If anyone can find Jim Himes' opinion on the policy that will force Catholic run hospitals and charitable organizations to offer services that violate the Church's teaching, please let us know.
In late January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as part of the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, ruled employers must offer contraceptive services to their employees as part of their health care plans. The Catholic Church objected, stating it was against Church doctrine for Church-run organizations like hospitals and charities, to offer contraceptive services to employees. The White House offered a compromise on February 10th, that is best summarized by Greg Mankiw, "Semantics at the Highest Level."
Where does the Connecticut Congressional delegation stand?
CT-1 John Larson applauds the compromise, but was silent on the initial ruling.
CT-2 Joe Courtney also applauds the new ruling, but was also silent on the initial ruling.
CT-3 Rosa De Lauro "will work to ensure that this policy is implemented in a fair and equal way that does not compromise women’s access to preventive health services regardless of their employer," and was also in favor of the initial ruling.
CT-4 Jim Himes is silent on the issue. However, Mr. Himes was kind enough to let us know he dove into Long Island Sound with the Mayor of Bridgeport.
CT-5 Christopher Murphy was also silent on the issue.
Senator Joe Lieberman was against the ruling, see his February 8th twitter "Government should not compel religious organization’s to provide services contrary to their beliefs," and he "applauds compromise offer, will review the details on implementation."
Senator Richard Blumenthal came out in favor of the compromise but was silent on the initial ruling.
John Cochrane has the most insightful, non-sectarian view on this issue, "The Real Trouble with the Birth Control Mandate," which is why HHS should mandate insurance plan cover a specific service, like birth control?
Unfortunately the debate is framed as one over religious freedom. The real debate, as Cochrane points out, is the freedom of all of us to organize our lives as we see fit.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Bipartisan Soapbox: Lunacy
Bipartisan Soapbox: Lunacy: Eli, According to the Hartford Courant , Democratic lawmakers are proposing an increase of the minimum wage in Connecticut, and then index...
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The Pig at the Trough
We continue to be amused, then depressed, by the debate over federal spending. While loud voices complain over radical/extreme/dangerous reductions in federal spending, the reality is federal spending is still, and is projected to remain elevated, for quite some time.
From fiscal 2006 through fiscal 2011 US Government outlays increased from 2.654 trillion to 3.601 trillion. That is a 35.7% increase. This increase is far in excess of GDP growth, median household income growth, median weekly wages and inflation. The 36% increase in government spending is more than twice the 14.7% increase in GDP. It is about 5 times greater than the increase in median household income. It is 3x higher than the median weekly wage increase. It is almost 3x greater than the increase in the consumer price index.
But what about the cuts we keep hearing about. The cuts that will jeopardize our weak recovery. The cuts that will result in layoffs for teachers and fireman and police officers. There are no cuts. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which "assists the President in overseeing the preparation of the Federal budget and evaluates the effectiveness of agency programs, policies, and procedures," in its September 2011 "Fiscal 2012 Mid Session Review" puts federal spending at 4.391 trillion in fiscal 2016, 21% higher than fiscal 2011 levels and at $5.6 trillion in fiscal 2021, 27% higher than fiscal 2016. (Table 6. page 22).
The projected growth in government outlays from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2016 of 21% is lower than the 30% projected growth of GDP, but the projected 28% growth of government spending from fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2021 is higher than the 25% projected growth of GDP. As a percent of GDP federal spending is set to fall from 24% in fiscal 2011 to 22% in fiscal 2016 and rise again to 23% in fiscal 2021.
There was, and remains, a loud wail from Washington about severe budget cuts. Much of this related to the Budget Control Act (BCA) which mandates $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction over the next 10 years. The Select Committee which was tasked with coming up with a plan to meet this mandate was unable to reach agreement. The BCA, in this case, calls for automatic cuts about equally shared between defense and non-defense discretionary spending. That is, no change to entitlements, which are primarily Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Let's assume the $1.5 trillion actually gets cut, and let's assume it is cut equally over the 10-year time horizon called for in the BCA. That's a cut of $150 billion per year to the projected outlays. So instead of federal outlays rising 21% from fiscal 2011 to fiscal 2016 they will rise 16%. Expenditures in the fiscal 2016 to fiscal 2021 time period will continue to increase 28%. Like we said, "What cuts?"
We've come to believe the reason there is such a loud puling from Washington over "The 1%" and income inequality and the millionaires and billionaires not paying their "fair share" is a tactic to divert attention from the very large pig, aka, the Federal Government, chowing down at the trough. What has consistently grown faster than your wages, your household income, inflation and GDP? The Federal Government.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Pork Masquerading as Job Creation
Horrible. CT Public Act 11-1, or “An Act Promoting Economic Growth and Job Creation in the State,” can be described as nothing less than horrible. It's typical government mumbo-jumbo. The state increases taxes across the board as well as special taxes on certain groups, then turns around and gives special tax breaks. But who gets the breaks, and how are they chosen? These tax breaks are admissions that taxes impact behavior, and lower taxes can increase incentives to save and invest. Since that is the case, why did we just raise taxes?
John Ryan, in a recent Darien Times op-ed asks, "Are we seeing a more ‘business friendly’ Connecticut?" Ryan cites some of these lucky tax dodgers, like those who "want to sponsor a Connecticut wine festival," or those, "interested in remediating brownfields (Section 24-27) or want to set up an “airport development zone” (Section 39-45)." The language, even the limited language Ryan quotes suggests the tax breaks are written for very specific constituents. Sponsors of Connecticut wine festivals, we imagine, are not very numerous.
Ryan doesn't think much of these proposals. But the reason he doesn't think much of them is because they won't benefit Fairfield County. He almost admits they are a waste, but implies the waste would be OK if Fairfield County benefitted.
Let's put it in context. All of us just had our taxes raised, but we've now realized that high taxes can have a negative impact on job creation and job growth. So we're going to lower taxes, but only to an ambiguously defined group, like sponsors of wine festivals. And in Ryan's eyes, thats acceptable, as long as the sponsor lives in Fairfield County.
Ryan applauds a variety of other tax breaks, mostly to special interests without ever asking why these groups deserve such special treatment nor ever asking if taxes are too high, why did we just raise taxes? Ryan saves the worst for last: funding of a state-sponsored venture capital arm and tax breaks for movie production. We can think of only one idea worse than these two, and we're pretty confident alternative energy received special tax breaks as well. But venture capital and Hollywood.
Again, why? Why these two? Why is it reasonable to raise taxes on everyone in the state to benefit these two groups? Does it make sense that taking our money and giving it to a venture capitalist will create more jobs, or be more efficient than not taxing us to begin with?
What is even more inexplicable about Ryan's support of the venture capital arm is the recent well-publicized experience of the Department of Energy and Solyndra. Solyndra is in a long line of politicized investment decisions that turn out poorly for the taxpayer. Somehow, Ryan believes the state is immune to the issues that have led to billions of dollars of losses over 200 years with the Federal Government's interference in the capital markets.
Finally, tax breaks for Hollywood. This one is so absurd on its face we are surprised it has such popularity with politicians. Our taxes have been raised so Steven Speilberg can make more money. That is our job creation plan?
We've unfairly singled out Ryan for our criticism. And we think he deserves every bit of it. But we level the same criticism of every senator and representative that voted for this horrible slop of pork. By the way, that's almost all of them. In the House this atrocity passed 147-1, and 34-1 in the Senate. The vote reminds us of the aphorism, "There are no atheists in foxholes, and no Republicans when they are handing out the subsidies." Partisan politics gets a bad reputation because it's unseemly and difficult to watch. But we much prefer partisan sniping to bipartisan assaults on logic, economics and our wallets.
John Ryan, in a recent Darien Times op-ed asks, "Are we seeing a more ‘business friendly’ Connecticut?" Ryan cites some of these lucky tax dodgers, like those who "want to sponsor a Connecticut wine festival," or those, "interested in remediating brownfields (Section 24-27) or want to set up an “airport development zone” (Section 39-45)." The language, even the limited language Ryan quotes suggests the tax breaks are written for very specific constituents. Sponsors of Connecticut wine festivals, we imagine, are not very numerous.
Ryan doesn't think much of these proposals. But the reason he doesn't think much of them is because they won't benefit Fairfield County. He almost admits they are a waste, but implies the waste would be OK if Fairfield County benefitted.
Let's put it in context. All of us just had our taxes raised, but we've now realized that high taxes can have a negative impact on job creation and job growth. So we're going to lower taxes, but only to an ambiguously defined group, like sponsors of wine festivals. And in Ryan's eyes, thats acceptable, as long as the sponsor lives in Fairfield County.
Ryan applauds a variety of other tax breaks, mostly to special interests without ever asking why these groups deserve such special treatment nor ever asking if taxes are too high, why did we just raise taxes? Ryan saves the worst for last: funding of a state-sponsored venture capital arm and tax breaks for movie production. We can think of only one idea worse than these two, and we're pretty confident alternative energy received special tax breaks as well. But venture capital and Hollywood.
Again, why? Why these two? Why is it reasonable to raise taxes on everyone in the state to benefit these two groups? Does it make sense that taking our money and giving it to a venture capitalist will create more jobs, or be more efficient than not taxing us to begin with?
What is even more inexplicable about Ryan's support of the venture capital arm is the recent well-publicized experience of the Department of Energy and Solyndra. Solyndra is in a long line of politicized investment decisions that turn out poorly for the taxpayer. Somehow, Ryan believes the state is immune to the issues that have led to billions of dollars of losses over 200 years with the Federal Government's interference in the capital markets.
Finally, tax breaks for Hollywood. This one is so absurd on its face we are surprised it has such popularity with politicians. Our taxes have been raised so Steven Speilberg can make more money. That is our job creation plan?
We've unfairly singled out Ryan for our criticism. And we think he deserves every bit of it. But we level the same criticism of every senator and representative that voted for this horrible slop of pork. By the way, that's almost all of them. In the House this atrocity passed 147-1, and 34-1 in the Senate. The vote reminds us of the aphorism, "There are no atheists in foxholes, and no Republicans when they are handing out the subsidies." Partisan politics gets a bad reputation because it's unseemly and difficult to watch. But we much prefer partisan sniping to bipartisan assaults on logic, economics and our wallets.
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Ever More Costly Shuffle
The preliminary estimate for only a portion of the Shuffle is now up to $7.2 million. The $7.2 million includes $2.4 million for the BoE relocation and $4.8 million for the renovation of Town Hall.
This is far in excess of estimates Campbell provided in October of last year. Minutes of the RTM Finance and Budget Committee show Campbell stating "A study was conducted to determine the space requirements for the BOE and budget estimates were prepared by APC (A. Pappajohn Company) indicating that the cost to move the BOE to 35 Leroy would cost $1,598,801 and the cost to move the senior ctr. to Town Hall would cost $1,833,795."
The $7.2 million (and rising) price tag does not include demolition costs of the current Senior Center, nor the foregone costs of 35 Leroy, nor possible changes required by the Board of Ed because Superintendent Falcone needs at least 82 more square feet for his office.
All in, this looks like at least a $10 million project. Even the most ardent supporters of this project estimates about 400 members of the Senior Center. We doubt more than 100 come to the Center on any one day.
Why Campbell, Stevenson and Nielsen keep pushing this project is a mystery to us. It has disaster written all over it.
This is far in excess of estimates Campbell provided in October of last year. Minutes of the RTM Finance and Budget Committee show Campbell stating "A study was conducted to determine the space requirements for the BOE and budget estimates were prepared by APC (A. Pappajohn Company) indicating that the cost to move the BOE to 35 Leroy would cost $1,598,801 and the cost to move the senior ctr. to Town Hall would cost $1,833,795."
The $7.2 million (and rising) price tag does not include demolition costs of the current Senior Center, nor the foregone costs of 35 Leroy, nor possible changes required by the Board of Ed because Superintendent Falcone needs at least 82 more square feet for his office.
All in, this looks like at least a $10 million project. Even the most ardent supporters of this project estimates about 400 members of the Senior Center. We doubt more than 100 come to the Center on any one day.
Why Campbell, Stevenson and Nielsen keep pushing this project is a mystery to us. It has disaster written all over it.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Why Did Himes Vote Against HR 2587?
HR 2587 is a bill that, "blocks the federal government's National Labor Relations Board from telling businesses where they can and can’t create new jobs." The bill came about since the NLRB is trying to block Boeing from building its new Dreamliner in non-unionized South Carolina. Presumably, the NLRB prefers Boeing build the plane in unionized Washington. The NLRB claims Boeing is illegally "retaliating" against the unions for striking, while Boeing claims no employee in Washington is losing his/her job, no employee is getting a pay cut, so there is no harm, hence, no retaliation. Boeing has admitted, one of the reasons for locating the new production facility in South Carolina was to mitigate the risk of production disruptions caused by strikes.
It seems rather simple to us. Boeing has the right to locate a plant where it desires and the NLRB's action has a chilling impact on Boeing, and all investors looking to build or expand production facilities in the US. Interestingly, if Boeing built the facility overseas the NLRB would have no jurisdiction. So in a perverse way, the NLRB is encouraging companies to move production out of the US.
HR2587 came up for vote on September 15, and Representative Himes voted against the bill.
We have not heard any explanation from Mr. Himes for his rationale. In fact we've heard very little from Mr. Himes for the past 30 days, other than a couple of recent suggestions on how we could get more from the Federal Government and how his office was ready to assist us in that endeavor.
We had relatively high hopes for Mr. Himes upon election. He seemed like a smart, moderate Democrat. Instead, like the President, he has shown himself to be a radical, implementing policies that make our economic situation worse.
It seems rather simple to us. Boeing has the right to locate a plant where it desires and the NLRB's action has a chilling impact on Boeing, and all investors looking to build or expand production facilities in the US. Interestingly, if Boeing built the facility overseas the NLRB would have no jurisdiction. So in a perverse way, the NLRB is encouraging companies to move production out of the US.
HR2587 came up for vote on September 15, and Representative Himes voted against the bill.
We have not heard any explanation from Mr. Himes for his rationale. In fact we've heard very little from Mr. Himes for the past 30 days, other than a couple of recent suggestions on how we could get more from the Federal Government and how his office was ready to assist us in that endeavor.
We had relatively high hopes for Mr. Himes upon election. He seemed like a smart, moderate Democrat. Instead, like the President, he has shown himself to be a radical, implementing policies that make our economic situation worse.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Plastic Ban Cowards
We're not sure which is worse. Bayne and Sullivan who actually support the plastic bag ban. Or Campbell and Stevenson who DON'T support it, yet voted in favor of sending this mis-guided ban to the RTM.
Maybe the winner is the Orwellian named Choose to Reuse, a vocal minority imposing their wishes on the majority by simple force of obnoxiousness.
Will paper bags be banned next? After all, according to Choose to Reuse, "Paper bags generate 70% more air and water pollutants than plastic bags." and they ask, "Paper or Plastic? Neither!" What next will Choose to Reuse force upon us. May we suggest a new name? Choose to Reuse, or Else.!
Congratulations to Jerry Nielsen. You really should speak up more. Maybe with DC gone as First Selectman, you will.
Maybe the winner is the Orwellian named Choose to Reuse, a vocal minority imposing their wishes on the majority by simple force of obnoxiousness.
Will paper bags be banned next? After all, according to Choose to Reuse, "Paper bags generate 70% more air and water pollutants than plastic bags." and they ask, "Paper or Plastic? Neither!" What next will Choose to Reuse force upon us. May we suggest a new name? Choose to Reuse, or Else.!
Congratulations to Jerry Nielsen. You really should speak up more. Maybe with DC gone as First Selectman, you will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)