What is the Senate Thinking?

 

April 29 marks the third year in which the U.S. Senate has not passed a budget — a staggering dereliction of duty, particularly given the country’s near-$16 trillion debt. But that’s not the Senate’s only blockbuster failure under the leadership of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). From spending to jobs to energy policy, the Senate has totally dropped the ball, leaving one to wonder, “What’s the Senate thinking?”

But it’s not just a matter of a simple failure or benign neglect, like forgetting to take out the trash. The way some in the Senate are behaving is equivalent to buying a dog but then deliberately choosing not to feed it. These men and women sought elective office, won a seat in the Senate and now have the power to take action to confront America’s problems. But under the leadership of Majority Leader Reid, they’re making the choice not to do so.

When it comes to the Senate’s failure to pass a budget, the facts are bleak. From 2012 to 2022, federal spending per household is projected to rise to $34,602 — a 15 percent increase. Without entitlement reform, that spending is swelling to a crippling level, exceeding 40 percent of the economy by 2050. Despite all this, the Senate is sitting on its hands and not pursuing the significant reforms that are necessary — and opting not to pass a budget for three years is emblematic of their reckless inaction.

Last week, in fact, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), whose primary responsibility is to marshal bipartisan support of a budget resolution, declined to take on the task, remarking that it would be too difficult in an election year. Last year was not an election year, and they didn’t bother to do it then, either.

Meanwhile, as America continues to wrestle with staggering unemployment and weak job creation, Senate Democrats yesterday blocked an effort to help workers, employers and the U.S. economy.

Republican lawmakers moved to halt the National Labor Relation Board’s (NLRB) latest effort to give unions the upper hand in organizing work places. Earlier this year, the NLRB enacted a rule that speeds up union elections, making it easier for unions to grow their ranks by unionizing more workplaces while depriving workers of a truly informed choice in the matter.

Normally when unions try to organize workers in a business, they plan their efforts before they request an election. Once the employer receives an election request, they have a limited amount of time to inform their workers of why unionization might not be right for them. Under the NLRB’s new rule, employers will have even less time to make their case, all to the detriment of their employees. Heritage’s James Sherk explainsthe rest of the story that the workers won’t hear:

Employers, not union organizers, will explain that unions often do not achieve their promised wage increases, but they always take up to 2 percent of workers’ wages in dues. Employers will also point out patterns of union corruption and clauses in union constitutions that levy stiff fines against workers who stray from union rules. Employers are free to tell workers what the union organizers do not.

Because Senate Democrats blocked the effort to put a stop to the NLRB’s rule, workers will be more likely to be pushed into unions. And make no mistake, the economic consequences won’t be good. Unions reduce profitability, meaning that unionized companies invest less and create fewer new jobs than nonunion companies. Overall, that’s bad news for workers, companies and the U.S. economy.

Perhaps the ultimate example of what the Senate is all about emerged yesterday when Majority Leader Reid said he would not help in the House Republicans’ effort to force President Barack Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, which could bring up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to the United States (as well as jobs, economic growth and tax revenue). “Personally I think Keystone is a program that we’re not going — that I am not going to help in any way I can,” Reid said. “The president feels that way. I do, too.”

Under Reid’s leadership, that’s the name of the game in the U.S. Senate. Regardless of the country’s exploding debt, soaring energy prices or 12.7 million unemployed workers, Reid and his like-minded colleagues are flat out refusing to do the job they were hired to do, all in accord with the president’s agenda. So if you’re wondering what the Senate’s thinking, now you know. Unfortunately, the country’s best interests aren’t what they have in mind.

Even If It Survives the Court, the Health Care Law Is Doomed

A Commentary By Scott Rasmussen

in Political Commentary

Friday, March 30, 2012

Media coverage now implies that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the fate of President Obama’s health care law. But nothing the court decides will keep the law alive for more than a brief period of time.

There are three ways the health care law could meet its end. The first, obviously, is the Supreme Court could declare some or all of it unconstitutional in June.

If it gets past that hurdle, the law also could be ended by Election 2012. If a Republican president is elected, the GOP will almost certainly also win control of the Senate and retain control of the House. While the details might take time, a Republican sweep in November would ultimately end the Obama experiment.

But even if the law survives the Supreme Court and the next election, the clock will be ticking. Recent estimates suggest that the law would cause 11 million people to lose their employer-provided insurance and be forced onto a government-backed insurance plan. That’s a problem because 77 percent of those who now have insurance rate their current coverage as good or excellent. Only 3 percent rate their coverage as poor. For most of the 11 million forced to change their insurance coverage then, it will be received as bad news and create a pool of vocally unhappy voters.

Additionally, the cost estimates for funding the program are likely to keep going up. Eighty-one percent of voters expect it to cost more than projected, and recent Congressional Budget Office estimates indicate voters are probably right. But it’s not the narrow specifics and cost estimates that guarantee the ultimate demise of the president’s health care plan. It’s the fact that the law runs contrary to basic American values and perceptions.

This, then, is the third hurdle the law faces: Individual Americans recognize that they have more power as consumers than they do as voters. Their choices in a free market give them more control over the economic world than choosing one politician or another.

Seventy-six percent think they should have the right to choose between expensive insurance plans with low deductibles and low-cost plans with higher deductibles. A similar majority believes everyone should be allowed to choose between expensive plans that cover just about every imaginable medical procedure and lower-cost plans that cover a smaller number of procedures. All such choices would be banned under the current health care law.

Americans want to be empowered as health care consumers. Eighty-two percent believe that if an employer pays for health insurance, the worker should be able to use that money and select an insurance product that meets his or her individual needs. If the plan they select costs less than the company plan, most believe the worker should get to keep the change.

It’s not just the idea of making the choice that drives these numbers, it’s the belief held by most Americans that competition will do more than government regulation to reduce the cost of health care. For something as fundamental as medical care, government policy must be consistent with deeply held American values. That’s why an approach that increases consumer choice has solid support and a plan that relies on mandates and trusting the government cannot survive.

COPYRIGHT 2012 SCOTT RASMUSSEN

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

CBO Estimates Millions of Americans Will Lose Healthcare Coverage Before 2022

By Daniel Doherty

3/15/2012

 When the Patient and Affordable Care Act was on its way to becoming law two years ago this month, President Obama promised the American people that those who liked their health insurance plans – no matter what – would be able to keep them. Period.

Today, however, at the request of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report estimating that three to five million Americans every year from 2019 through 2022 will be forced out of their employer-provided health care plans. As a result, Chairman Ryan released the following statement:

President Obama’s string of empty promises is quickly becoming a disappointing trail of broken promises. He promised Americans that his overhaul of the health care sector would not jeopardize the health coverage of those who liked what they had. As nonpartisan analysts made clear today, millions of Americans will soon learn the hard way that Washington’s overreach into their health care decisions will result in sharp disruptions to their coverage and their care. The President’s disastrous health care law continues to unravel. To advance bipartisan, patient-centered solutions, the President’s partisan roadblock must be repealed.

As Guy reported earlier this week, the CBO also uncovered how President Obama’s so-called ‘signature legislative achievement’ will cost as much as 2 trillion dollars over the next ten years, nearly double the projected price tag. Both of these reports underscore why health care – and, specifically, the repeal of Obamacare – is one of the most important issues to voters in 2012. In fact, 53 percent of Americans polled in a dozen battleground states last month said that President Obama’s health care law may hurt their families over the long run. If anything, these latest projections confirm their worst suspicions – namely, millions of Americans (according to government estimates) will lose their employer-provided health insurance before 2022.

This isn’t surprising. After all, during the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama issued a series of promises that were subsequently broken or forgotten after he took office. Still, this begs an important question: How many more lies can the American people take?

Daniel Doherty

Daniel Doherty is the Townhall.com Web Editor. Follow him on Twitter @danpdoherty.