Ryan Incapable Of Getting It?

Could it be the man who ran for vice president in the last go-round for the position is really clueless as to how wrong his and Murray’s maladjustment to our veterans pensions really are.

Sure it can … really be, that is, and below is the proof.  Not only is it true, but their erroneous and unfeeling results are arrived at some sort inter-galactic math — out of this world altogether.  read for yourself:

From Breitbart

by Matthew Boyle 22 Dec 2013

House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has doubled down on his move to cut pensions for military veterans in a USA Today op-ed published Sunday.

In the op-ed, Ryan opens up by highlighting the CBO estimate that the deal he cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) would result in at least $20 billion in deficit reduction. “The Bipartisan Budget Act that Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and I drafted will soon become law,” Ryan wrote. “We think it’s a small step toward fiscal discipline in Washington. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill will reduce the deficit over the next ten years by over $20 billion. And unlike current law, it will provide much-needed relief to our already strained defense budget.”

As Breitbart News has reported, Ryan’s and Murray’s budget deal does not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deal raises the deficit by at least $15.5 billion because of a series of gimmicks that Ryan and Murray employed in the accounting of the deal — namely, double counting of savings like the tactic which was employed in Obamacare, and the failure to include an estimate of the interest on the borrowed money for the first couple of years of increased spending. These are only a few among a series of other misleading statements Ryan has made about the deal.

The rest of the dynamic duo subterfuge and silliness can be found as the above article continues from the link just below:

Paul Ryan Doubles Down on Cutting Veteran Pensions

Murray-Ryan Budget Smells Like Austerity (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)
Related articles

10 Broken ObaCare Promises You May Know Nothing Of

Fair Use Notice

Complete with links to footnotes or you can scroll to the footnotes beginning at the end of the article. You will find some related articles after the footnotes.

Thanks to Heritage.org for this information.

Ten Broken Obamacare Promises

By

Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, many of the President’s famous promises have been routinely broken. As he so ironically threatened in 2009, “If you misrepresent what’s in this plan, we will call you out.”[1] To that end, here are 10 promises of Obamacare that have already proved to be broken.

Promise #1: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.”[2]

Reality: Millions of Americans have lost and will lose their coverage due to Obamacare.

Obamacare has significantly disrupted the market for those who buy coverage on their own by imposing new coverage and benefit mandates, causing a reported 4.7 million health insurance cancelations of an existing policy in 32 states.[3]

For those with employer-sponsored insurance in the group market, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 7 million fewer people will have employment-based insurance by 2018.[4]

Moreover, the Administration itself has admitted that employers would not keep their existing health plans. Federal regulations written in 2010 estimated that 51 percent of small and large employers would lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013—meaning a majority of employers would not keep their existing health plans.[5]

Promise #2: “[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.”[6]

Reality: Many Americans might not be able to keep their current doctor without paying extra.

Many plans offered on Obamacare’s exchanges have very limited provider networks, decreasing the chances consumers will be able to keep their current doctor without paying more money.[7] Furthermore, many Americans who purchase coverage on their own have had their existing health plans changed or canceled due to Obamacare, resulting in some people being unable to keep their current doctors without paying additional money to do so.

Due to the significant payment reductions included in Obamacare, seniors with Medicare Advantage plans may be forced to find new doctors. The largest provider of these plans, UnitedHealth, has recently reduced its provider networks in several states.[8]

Promise #3: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”[9]

Reality: Premiums for people purchasing coverage in the individual market have significantly increased in a majority of states.

A Heritage analysis shows that, on average, consumers in 42 states will see their premiums in the exchanges increase, many by over 100 percent.[10]

For people with employer-sponsored coverage, costs also continue to increase. For families, premiums from 2009 to 2013 have increased by an average of $2,976.[11]

Promise #4: “[F]or the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing’s already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That’s it. They don’t have to worry about anything else.”[12]

Reality: Obamacare imposes certain new benefit mandates on those with employer-sponsored coverage—a majority of Americans.

These mandates increase the cost of coverage. In fact, federal regulations written in 2010 assumed “that the increases in insurance benefits will be directly passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums. These assumptions bias the estimates of premium changes upward.”[13]

But higher premiums not only cost people more money; they have other impacts on coverage as well. For instance, as a response to the direct cost increases associated with Obamacare, UPS dropped coverage for spouses of employees if they are offered coverage through their own employers.[14]

Promise #5: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”[15]

Reality: Obamacare contains 18 separate tax hikes, fees, and penalties, many of which heavily impact the middle class.

Altogether, Obamacare’s taxes and penalties will accumulate over $770 billion in new revenue over a 10-year period.[16] Among the taxes that will hit the middle class are the individual mandate tax, the medical device tax, and new penalties and limits on health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts.[17]

Promise #6: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future.”[18]

Reality: Obamacare’s new spending is unsustainable.

Obamacare was passed into law relying on a wide variety of unrealistic budget projections. A more realistic assessment reveals that it will be a multi-trillion-dollar budget buster. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the cost of Obamacare over the long term if certain cost-containment measures were overridden. Under that alternative scenario, which assumes that “historical trends and policy preferences continue,” the GAO found that Obamacare would increase the primary deficit by 0.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).[19]

Senator Jeff Sessions (R–AL) and the Senate Budget Committee staff, who commissioned the GAO report, translated the 75-year percentage estimate into today’s dollar amount, which would be $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years.[20]

Promise #7: “[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.”[21]

Reality: Health spending is still rising and is projected to grow at an average rate of 5.8 percent from 2012 to 2022.[22]

While growth in health spending has been slower recently compared to the past, that is largely due to the sluggish economic recovery. Indeed, Obamacare’s new entitlements will help drive greater health spending in 2014 and beyond.[23]

Promise #8: “I will protect Medicare.”[24]

Reality: Obamacare cuts Medicare spending.

Obamacare makes unprecedented and unrealistic payment reductions to Medicare providers and Medicare Advantage plans in order to finance the new spending in the law. The cuts amount to over $700 billion from 2013 to 2022.[25] If Congress allows these draconian reductions to take place, it will significantly impact seniors’ ability to access care.[26]

Promise #9: “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American.”[27]

Reality: Millions of Americans will remain uninsured.

Despite spending nearly $1.8 trillion in new spending from 2014 to 2023, the law falls far short of universal coverage. Indeed, Obamacare is projected by the CBO to leave 31 million uninsured after a decade of full implementation.[28]

Promise #10: “So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans.”[29]

Reality: Obamacare has not increased insurer competition or consumer choice.

In the vast majority of states, the number of insurers competing in the state’s exchange is actually less than the number of carriers that previously sold individual market policies in the state.[30] And at the local level, for 35 percent of the nation’s counties, exchange enrollees will have a choice of plans from only two insurers—a duopoly. In 17 percent of counties, consumers will have no choice—a monopoly—as only one carrier is offering coverage in the exchange.[31]

—Alyene Senger is a Research Associate in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Show references in this report

[1]The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care,” September 9, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/ (accessed December 12, 2013).

[2]The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President at the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association,” June 15, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-annual-conference-american-medical-association (accessed December 12, 2013).

[3]Senate Republican Policy Committee, “More Than 4.7 Million Health Insurance Cancellations in 32 States,” November 19, 2013, http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/more-than-47-million-health-insurance_cancellations-in-32-states (accessed December 17, 2013).

[4]Congressional Budget Office, “Table 2: CBO’s May 2013 Estimate of the Budgetary Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions Contained in the Affordable Care Act,” http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44190_EffectsAffordableCareActHealthInsuranceCoverage_2.pdf (accessed December 12, 2013).

[5]Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 116 (June 17, 2010), p. 34553, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-06-17/pdf/2010-14488.pdf (accessed December 12, 2013).

[6]The White House, “Remarks by the President at the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association.”

[7]Jen Christensen, “Obamacare: Fewer Options for Many,” October 29, 2013, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/health/obamacare-doctors-limited/ (accessed December 17, 2013).

[8]Melinda Beck, “UnitedHealth Culls Doctors from Medicare Advantage Plans,” The Wall Street Journal, November 16, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579200190614501838 (accessed December 17, 2013).

[9]Senator Barack Obama (D–IL), “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Health Care Town Hall,” June 5, 2008, http://votesmart.org/public-statement/346763/remarks-of-senator-barack-obama-health-care-town-hall/?search=$2,500#.UqtV5sRDt8E (accessed December 17, 2013).

[10]Drew Gonshorowski, “How Will You Fare in the Obamacare Exchanges?” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4068, October 16, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/enrollment-in-obamacare-exchanges-how-will-your-health-insurance-fare.

[11]Kaiser Family Foundation, “Employer Health Benefits: 2013 Annual Survey,” p. 24, Exhibit 1.11, http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/8465-employer-health-benefits-20131.pdf (accessed December 13, 2013).

[12]The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “News Conference by the President,” April 30, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/30/news-conference-president (accessed December 13, 2013).

[13]Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 137 (July 19, 2010), pp. 41737, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-07-19/pdf/2010-17242.pdf (accessed December 13, 2013).

[14]See Alyene Senger, “When You Can’t Actually Keep Your Health Care Plan,” The Heritage Foundation, The Foundry, August 22, 2013, http://blog.heritage.org/2013/08/22/when-you-cant-actually-keep-your-health-care-plan/.

[15]Senator Barack Obama, “Remarks in Dover, New Hampshire,” September 12, 2008, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=78612 (accessed December 12, 2013).

[16]Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimated Revenue Effects of a Proposal to Repeal Certain Tax Provisions Contained in the ‘Affordable Care Act (“ACA”),’” June 15, 2012, and Congressional Budget Office, “Table 2: CBO’s May 2013 Estimate.” The total amount of tax revenue collected from the individual mandate, employer mandate, and 40 percent excise tax on high-cost health plans comes from the CBO’s May 2013 estimate. For all other taxes, the amount of tax revenue totaled comes from the Joint Committee on Taxation’s June 2012 estimation.

[17]For a detailed explanation of the impact of Obamacare’s taxes, see Curtis S. Dubay, “Obamacare and New Taxes: Destroying Jobs and the Economy,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 3100, January 20, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-new-taxes-destroying-jobs-and-the-economy.

[18]The White House, remarks by the President to a joint session of Congress on health care.

[19]U.S. Government Accountability Office, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Effect on Long-Term Federal Budget Outlook Largely Depends on Whether Cost Containment Sustained, GAO–13–281, January 2013, p. 19, http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651702.pdf (accessed December 12, 2013).

[20]The Senate Budget Committee staff reported that they had arrived at their figure by obtaining from the Medicare actuary the exact GDP and discount-rate assumptions for every individual year, doing the equivalent calculation on a per-year basis, and summing up the estimated results. The staff also indicated that when they earlier shared their methodology with the GAO, they were told that it was a “reasonable method.”

[21]The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President After Meeting with Senate Democrats,” December 15, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-after-meeting-with-senate-democrats (accessed December 13, 2013).

[22]Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “National Health Expenditure Projections 2012–2022,” http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2012.pdf (accessed December 13, 2013).

[23]Ibid.

[24]The White House, “Remarks by the President to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care.”

[25]Douglas W. Elmendorf, director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Speaker John Boehner (R–OH), U.S. House of Representatives, July 24, 2012, pp. 13–14, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf (accessed December 12, 2013). The letter estimates the cost of repealing Obamacare, which would increase Medicare spending due to the absence of Obamacare’s Medicare cuts. If Obamacare were repealed, the CBO states, “[w]ithin Medicare, net increases in spending for the services covered by Part A (Hospital Insurance) and Part B (Medical Insurance) would total $517 billion and $247 billion, respectively. Those increases would be partially offset by a $48 billion reduction in net spending for Part D.”

[26]Alyene Senger, “Obamacare’s Impact on Seniors: An Update,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4019, August 20, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/obamacares-impact-on-seniors-an-update.

[27]Politifact.com, “Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 521: Cut the Cost of a Typical Family’s Health Insurance Premium by up to $2,500 a Year,” updated December 1, 2009, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/521/cut-cost-typical-familys-health-insurance-premium-/ (accessed December 12, 2013).

[28]CBO, “Table 1: CBO’s May 2013 Estimate.”

[29]The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President on the Affordable Care Act and the Government Shutdown,” October 1, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/01/remarks-president-affordable-care-act-and-government-shutdown (accessed December 13, 2013).

[30]Edmund F. Haislmaier, “Health Insurers’ Decisions on Exchange Participation: Obamacare’s Leading Indicators,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2852, November 7, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/health-insurers-decisions-on-exchange-participation-obamacares-leading-indicators.

[31]Alyene Senger, “Lack of Competition in Obamacare’s Exchanges: Over Half of U.S. Has Two or Fewer Carriers,” Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 4082, November 8, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/obamacare-insurance-exchanges-and-the-lack-of-competition.

Related articles

Sessions Comments On Majority Relenting, Promising Senate Budget Mark-Up And Regular Order

January 23, 2013

For Immediate Release

Contact:  Stephen Miller,

Andrew Logan: 202.228.0575

 Sessions Comments On Majority Relenting, Promising Senate Budget Mark-Up And

Regular Order

 “I have repeatedly and emphatically called for an end to the Senate Democrats’ brazen legal defiance in this time of national fiscal emergency… To compel Senate action I have introduced legislation, blocked recess, and encouraged the use of the debt ceiling as leverage. Now, with their pay threatened, and long-simmering public anger growing, Senate Democrats have suddenly seen the light. Even just a few days ago, they were not willing to commit to doing a budget.”

 WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, issued the following statement today in response to the announcement that the Committee would begin work on what would be the Senate’s first budget resolution since 2009:

“I am gratified that Chairman Murray has announced that the Senate majority has relented and will offer its first budget in four years. Majority Leader Reid had previously said it would be ‘foolish’ to do a budget and his party cancelled the legally required Senate mark-up in 2011 and 2012—even after former Chairman Conrad had explicitly promised to bring up a budget in committee. I have repeatedly and emphatically called for an end to the Senate Democrats’ brazen legal defiance in this time of national fiscal emergency. I was frankly stunned that our new Chairman would say that Republicans ‘have time and again pulled budget negotiations out of the Budget Committees,’ when Senate Democrats alone control whether committee meetings occur. They alone decided to cancel them. The House, on the other hand, met its legal obligations.

To compel Senate action I have introduced legislation, blocked recess, and encouraged the use of the debt ceiling as leverage. Now, with their pay threatened, and long-simmering public anger growing, Senate Democrats have suddenly seen the light. Even just a few days ago, they were not willing to commit to doing a budget. The sooner the majority allows the budget process to move forward, the sooner meaningful debate can occur and the sooner the Senate can at last meet its legal and moral obligations. Secret meetings are an affront to popular democracy.

The way forward is for the House and the Senate to both lay out long-term financial plans and present them to the American people. In the past, Democrats refused to do so for political reasons, believing it better to attack the House while having no plan to present, explain, or defend.

Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office will present Congress with a new baseline on February 4, 2013. This baseline will reveal how much deficit reduction is needed to balance the budget in 10 years. I stand ready to immediately work with Chairman Murray on a budget in committee to meet this target by April 1st.

An honest evaluation of our debt course does not allow for gimmicks or other misleading maneuvers. For instance, when we talk about producing a balanced budget we mean exactly that: a budget that results in no deficit. We do not mean achieving ‘primary balance’ or a budget with a ‘balanced approach.’ Further, such gimmicks as counting phony reductions in war spending or double-counting Medicare revenues cannot be accepted as a part of any honest financial plan.

It certainly won’t be easy to put this nation on a sound financial course, but it is essential. Needed fiscal changes will not only prevent an economic nightmare but they will reduce growing poverty, dependency, and joblessness and help more Americans live free and prosperous lives. Republicans are eager to work on this important endeavor and look forward to the commencement of committee activity.

[NOTE: Although no committee activity has yet been scheduled, the legal deadline for the Budget Committee to complete its work on a budget resolution is April 1.]

 ###

 

“Cliff Notes” From Docs Opposed to ObaCare

This came to us from Pastor Max Sanchez.

Related articles

Big Government Wants To Know: Do US Corporations Pay Their “Fair Share?”

And we want to know who the profits belong to?  According to some who visit this blog, we are not wise enough to determine at this point, but we do believe the profits after fair taxes paid to the US Government, should accrue to the corporations.  Let us see what Big Government via Ben Shapiro has to say:

As usual, the left is wondering whether corporations pay their “fair share.”  This time, it seems they may have a point.  As Time magazine reported yesterday, a recent Wall Street Journal study of Congressional Budget Office statistics showed that American corporations paid an effective tax rate of 12.1% last year.  That’s the lowest number in four decades, despite a nominal tax rate that runs 35%, second only to Japan’s 39.5%; if you include state corporate taxes, America is now number one in the world.

Now, focus your eyes on the last link in the above quoted paragraph.  Click on the link, read the material and then come back.  Perhaps it was not what you expected; perhaps you were already well versed on the information found in the linked article.  How about this then from Shapiro’s article:

So why the low effective tax rate?  According to both the Journal and Time, it’s due to a corporate tax break set into the stimulus package, which allowed corporations to use an accounting trick: they could take write-offs on capital investments all at once rather than over time.  Typically, you take a tax write-off as the value of a good depreciates – if you buy a computer, it loses value over time, and you write that in your tax returns.  Under the stimulus package, you were allowed to basically write off the whole purchase.  The result was huge write-offs for corporations.

Now, normally, this wouldn’t be a bad thing.

We’d expect corporations to take that money and dump it back into the economy by hiring and producing new products.  But that hasn’t happened – largely because this is a tax break rather than a permanent tax situation.  In other words, at some point, we’re going to go back to the old system, taxes are going to hike, and the corporations are saving up for a rainy day.

Pay attention to a few key phrases or words in the two paragraphs above:

  1. stimulus write-offs
  2. all at once
  3. result was huge write-offs
  4. all at once
  5. normally not a bad thing
  6. we would expect corporations to dump the money back into economy by hiring and producing new products
  7. that hasn’t happened because this was a tax break
  8. at some point, we’re going back to the old system, taxes will hike, and the corporations are saving up for a rainy day

Got that?  Yes I know, the short clipped phrases sound or look like a bunch of Occupiers following their cheerleaders while making silly little hand-signals.  Nevertheless, you get the idea.  I could quote the rest of the article, but then you’d be depending on me to bring the gist of the article to you.  I’d much rather have you read it for yourself.  The link is just below … enjoy.

Whose Profits — Not Yours

Is His Mind Eager Or Merely Meager

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Obama would be well-served to think before he or his cabinet members make announcements  which result in major impact to the citizens of this nation.  In a normal administration, or one somewhat close to normal, thinking would be a given.  But we have come to expect government by mistake with this president.  It is no surprise then that he has just reversed course on his reverse course of last week (click to read.) Here’s what The Hill and their Healthwatch Blog report in an article by Julian Pacquet:

President Obama is against repealing the health law’s long-term-care CLASS Act and might veto Republican efforts to do so, an administration official tells The Hill, despite the government’s announcement Friday that the program was dead in the water.

“We do not support repeal,” the official said Monday. “Repealing the CLASS Act isn’t necessary or productive. What we should be doing is working together to address the long-term care challenges we face in this country.”

Over the weekend, The Hill has learned, an administration official called advocates of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act to reassure them that Obama is still committed to making the program work. That official also told advocates that widespread media reports on the program’s demise were wrong, leaving advocates scratching their heads.

It could be fun trying to figure out why the quick turn-around.  I suppose we could say that the bus ride to South Carolina as part of a campaign swing (likely on our dime) could have had something to do with the change.  I’m thinking a rough ride over bumpy highways has addled or scattered Obama or his entire administration’s  gray matter.  Remember, we just reported Secretary Sibelius’ statement on the inability to make the long-term care program work. Let’s see more of the blog:

Later in a call with reporters on Friday, an HHS official said work on the program was being suspended.

“We won’t be working further to implement the CLASS Act. … We don’t see a path forward to be able to do that,” Assistant Secretary for Aging Kathy Greenlee told reporters on Friday.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, said Monday that repealing the program would not add to the deficit, making Republican repeal efforts that much easier.

Material in the rest of the blog article adds interesting aspects about how government interprets actions taken by our government … often their interpretation or take seems like a large vat of bull butter.  Read on by clicking here.

Check below for related articles:

We All Know What Government Does With the Money

Experiences from bank runs during the Great De...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 – 2010)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Give them some dough and they will go … to the closest government supermarket for spending it all … with or without benefit to citizens of this country.  The foregoing should be a “truth” known to all of us — given the experience of the distant past and the recent  past.  I don’t mean to bore you with facts, but I believe the argument over whether tax increases result in deficit reduction will continue to rage whichever supposition holds true in the constant.  The folks over at The Wall Street Journal/Opinion Journal seem to have it right, while the left certainly has it wrong (I believe.)  Let’s look at some of the reason according to Stephen Moore and Richard Vedder.  Those reasons beyond ordinary human nature to disregard caution and to throw dollars to the wind:

The draft recommendations of the president’s commission on deficit reduction call for closing popular tax deductions, higher gas taxes and other revenue raisers to drive tax collections up to 21% of GDP from the historical norm of about 18.5%. Another plan, proposed last week by commission member and former Congressional Budget Office director Alice Rivlin, would impose a 6.5% national sales tax on consumers.

The claim here, echoed by endless purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington, is that these added revenues—potentially a half-trillion dollars a year—will be used to reduce the $8 trillion to $10 trillion deficits in the coming decade. If history is any guide, however, that won’t happen. Instead, Congress will simply spend the money.

Look, these fellows aren’t country-fried (not countrified, pun intended) uneducated yokels, and one of them, along with an associate, has been quite successful in proving what they say about raising taxes and a coinciding increase in spending to an amount over the raise in taxes.  And, they have consistently demonstrated the results over a period of years:

In the late 1980s, one of us, Richard Vedder, and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University co-authored a often-cited research paper for the congressional Joint Economic Committee (known as the $1.58 study) that found that every new dollar of new taxes led to more than one dollar of new spending by Congress. Subsequent revisions of the study over the next decade found similar results.

We’ve updated the research. Using standard statistical analyses that introduce variables to control for business-cycle fluctuations, wars and inflation, we found that over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more.

The rest of the story is more of the same and I believe you’ll get more out of it if you read the complete article for yourself.  Be sure to follow any links posted below and come back and post as you please.  Here is the link to the complete article  … CLICK