Posted on 01/04/2007 2:09:04 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
John Samples, director of Cato's Center for Representative Government and author of The Fallacy Of Campaign Finance Reform:
The ethics part of this agenda evokes a limited sense of déjà vu. On their first day in power in 1995, the House Republicans cut House staff, changed budgeting rules, enacted term limits for their leadership, banned proxy voting in committee, opened committee hearings to the public, required a three-fifths vote to increase taxes, started a comprehensive audit of the House, and applied anti-discrimination and workplace safety rules to Congress itself. Later they passed additional disclosure requirements on lobbyists late in 1995. The Republicans also completely outlawed gifts to members of Congress or their staffs. Pelosi's 2007 reforms seem apt though more limited in scope than the 1995 changes. The question is whether the changes will persist. The Republicans eventually did away with their absolute gift ban and ran into other ethical problems.
The procedural changes respond to specific complaints about Republican leadership of the House. Allowing more amendments by changing the rules for debating bills and giving the GOP more of a say in conferences may make the House more open and democratic. It will also make the House work more slowly (thus perhaps accomplishing less) and may even improve legislative outcomes for the GOP. Since neither result is likely to please the Democratic majority or assist their electoral efforts in 2008, these reforms, like their temporary ban on earmarks, are likely to be short-lived.
Chris Edwards, Cato's director of tax policy studies and author of Downsizing the Federal Government:
Reinstatement of pay-as-you-go (PAY-GO) rules is a bad idea until Congress repeals the alternative minimum tax and enacts the Bush tax cuts permanently. The Democrats' version of PAY-GO is biased against continued tax relief and does nothing to halt the upward cost spiral of existing entitlement programs.
Stephen Slivinski, Cato's director of budget studies and author of Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government:
The Democratic Congress has taken an excellent first step to restoring fiscal discipline by vowing to put federal government spending on auto-pilot for the rest of the fiscal year and eliminating all earmarks smuggled into the remaining appropriations bills by the outgoing GOP majority. It is, however, merely a first step. While the incoming Democratic leadership has professed opposition to 'special interest' earmarks, they have not expressed opposition to the act of earmarking. After all, one congressman's essential project is another's pork. And it's not clear that the new congressional majority won't support some sort of 'emergency' supplemental bill to increase spending. So, as long as the culture of spending persists in Washington -- fueled by a budget process that can command Uncle Sam to be all things to all people -- earmarking in some form will always be with us no matter who is in power. The 'favor factory' is likely to be shut down only temporarily.
The restoration of PAY-GO rules in the federal budget will not actually restrain the overall growth of government in the future. The current version of PAY-GO is full of holes and escape hatches. Simply renewing them without reforming them would be mostly a fiscal charade. In addition, the PAY-GO rules are simply designed to moderate the size of the deficit. They are not designed for the purpose of restraining spending over time, nor would it slow the arrival at the day of reckoning for entitlement programs. While strong and enforceable PAY-GO rules may be a good first step, they are far from being a long-term solution.
James A. Dorn, Cato's vice president for academic affairs:
Contrary to the rhetoric, the people harmed the most by minimum-wage legislation are precisely those it is intended to help -- the poor. The idea that legislators can help low-income workers simply by mandating a pay raise is the height of hubris. While the minimum-wage rhetoric may sound good, the reality is quite different. Forcing employers to pay low-skilled workers a higher than market wage -- in the absence of any changes in productivity -- will decrease the number of workers hired (the law of demand).It would be much wiser to let workers and employers freely negotiate wages than to enact a minimum wage law that interferes with freedom of contract and prevents low-skilled workers from gaining the experience and work ethic necessary to achieve higher living standards. Increasing the minimum wage may give legislators great pride and win them votes, but it does not address the key issue of how to achieve economic growth and thus reduce poverty.
Sigrid Fry-Revere, the Cato Institute's director of bioethics research:
Stem cell research would be better off without federal funding. History has shown that the government funding of medical research is bureaucratic, wasteful, and contentious. Government funding tends to slow down development, not speed it up. Put quite simply, politics gets in the way. Funds come and go with the political winds. The majority in Congress today might not be there tomorrow, and lawsuits can stall or prevent the distribution of funds -- several lawsuits have already held up implementation of the California stem cell funding appropriations bill for two years. Finally, government funded research is a form of subsidy -- tax payers are covering the initial research and development costs for treatments that potentially could bring pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies billions in profits without their having to take the financial risks usually associated with such developments.
Jerry Taylor, Cato senior fellow in energy policy:
I agree with the Democrats -- the federal government should not be in the business of subsidizing oil companies. Most federal oil subsidies, however, are directed at small, vertically disintegrated domestic producers -- not 'Big Oil' -- and those subsidies are not particularly large. Still, I champion their elimination. But by promising at the same time to increase subsidies for renewable energy, the Democrats would be undoing the economic good that they hope to accomplish by eliminating oil subsidies. Subsidies to renewable energy industries are far larger than subsidies to oil companies, and renewable energy subsidies distort the market far more than do oil subsidies. Moreover, some of the biggest players in the renewable fuels industry are in fact members of 'Big Oil' (for instance, British Petroleum is a major player in the solar power industry) or are otherwise highly profitable corporate conglomerates on their own terms (for instance, GE is one of the largest wind industry companies in the world).
A zero-tolerance policy for corporate welfare would be a better approach. If renewable energy has merit, it doesn't require subsidies to bring to market. If it does not have economic merit, no amount of federal subsidy will provide it.
Neal McCluskey, a Cato Institute education policy analyst:
The solution to the college cost crisis is not providing ever more and cheaper student aid. That's been the cause of the problem for decades. No, if Democrats really want to end skyrocketing tuition inflation, they have to phase out the taxpayer-funded aid that lets students demand more and more from colleges and universities, and enables schools to raise their sticker prices with impunity. Making aid cheaper won't ground the college tuition skyrocket, it will only add more fuel to the fire.
Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies:
Pharmaceutical research saves lives. The Democrats propose to drive down prices for prescription drugs today even if it means there will be fewer new medicines tomorrow. The idea is to buy the votes of today's seniors without tomorrow's seniors catching wise.
PING!
ping for a later read....same ole horses**t from the Dems.
This helpful summary of the Dems' early agenda, with comments by CATO members, is very useful. Thanks for posting it.
Gimme Gimme Gimme!!!!
the sc^%bags are "in charge" again. they have the POWUH!!! i wonder how long it will take them to be the ultra-arrogant sons-of-bit%^es that they are, were and always will be. you can see some of the local democrat sc^%bags strutting around like turkeys. (what a bunch of totalitarian, intolerant, arrogant swine)
You're welcome.
Don't the Dems realize that if companies don't make a profit on a product (oil, medicine) there is no incentive to make that product?
Silly me, I answered my own question.
Funny, seems like we have been in this "new direction" before. Well, in all fairness to the dems, I suppose reverse is a "new direction."
Funny, seems like we have been in this "new direction" before. Well, in all fairness to the dems, I suppose reverse is a "new direction."
bttt
bump.
Very helpful indeed.
I've got to bookmark this and return to it sometime in the future. There should be a taxpayer's ombudsman associated with congress to give an official evaluation of the economic impact of legislation. Until then, partisan think tanks, conservative publications, and wacko Internet news discussion sites will have to do.
**The ethics part of this agenda evokes a limited sense of déjà vu. On their first day in power in 1995, the House Republicans cut House staff, changed budgeting rules, enacted term limits for their leadership, banned proxy voting in committee, opened committee hearings to the public, required a three-fifths vote to increase taxes, started a comprehensive audit of the House, and applied anti-discrimination and workplace safety rules to Congress itself. Later they passed additional disclosure requirements on lobbyists late in 1995. The Republicans also completely outlawed gifts to members of Congress or their staffs. **
Maybe Pelosi's fault was taking lessons. LOL!
Most excellent info!
Thnks for the ping. A quick peruse indicates that the institute is in top form!
Listened to the some Republican Congressmen who were all Physicians talk about the "negotiate best drug prices" (HR4) measure today. Bottom line: If this measure passes and goes into law we will see:
Higher prescription drug prices
Restrictions for those on Medicare for prescription drugs acceptable to Medicare (government bureaucrats) - because those that don't meet these Democrat sponsored price controls will NOT be allowed to be prescribed.
This Price negotiation for Prescription Drugs is NOT a feature of the Health Insurance plans that members of Congress get to choose to use - meaning those who pass this legislation will NOT have their prescription drug choices limited while Seniors will
Price "fixing" by government NEVER EVER WORKS - prices may be less for awhile but supplies dry up - causing eventual escalation in prices for all
Those with private sector sponsored prescription drug programs will see their drug prices go up, forcing either less insurance coverage for private sector employees or higher costs to companies for this benefit - meaning some may lose the benefit altogether who formally had it
Price fixing will lead to less research and development by pharmaceutical companies which will lead to MORE PAIN AND SUFFERING by those with physical/emotional/mental maladies.
FROM HEAR ON OUT I DUB EVERY ONE OF THE 100HR MEASURES AS BAD NEWS COMING FROM THE BAD NEWS BEARS!
Others have talked about the measure to stop grassroots lobbying such as is called for here with HR4. (every ONE of their 100 HR bills requires major grassroots lobbying of Congress critters, the Senate, and our President.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.