Monday, April 05, 2010

Heritage Morning Bell-Healthcare and Rules of Reporting

Red Tape Rising

Just three days after President Barack Obama's health plan was signed into law, AT&T announced that due to an obscure tax change in the bill, the nation's largest telephone company would take a $1 billion hit to its bottom line this quarter. According to health benefits analysts this tax law modification would shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits. While it would have been better had these tax losses been made more public before Congress voted, at least these tax charges are transparent and easily quantifiable enough to get noticed by the American people. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the hundreds of new regulations that the federal government will enforce as it tries to implement Obama's redistributionist health agenda.

In addition to the federal government's explicit taxes and spending, Americans are also burdened with a slew of hidden taxes imposed by an ever-increasing number of regulations. More than 50 agencies have a hand in federal regulatory policy, enforcing more than 150,000 pages of rules. Many of these regulations provide needed benefits. Most Americans would agree on the need for security regulations to protect citizens from terrorist attacks, although the extent and scope of those rules may be subject to debate. But each regulation comes at a cost--a "regulatory tax" imposed on all Americans. According to a 2005 study commissioned by the Small Business Administration, the cost of all regulations then on the books was some $1.1 trillion per year.

Worse than the existing size of our country's regulatory burden, is the pace at which it has been growing. Contrary to what most liberals and media elites would have you believe, President George Bush had a decidedly mixed record on regulation. While he should be praised for strengthening the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in screening new regulations, by every objectively measurable metric the size and scope of the regulatory state grew significantly under his tenure. And President Bush's last years in office were his worst. In 2008 36 major regulations were enacted by the Bush administration, and in 2009 some $15 billion in new regulatory costs were imposed on the American people.

President Bush doesn't deserve all the blame for that $15 billion in new costs for 2009. About $4.4 billion is attributable to regulations approved by the Obama administration. While that may seem like a significant decrease, it is actually an ominous sign when put in context. Regulatory activity always increases near the end of a presidency and is slower at the beginning. So in President Bush's first year, he enacted only one major rule and he was in his third year in office before the new regulatory costs he inflicted on the American people hit President Obama's one-year $4 billion mark. And that $4 billion does not yet include all the regulations for Obamacare. Or all of the regulations Obama's EPA wants to pass under the Clean Air Act. Or any of the new financial regulations that Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) want to inflict on the American people.

There are some things Congress can do now to help better manage the onslaught of federal regulations. First the authority and scope of OIRA should be protected. Establishing a sunset date for all new regulations would also help. But ultimately things will not change for the better until policymakers exercise the will and resolve to guard against the deluge.

As Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked last week: "If Congress can't control what a few mortgage finance bureaucrats do with your dollars, why would anyone trust Congress to control what tens of thousands of bureaucrats will do with your health? ... Should unchecked centralized government be allowed to grow and grow in power ... or should its powers be limited and returned to the people?"

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

|

Monday, March 29, 2010

DCExaminer Editorial Highlights

TODAY'S WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL SECTION HIGHLIGHTS

Obama shows the love to his union bosses

Examiner Editorial
"Obama's hope is that, with Becker calling the shots for the pro-labor NLRB majority, the board will find a way to circumvent Congress and throttle workers' right to secret ballots."

Obama's perverse foreign policy

Examiner's Sunday Editorial
"American presidents are often accused of being opaque or inconsistent in foreign affairs, but President Obama may be the first to be downright perverse, antagonizing our strongest allies, while trying to appease our most dangerous adversaries."

Stuffing union coffers with taxpayer cash

Mark Hemingway, Examiner Columnist
"Despite representing just more than 7 percent of the private labor force (and falling), union political influence today is stronger than at any time since LBJ won passage by the House of Representatives of repeal of the Taft-Hartley Right to Work law, but fell just short in the U.S. Senate."

2010 could be the Black Swan year in politics

Hugh Hewitt, Examiner Columnist
"What if new media transform legions of new activists into committed, effective political operatives, the sort who are willing to dig deep into their pockets to fund and into their time to organize for Republican candidates?"

A deepening crisis between U.S., Israel

John R. Bolton, OpEd Contributor
"The idea that Israel's recalcitrance, personified by pugnacious Bibi Netanyahu, is the central obstacle to peace is exactly backward, like looking through the wrong end of a telescope."

Romneycare shows need to repeal Obamacare

Timothy P. Cahill, OpEd Contributor
"There can no longer be any doubt that RomneyCare was the model for ObamaCare. That fact should be of grave concern to every American."

On the government plantation forever?

Star Parker, Examiner Columnist
"If you want to know where it all leads, look at our inner cities that were long ago taken over by government compassion. This is our future, my fellow Americans."

Obama's U.S. is unprepared for catastrophe, domestic or foreign

James Jay Carafano, Examiner Columnist
"This White House refuses to fund national security adequately. To pay for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gates mortgaged the military's future capabilities -- including homeland defense."

Somebody should be in charge of the prom

Gregory Kane, Examiner Columnist
"First, who is in charge? Is it the adults, or youngsters like McMillen and Taylor? Because I'd rather have adults who are occasionally wrong in charge as opposed to youngsters who are only occasionally right."

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Sunday, March 28, 2010

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast

Apparently, Henry "Nostrils" Waxman doesn't appreciate someone taking a closer look at this steaming pile of dog excrement. If this doesn't offend your sense of freedom and fairness, you need to move to some other country where politicians are free to bitchslap private companies when they question their government; like Venezuala. If I worked for any of these companies in an executive position, I'd respectfully and firmly advise Nostrils to have winged intercourse with a round mobile pastry.

Byron York - Democrats threaten companies hit hard by health care bill

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republicans describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees.

Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

The news is an embarrassment for Democrats. As President Obama and Congressional leaders tout the purported benefits of the new health care law, some of the nation's biggest companies are saying it will mean higher costs and fewer benefits -- not exactly what Democrats want to hear in the days after their historic victory.

So Waxman has ordered the executives to explain themselves at an April 21 hearing before the Energy and Commerce Committee's investigative subcommittee. That subcommittee just happens to be chaired by Rep. Bart Stupak

Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and

(2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Michael Barone - Obama slights our friends, kowtows to our enemies
Barack Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia and Australia -- to a democracy with the world's largest Muslim population and to the only nation that has fought alongside us in all the wars of the last century -- is of a piece with his foreign policy generally: Attack America's friends and kowtow to our enemies.

Timothy P. Carney - Why pot growers favor pot prohibition
If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

|

Thursday, March 25, 2010

She Thinks My Tractor's Sexy

John Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon Announce Rise in Health-Care Costs After Obamacare Passage

BY Mary Katharine Ham

If Verizon weren't in the mix, I'd be tempted to say this was a rural dudes with heavy machinery tax.

Farm equipment maker Deere & Co (DE.N) expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the healthcare reform law President Barack Obama signed this week. Most of the higher expense will come in Deere's second quarter, the company said on Thursday. The expense was not included in the company's earlier 2010 forecast, which called for net income of about $1.3 billion.

Earlier this week, Caterpillar announced it would take a $100 million hit:
The charge is expected to be a one-time cost, but Caterpillar has argued that higher taxes and other potential cost increases related to insurance coverage mandates in the legislation will hinder the company's recovery this year after a 75% plunge in income during 2009. "From our point of view, a tax increase like this cannot come at a worse time," said Jim Dugan, a Caterpillar spokesman.

Although the tax doesn't take effect until 2011, the company said it is required to recognize the impact in the period in which the law was signed. Industry analysts estimated the charge at about 13 cents a share.

That ought to do wonders for the construction sector.

The National Review got its hands on an e-mail from Verizon to employees:
...due to the varying effective dates included in the legislation, we expect that Verizon’s costs will increase in the short-term. These cost increases are primarily driven by two provisions.

The first is a provision that affects the Medicare Part D subsidy for prescription drug coverage. Because Verizon offers retiree prescription drug coverage today, the government provides a 28 percent subsidy to help offset the financial burden of offering that coverage. The subsidy was intended to help employers continue to offer prescription drug coverage for retirees so that these retirees would not have to use the Government Medicare Part D program.

However, changes affecting the Part D subsidy will make it less valuable to employers, like Verizon, and as a result, may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.

Some of its generous plans will also be subject to the "Cadillac" tax, which may or may not go into effect in 2018, but Verizon has to be more responsible than Congress by actually planning for it.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

|

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Newspeak, CAT, and the Porkulus

From my world:

President Barack Obama's stimulus plan may be good for Caterpillar Inc., but the company's chief executive says the equipment maker will probably have to lay off more staff before it starts thinking about rehiring any of the more than 22,000 employees it already plans to cut.

Even if a stimulus plan passes, it likely will not have an effect on the economy until late this year or early 2010, CEO Jim Owens said after a town hall meeting with the president and Caterpillar (nyse: CAT) workers at a company tractor plant here on Thursday."The reality is we'll probably have to have more layoffs before we can start hiring again," Owens said without elaborating on timing or specific numbers.

Owens seemed to back away from Obama's assertion that the Caterpillar CEO had promised him he would rehire some of the laid-off workers if Congress approves a sweeping stimulus bill. The company has struggled with lower demand amid the global economic downturn.

The severity and swiftness of the recession, Owens said, makes adding jobs back quickly unrealistic."We literally (went from) a three-year order backlog coming into November to now having order cancellations to the point where we cannot run at capacity," he said.

When asked to explain the difference between Obama's and Owens' statements, Caterpillar spokesman Jim Dugan said, "perhaps there's some nuance."


Nuance?? Sounds to me like The Chosen One (may peace be upon him) has been reading Orwell's 1984 and is learning the fine art of "newspeak" or "I know you think you heard what I meant to say, but what I said is not what you heard."

The attempt by Jake Tapper (God Bless this man's patience) to get clarification from "Bagdhad" Bob Gibbs on the conflicting statements from CAT's CEO and the Chosen One (may peace be upon him), was akin to watching a comedy skit by Abbot and Costello: "Who's on first." "What?" "What's on second."

Now comes the report that an Illinois congressman was instructed to seek out positive consituent feedback on the "Bill to End Democracy and Implement Socialism in Our Lifetime."

How'd that work out?

NOT TOO GOOD!!!!!!!!

Seems the congressman got over 1400 repsonses urging him to vote NO on the "Bill to End Democracy and Implement Socialism in Our Lifetime."

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

|