&amp;#8217;s Day&amp;#8230; Not because I believe in bigger government &amp;#8212; I don&amp;#8217;t. Not because I&amp;#8217;m not mindful of the massive debt we&amp;#8217;ve inherited &amp;#8212; I am.&amp;#8221;
     –President Obama to congressional joint session, February 24
President Obama said some encouraging words about federal spending in his first major speech as president, but the budget released by his administration today reveals a substantial disconnect between his rhetoric and his policy.
Americans have a fundamental choice to make in coming months: Do they want President Obama and Congress to impose huge increases in the size of government, perhaps as dramatic as occurred in the 1930s and 1960s?
Apart from...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2217411</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:28:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2217411</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pentagon 1, Obama 0</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2122201&amp;cid=t_104720_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F519085235%2F</link>
            <description>Planning for the 2010 federal budget began in 2008. The Office of Management and Budget instructed agencies to prepare documents for the incoming administration showing “current services baselines” and program estimates for the coming fiscal year. That means &amp;#8220;just explain what you&amp;#8217;re spending now and project it forward for next year.&amp;#8221; The idea was to allow the Obama appointees to shape the budgets quickly when they came into office.
The Pentagon, however, went through its normal budgeting process. It produced a budget that defied existing plans and expectations that FY 2009 would be the last year of the massive defense buildup that began in the last years of the Clinton administration. It adds $60 billion to the defense baseline above FY 2009 levels and $450 bill...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2122201</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:39:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2122201</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tory budget leaves Canadian research funding out in the cold</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=486319&amp;cid=t_104720_107_f&amp;fid=35009&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fsciencesque.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F03%2F20%2Fthe-tories-focus-on%2F</link>
            <description>The big news in Canada today is the release of the 2007 federal budget by the minority Conservative government. Of all the commentaries I&amp;#8217;ve read so far, the most astute is the article by John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail. After spending many years as the opposition watching the Liberal government be all things to all people, the Tories have moved &amp;#8220;boldly&amp;#8221; towards the centre of the political spectrum. As Ibbitson said: &amp;#8220;The Liberals should sue for identity theft&amp;#8221;. I&amp;#8217;m sure the Grits are calling their lawyers right now.
Unfortunately, while this very Liberal budget is big on spending for families (a recent consideration of mine) and the environment (it&amp;#8217;s about time), it falls sadly short of Liberal spending levels for the research funding agencies...</description>
            <author>Sciencesque</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=486319</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:25:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">486319</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

