Cato has set up a web site that explores ways to downsize the federal government, department by department. This is a worthy cause. The government is now so big that it will require thousands of sets of eyes to get a handle on the sheer size, replication, waste and stupidity it embraces.
Click on the headline of this post to go to the web site.
Here's a small sample:
The Department of Agriculture administers large farm subsidy programs and runs the food stamp and school lunch programs.
The department will spend about $142 billion in 2010, or about $1,200 for every U.S. household. It employs 96,000 workers and operates more than 230 subsidy programs.
Showing posts with label Cato. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cato. Show all posts
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Obamacare: Looking for job growth in all the wrong places
Come September, National Journal will host a policy summit titled “Prescription For Growth,” funded by Eli Lilly, that will probe “the potential impact of recently passed health care reform as an economic engine” and ask whether “health care reform [will] serve as a jobs creator and accelerate growth in health-related industries?”
Oy, where to begin?
I suppose I could start with how a news organization that bills itself as “the leading source of nonpartisan reporting” could lend ObamaCare a positive gloss by calling it “reform” — a term that even NPR declines to ascribe to actual legislation (for that reason).
Next, there’s this inane question of whether ObamaCare will spur job growth in the health care sector. With two new health care entitlements and maybe a trillion dollars of new health spending…gosh, d’ya think?
But then there’s the presumption that creating new health care jobs is a good thing. You’d think it would be. After all, unemployment is near 10 percent. But one of our biggest health care problems is that there are too many health care jobs. The Dartmouth Institute’s Elliot Fisher has quipped, “In theory, we could send a third of the U.S. health care workforce to Africa and improve the health of both continents.” ObamaCare will just make this country’s health care sector even more bloated and inefficient.
Wrap your head around all that this summit aims to accomplish. It could give a boost to an unpopular and low approval rating on the economy — never mind that ObamaCare is stifling the right kind of job creation.
Of course, I may have this summit all wrong. It may give all these issues a fair hearing.
Did I mention the summit’s sponsor is one of the biggest special-interest beneficiaries of ObamaCare? (Tim Carney, call your office.)
Oy, where to begin?
I suppose I could start with how a news organization that bills itself as “the leading source of nonpartisan reporting” could lend ObamaCare a positive gloss by calling it “reform” — a term that even NPR declines to ascribe to actual legislation (for that reason).
Next, there’s this inane question of whether ObamaCare will spur job growth in the health care sector. With two new health care entitlements and maybe a trillion dollars of new health spending…gosh, d’ya think?
But then there’s the presumption that creating new health care jobs is a good thing. You’d think it would be. After all, unemployment is near 10 percent. But one of our biggest health care problems is that there are too many health care jobs. The Dartmouth Institute’s Elliot Fisher has quipped, “In theory, we could send a third of the U.S. health care workforce to Africa and improve the health of both continents.” ObamaCare will just make this country’s health care sector even more bloated and inefficient.
Wrap your head around all that this summit aims to accomplish. It could give a boost to an unpopular and low approval rating on the economy — never mind that ObamaCare is stifling the right kind of job creation.
Of course, I may have this summit all wrong. It may give all these issues a fair hearing.
Did I mention the summit’s sponsor is one of the biggest special-interest beneficiaries of ObamaCare? (Tim Carney, call your office.)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Average pay of bureaucrats more than double private sector pay
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.
Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.
"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.
Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.
Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.
"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.
Monday, July 26, 2010
George Will celebrates the insightful Milton Friedman
I want to thank all of the people in this room for making Cato and its work possible. I also want to thank a few million more people who, in recent weeks, have toiled to demonstrate in a timely manner why Cato is necessary. I refer, of course, to the people of Greece.
Milton Friedman, whose name we honor tonight, was honored often for his recondite and subtle scholarship. But it was complemented by a sturdy common sense much in fashion nowhere now. About 40 years ago he found himself in an Asian country where the government was extremely eager to show off a public works project of which it was inordinately and excessively fond. It was digging a canal. They took Milton out to see this, and he was astonished because there were hordes of workers but no heavy equipment. He remarked on this to his government guide, who replied, "You don't understand, Mr. Friedman. This is a jobs program. That's why we only have men with shovels." To which Friedman said, "Well, if it's a jobs program, why don't they have spoons instead of shovels?"
Milton Friedman, whose name we honor tonight, was honored often for his recondite and subtle scholarship. But it was complemented by a sturdy common sense much in fashion nowhere now. About 40 years ago he found himself in an Asian country where the government was extremely eager to show off a public works project of which it was inordinately and excessively fond. It was digging a canal. They took Milton out to see this, and he was astonished because there were hordes of workers but no heavy equipment. He remarked on this to his government guide, who replied, "You don't understand, Mr. Friedman. This is a jobs program. That's why we only have men with shovels." To which Friedman said, "Well, if it's a jobs program, why don't they have spoons instead of shovels?"
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Cato wonders if Obama has read his own health care overhaul
Does President Obama have any idea what's in his own health-care reform law?
Since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a bit more than 100 days ago, the president has given a number of speeches and interviews in which he continues to say things that, well, just aren't so. Just last Friday, he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that the law "not only makes sure everybody has access to coverage but is reducing costs."
Wrong on both counts.
The bill doesn't come close to giving "everybody" access to coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 years from now there will still be at least 21 million uninsured Americans. That's an improvement over today, but it's a far cry from the universal coverage that Obama once promised.
[T]he law will add significantly to the already crushing burden of government spending, taxes and debt.
And nearly half of the newly covered aren't getting access to true health insurance but are being added to the Medicaid program, with all of its attendant problems of access and quality.
Indeed, access to health care may be about to get harder. The RAND Corporation reports that the new law may result in severe overcrowding and longer waits in emergency rooms.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warn that some of the mandated cuts in Medicare could result in the closing of up to 15 percent of US hospitals.
We've already seen a near doubling in the waiting time to see a doctor under Massachusetts' universal health-care law, which is very similar to ObamaCare.
Even further from reality is the president's continued insistence that the new law is "reducing costs." In fact, the administration's own chief health-care actuary reports that the law will actually raise US health-care spending by $311 billion over 10 years. This failure to control costs means that the law will add significantly to the already crushing burden of government spending, taxes and debt.
Accurately measured, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost more than $2.7 trillion over its first 10 years of full operation and add more than $352 billion to the national debt. This doesn't even include more than $4.3 trillion in costs shifted to businesses, individuals and state governments.
Anyone who thinks that their insurance premiums will be going down in the foreseeable future is going to be disappointed. The law does nothing to restrain the growth in insurance costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that premiums will double over the next six years, roughly the same rate of increase as would have occurred without health-care reform.
Since he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a bit more than 100 days ago, the president has given a number of speeches and interviews in which he continues to say things that, well, just aren't so. Just last Friday, he told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that the law "not only makes sure everybody has access to coverage but is reducing costs."
Wrong on both counts.
The bill doesn't come close to giving "everybody" access to coverage. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 10 years from now there will still be at least 21 million uninsured Americans. That's an improvement over today, but it's a far cry from the universal coverage that Obama once promised.
[T]he law will add significantly to the already crushing burden of government spending, taxes and debt.
And nearly half of the newly covered aren't getting access to true health insurance but are being added to the Medicaid program, with all of its attendant problems of access and quality.
Indeed, access to health care may be about to get harder. The RAND Corporation reports that the new law may result in severe overcrowding and longer waits in emergency rooms.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services warn that some of the mandated cuts in Medicare could result in the closing of up to 15 percent of US hospitals.
We've already seen a near doubling in the waiting time to see a doctor under Massachusetts' universal health-care law, which is very similar to ObamaCare.
Even further from reality is the president's continued insistence that the new law is "reducing costs." In fact, the administration's own chief health-care actuary reports that the law will actually raise US health-care spending by $311 billion over 10 years. This failure to control costs means that the law will add significantly to the already crushing burden of government spending, taxes and debt.
Accurately measured, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will cost more than $2.7 trillion over its first 10 years of full operation and add more than $352 billion to the national debt. This doesn't even include more than $4.3 trillion in costs shifted to businesses, individuals and state governments.
Anyone who thinks that their insurance premiums will be going down in the foreseeable future is going to be disappointed. The law does nothing to restrain the growth in insurance costs. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that premiums will double over the next six years, roughly the same rate of increase as would have occurred without health-care reform.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Global warming isn't just a millionaire-maker any more; it's potentially a full-employment issue for lawyers
...here’s the situation: Mississippi homeowners sued 34 energy companies and utilities operating in the Gulf Coast for damage sustained to their property during Hurricane Katrina. The homeowners alleged that the defendants had emitted greenhouse gases, which increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which contributed to global warming, which accelerated the melting of glaciers, which raised the global sea level, which increased the frequency and severity of hurricanes, which caused the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina. The district court concluded that it lacked the authority to resolve the public debate over global warming and dismissed the case. A Fifth Circuit panel reversed this dismissal, holding that the homeowners have standing to raise some of their claims and that those claims are appropriate for resolution by the federal courts. The Fifth Circuit then granted rehearing en banc.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Cato goes after Romney on Massachusetts plan
An influential conservative think tank is firing a broadside at ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R), criticizing the potential WH'12 contender for a health care plan they say looks identical to Pres. Obama's.
"When you run down this list of elements in the Obama plan and the Romney plan, they are all identical," says Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of Health Policy Studies, in a new video running on the group's website. "Both the Romney plan and the Obama plan are essentially a government takeover of the health care sector of the economy."
Romney's signature achievement during his tenure in the Bay State, CommonwealthCare, has now become a serious liability for a potential WH'12 bid. Romney's approach was controversial among think tank conservatives then; now, with the spotlight on health care, some are convinced it will be a deal-breaker.
"As Pres. Obama himself has pointed out, Romney is the guy who created the prototype for Obamacare," said Cato executive VP David Boaz. "How can he lead the charge against a health care plan that is modeled on his own?"
Romney has pushed back hard, dismissing comparisons between the 2 plans as inaccurate.
"Pres. Obama has tried to compare Gov. Romney's plan to his own but there are important differences. Gov. Romney's plan is different because it didn't include a tax increase, and it didn't cut care to seniors, and most importantly, it is based on the premise that states should be free to pursue their own healthcare solutions," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior advisor to Romney's Free and Strong America PAC.
"Under Gov. Romney, Massachusetts solved the problem of the uninsured without raising taxes. Other states are free to copy what he did, or improve on it, or chart their own course, but we should reject a federal one-size-fits-all plan," Fehrstrom added.
My take:
The first graf of this piece insinuates that Massachusetts copied, or borrowed heavily from, Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts enacted its plan several years ago. Congress enacted Obamacare this year.
There's another slant to this story that intrigues me. Perhaps Obama's handlers tailored Obamacare after the Massachusetts plan so as to make a presidential run by Romney difficult, if not impossible. If so, their scheme has succeeded. While Romney has survived his difficulty to this point, and still appears to be a viable candidate, that could change when the presidential primary campaign heats up and his rivals go after him.
This theory assumes more intelligence and skill than I believe the Obama team possesses, but it is plausible.
To see a video of the Cato attack on Romney, go here: http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php
"When you run down this list of elements in the Obama plan and the Romney plan, they are all identical," says Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of Health Policy Studies, in a new video running on the group's website. "Both the Romney plan and the Obama plan are essentially a government takeover of the health care sector of the economy."
Romney's signature achievement during his tenure in the Bay State, CommonwealthCare, has now become a serious liability for a potential WH'12 bid. Romney's approach was controversial among think tank conservatives then; now, with the spotlight on health care, some are convinced it will be a deal-breaker.
"As Pres. Obama himself has pointed out, Romney is the guy who created the prototype for Obamacare," said Cato executive VP David Boaz. "How can he lead the charge against a health care plan that is modeled on his own?"
Romney has pushed back hard, dismissing comparisons between the 2 plans as inaccurate.
"Pres. Obama has tried to compare Gov. Romney's plan to his own but there are important differences. Gov. Romney's plan is different because it didn't include a tax increase, and it didn't cut care to seniors, and most importantly, it is based on the premise that states should be free to pursue their own healthcare solutions," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior advisor to Romney's Free and Strong America PAC.
"Under Gov. Romney, Massachusetts solved the problem of the uninsured without raising taxes. Other states are free to copy what he did, or improve on it, or chart their own course, but we should reject a federal one-size-fits-all plan," Fehrstrom added.
My take:
The first graf of this piece insinuates that Massachusetts copied, or borrowed heavily from, Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts enacted its plan several years ago. Congress enacted Obamacare this year.
There's another slant to this story that intrigues me. Perhaps Obama's handlers tailored Obamacare after the Massachusetts plan so as to make a presidential run by Romney difficult, if not impossible. If so, their scheme has succeeded. While Romney has survived his difficulty to this point, and still appears to be a viable candidate, that could change when the presidential primary campaign heats up and his rivals go after him.
This theory assumes more intelligence and skill than I believe the Obama team possesses, but it is plausible.
To see a video of the Cato attack on Romney, go here: http://www.cato.org/pressroom.php
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Cato: U.S. medicine leads world in innovation
Studies that compare America's health care sector to other countries typically omit any measure of innovation. A new study by Glen Whitman and Raymond Raad shows that America far and away leads the world in medical innovation. Since American innovations improve health world-wide, that is a virtue of the American system that is not reflected in comparative life-expectancy and mortality statistics. The authors argue that innovation should play a central role in the health care debate, and that the legislation before Congress could hinder the ability of creative individuals to innovate.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Cato: abolish Department of Homeland Security
"Does "time with my family" ever actually mean "time with my family" in Washington? Tom Ridge gave the standard resignation line when he stepped down as Secretary of Homeland Security shortly after the 2004 elections, but last week he revealed that there was much more to the story.
In a forthcoming book, Ridge complains that the weekend before Election Day, Bush administration officials leaned on him to raise the color-coded threat level. Dismayed, Ridge refused the demand, and concluded he needed to resign. "I wondered," Ridge writes, "Is this about security or politics?"
That's a question we ought to ask about DHS as a whole. Since its creation in 2003, the department has done little to provide genuine security and much to encourage a pernicious politics of fear. We'd be better off without it."
In a forthcoming book, Ridge complains that the weekend before Election Day, Bush administration officials leaned on him to raise the color-coded threat level. Dismayed, Ridge refused the demand, and concluded he needed to resign. "I wondered," Ridge writes, "Is this about security or politics?"
That's a question we ought to ask about DHS as a whole. Since its creation in 2003, the department has done little to provide genuine security and much to encourage a pernicious politics of fear. We'd be better off without it."
Cato rebuts Obama's claims on health insurance
"In his most recent weekly radio address, President Barack Obama denounced "willful misrepresentations and outright distortions" in the debate over health care reform. He then went on to repeat one of the most outright distortions in the entire debate: "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
No, Mr. President. No you can't.
To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.
It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular 'willful misrepresentation and outright distortion.'
And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21."
No, Mr. President. No you can't.
To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.
It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular 'willful misrepresentation and outright distortion.'
And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21."
Friday, August 28, 2009
Compulsary health insurance would drive up cost
"The most sweeping provision in the health care reform legislation before Congress is not the new government program Democrats wish to create, but the "individual mandate" that would make health insurance compulsory.
According to Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon, the individual mandate that Massachusetts enacted in 2006 shows that ObamaCare would effectively outlaw low-cost health plans, making health insurance more expensive for millions, and "would expand federal power by enabling it to ration care to patients under age 65."
According to Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon, the individual mandate that Massachusetts enacted in 2006 shows that ObamaCare would effectively outlaw low-cost health plans, making health insurance more expensive for millions, and "would expand federal power by enabling it to ration care to patients under age 65."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Cato: Bush and Obama have killed capitalism
"Do we still live in a capitalist country?
Is the U.S. drifting toward socialism?
Even using only the narrowest meaning of the word — government ownership of business — the answer is clearly yes.
Last year, the Bush administration trampled private property rights by expropriating 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without shareholder approval. As should have been expected, that scared stockholders away from other financial stocks, depleting the banks' cushion of high-quality capital. "Capital injections" from TARP (thinly disguised debt) greatly aggravated that exodus of private capital. So did Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's frightening "stress test" threats to wipe out shareholders by converting government's preferred stock to common.
Like other flirtations with socialism, the Troubled Asset Relief Program has been an unmitigated disaster. Public capital simply displaced private capital, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The expression "socialize the losses and privatize the gains" is only half right; both shareholders and taxpayers were losers."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10042
Is the U.S. drifting toward socialism?
Even using only the narrowest meaning of the word — government ownership of business — the answer is clearly yes.
Last year, the Bush administration trampled private property rights by expropriating 80 percent of AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without shareholder approval. As should have been expected, that scared stockholders away from other financial stocks, depleting the banks' cushion of high-quality capital. "Capital injections" from TARP (thinly disguised debt) greatly aggravated that exodus of private capital. So did Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's frightening "stress test" threats to wipe out shareholders by converting government's preferred stock to common.
Like other flirtations with socialism, the Troubled Asset Relief Program has been an unmitigated disaster. Public capital simply displaced private capital, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. The expression "socialize the losses and privatize the gains" is only half right; both shareholders and taxpayers were losers."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10042
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Cato: Obama picking up where Bush left off
"Over the last eight years, then-President George W. Bush repeatedly insisted that he was the sole constitutional "decider," free from congressional or judicial checks on his power.
He claimed the power to imprison American citizens as terrorist suspects for as long as he deemed necessary, tap Americans' phones without a warrant, and, through the use of the State Secrets privilege - -a doctrine that shields information related to national security - prevent the courts from testing the legality of those propositions.
In the last months of his administration, Bush behaved like a Roman dictator for economic affairs, deciding which companies would live or die with the $700 billion in taxpayer funds Congress had authorized the executive branch to commit.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised that he'd take a different approach to presidential power. Last week, our new president faced his first serious test of whether he meant what he said.
He failed."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9983
He claimed the power to imprison American citizens as terrorist suspects for as long as he deemed necessary, tap Americans' phones without a warrant, and, through the use of the State Secrets privilege - -a doctrine that shields information related to national security - prevent the courts from testing the legality of those propositions.
In the last months of his administration, Bush behaved like a Roman dictator for economic affairs, deciding which companies would live or die with the $700 billion in taxpayer funds Congress had authorized the executive branch to commit.
On the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised that he'd take a different approach to presidential power. Last week, our new president faced his first serious test of whether he meant what he said.
He failed."
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9983
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
