5 August 2009

Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

What If Cash for Clunkers Was Obama Not Delivering on

a Tax Credit? [Tax Foundation] Promise [Americans for Tax
AUG 05, 2009 12:00A.M.
Reform]
Critics of the “Cash for Clunkers” program are out in full force, claiming AUG 04, 2009 05:24P.M.
that its problems are evidence that government is inefficient and that it
is further proof that government shouldn’t get involved in something as Gibbs is certain there will be no middle-class tax hikes, but President
important as health care. Obama’s economic advisors Geithner and Summers aren’t so sure. On a
repeated basis, the two advisers declined to c...
But suppose that instead of the government providing $4,500 in outlays
per qualifying car in a program that is being administered by the
Department of Transportation, the Congress instituted a $4,500
nonrefundable income tax credit (that was allowed to carry-over 10 years FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
until it was exhausted for a given taxpayer) that met the exact same
qualifying criteria as the current program, yet was administered by the Who Knows What Will Happen?
IRS. Would the tax credit be good fiscal policy merely because it’s
classified as a tax cut as opposed to an “outlay?” [Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 04:07P.M.
The economic difference between these two scenarios is zero (except for
possibly differences in administrative costs). Both policies would be NotSoSure.org has another video out about government health care.
financed by deficits, leading to either lower spending in the future or Government health care is a leap of faith. Once health care is defined by
higher taxes in the future. bureaucrats, there is no guarantee tha...

Despite this fact, it’s likely that many of these same critics of the $4,500
cash for clunker outlay who are citing its problems as proof government
doesn’t work would have supported such a $4,500 cash for clunker tax FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
credit merely because it would have been classified as a “tax cut” instead
of an “outlay.” It Takes Weeks to Post a Bill
For these people, Washington is all about semantics instead of Online. Really?!? [Americans
understanding the economic effects of differing fiscal policies.
for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 03:09P.M.

It takes weeks to post a bill that has already been passed out of
committee online? REALLY?!? The Examiner has a great op-ed today
discussing the author’s attempts to convince the House E...

1
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
President Obama On Abolishing
Private Health Insurance
[Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 02:57P.M.
The truth is finally out there. A recently surfaced video clip
demonstrates President Obama’s long-standing committment to destroy
our free market health ccare system, and create a socialised mo...
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Sarbanes-Oxley’s Harms Are
Magnified by the PCAOB’s
Unconstitutional Structure
[Cato at Liberty]
AUG 04, 2009 02:48P.M.
Passed with scant deliberation amid a stock market panic, the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 vastly expanded the federal government’s role in
regulating corporate governance and the accounting industry. As part of
that effort, Congress created a new agency to “audit the auditors.”
Known as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the agency
has broad rulemaking and enforcement powers to set accounting
standards, investigate accounting firms, punish criminal violations, and
make whatever rules “may be necessary or appropriate in the public
interest or for the protection of investors.”
Remarkably, the PCAOB (pronounced “peek-a-boo”) also has the power
to fund its own budget by levying taxes on publicly traded companies.
Despite giving the PCAOB all this power, however, Congress insulated it
entirely from presidential oversight. Unlike with an ordinary
“independent agency,” the president has no power whatsoever to appoint
or remove PCAOB officials. Those officials may be removed only “for
cause” by the SEC, not the president; and SEC officials may themselves
be removed only for cause.
The Free Enterprise Fund challenged the constitutionality of the PCAOB
and appealed to the Supreme Court. Cato’s supporting brief focuses on
the PCAOB’s practical policy consequences, illustrating how the PCAOB’s
unconstitutional structure has created incentives for out-of-control
spending, agency aggrandizement, and lack of coordination between
regulators. Our brief also highlights the PCAOB’s efforts to impose
American accounting standards abroad, which has caused confusion and
invited retaliation from foreign regulators.
2
5 August 2009
I previously blogged about this case here and here.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama Care To Cost $2 Trillion
[Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 02:45P.M.
Michael Cannon, The Cato Institute’s Health Care guru, has just
completed his analysis of the cost of President Obama’s Health Care
Proposal, and the results are even more frightening than we thought....
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Government Employment Up or
Down? [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 04, 2009 02:13P.M.
The New York Times editorialized today about the supposed
“brutalizing” effects of state and local government spending cuts. They
claim that “most states also have cut their public workforces.”
Yet USA Today reporter Dennis Cauchon takes a look at the actual
data, and he finds that state and local governments added 12,000
workers in the latest quarter, while the private sector cut 1.3 million jobs.
Thus, it appears that “brutal” restructuring is going on in the private
sector, but not in the government sector. Indeed, Cauchon finds that “a
huge influx of federal stimulus money to state and local governments
more than offset a sharp drop in tax collections” this quarter. The article
shows that state and local government spending rose quickly in the first
three quarters of 2008, then dropped for two quarters, but is now rising
again quite quickly. That doesn’t sound very brutal to me.
Too often editorial boards and columnists seem to write economics
articles based on their preconceived notions about what they think is
going on, without looking at any solid data. Cauchon’s columns at USA
Today are a refreshing alternative to the sort of impressionist writing on
economics we see in the NYT editorial today.
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 5 August 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS Betsy Markey, Ed Perlmutter, and Earl Pomeroy.

Not So Sure - Part 2 [The Club The ads (shown below) focus on the crushing
financial burden of government-run healthcare, as
for Growth] well as the horrors of the Orwellian-named N.I.C.E.
AUG 04, 2009 01:42P.M. agency in England, which has broadly the same
powers over healthcare decisions that would be
Here’s Part 1. I assume Part 3 is in the works and will be released later. delegated to the U.S. government under current
proposals in Congress.

The Club’s ad campaign will run throughout the

August recess and could be expanded to other states
and districts as the debate over healthcare reform
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS unfolds.

Club Launches Healthcare Ad “Members of Congress who would support a plan

that raises taxes and involves the government in
Campaign [The Club for some of the most important and personal decisions
in our lives will hear from us,” added Chocola. “It’s
Growth] time for President Obama and congressional leaders
AUG 04, 2009 12:44P.M. to scrap their costly takeover of the healthcare sector
and focus on solutions that empower patients not
government bureaucrats.”
Club for Growth Launches
$1.2 Million Ad Campaign Want to help us pay for these ads? Club members
can donate here. Non-Club members can donate by
TV blitz to highlight the dangers of government-run
first joining the Club here. It’s quick and easy.
healthcare

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Washington – The Club for Growth will launch a $1.2
million ad campaign this week aimed at Members of
Congress who may be persuaded to reject a
CNBC: Ryan Ellis vs. Howard
government-run health insurance program, as well
as members with leading roles in the healthcare
Dean [Americans for Tax
debate. Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 12:07P.M.
“We need to reform our healthcare system with
patient-centered, free-market solutions that bring
ATR Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis appeared on CNBC to debate health
down costs and ensure more Americans have access
care, and Obama’s central campaign promise to not raise taxes on the
to quality care,” said Club President Chris Chocola.
middle-class, with Howard Dean. ...
“But some in Congress are pushing for government-
run healthcare, which would crowd out existing
plans, increase costs, and stick taxpayers with a bill
they can’t afford.”

Starting Thursday, the Club will air television ads

highlighting the dangers of government-run
healthcare in Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, and
North Dakota aimed at Senators Harry Reid, Michael
Bennet, Mark Udall, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor,
Byron Dorgan, and Kent Conrad as well as
Representatives Marion Berry, Vic Snyder, Mike
Ross, Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, John Salazar,

3
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 5 August 2009

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Stossel’s 20/20 Take on Health Shazam! [The Club for Growth]

Care Reform [The Club for
Growth]
AUG 04, 2009 11:53A.M.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Tuesday’s Daily News [The Club
for Growth]
AUG 04, 2009 11:28A.M.
THE DAILY NEWS MoveOn Copies Club for Growth - Carolyn
Lochhead, San Fran Chronicle The President Faces His Steel Tariff
Moment - Wall Street Journal Editorial Since When Is Plunging Trade
‘Good News’ for GDP? - Dan Griswold, Cato Membership Has Its
Privileges - John Stossel, ABC News Soaking the Middle Class - Detroit
News Editorial Utopia Versus Freedom - Thomas Sowell, Real Clear
Politics Seven Myths About Taxing the Rich - Curtis Dubay, Heritage
Foundation 5 Reasons Why Obama Will Hike Middle-Class Taxes -
Jimmy P., Reuters The Regulatory Wreckage of ”Cash for Clunkers” -
Richard Epstein, Forbes Binding Arbitration Is Now Front And Center -
Justin Wilson, LaborPains Cubs 4, Reds 2 - Associated Press
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Obama is not a Doctor, But He
Plays One on TV [Americans for
AUG 04, 2009 10:51A.M.
Here’s Jim DeMint talking about the “Cash for Clunkers” program with
CBS News:
“If we give away free money, people will buy cars,” said
DeMint. “But what about appliances, and heat pumps, and
TVs? The problem here is instead of across-the-board tax cuts
that would have the same effect on our whole economy, the
federal government is trying to run a particular business by
targeting just the auto industry here with this bill. That’s not
what the federal government is all about.
“And for us to rush through $1 billion and then say, ‘Well, we
don’t know exactly what happened, but it’s out of money after
one week, so let’s have $2 billion more!’ this is just an out-of-
control government at the federal level now, and we need to
stop and see what we’ve done.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to keep rushing through bills,
borrowing money from our children, and then saying,
‘Shazam, we’ve sold some cars!’”
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Senator Specter Under Pressure
[Americans for Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 09:35A.M.
On Sunday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary
Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Specter were shouted down at a
Philadelphia town hall meeting. Senator Specter sought to console one
consti...

Tax Reform]
AUG 04, 2009 11:00A.M.
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
House Minority Leader John Boehner’s office has just released this
funny but somewhat unnerving video. It’s worth remembering what is Lobbying: A Booming Business
at stake. Bureaucrats who know lit...
in a Politicized Economy [Cato
at Liberty]
AUG 04, 2009 09:29A.M.

Lobbying expenditures are up in the second quarter of the Obama

administration, reports the Center for Responsive Politics. Well-
connected Democratic lobbyists like former House majority leader
Richard Gephardt and Tony Podesta, the brother of Obama transition

4
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com
director John Podesta, did especially well. Given the administration’s
focus on nationalizing health care and energy, it’s no surprise that health
care and energy companies were the biggest spenders. Businesses don’t
have unified interests, of course; some health care companies and
industry sectors lobby against a government-run insurance plan while
they support a federal mandate that every American purchase health
insurance. Other firms may just work to get their own members onto the
gravy train.
As Craig Holman of the Nader-founded Public Citizen told Marketplace
Radio the last time such a report was issued, “the amount spent on
lobbying . . . is related entirely to how much the federal government
intervenes in the private economy.”
Marketplace’s Ronni Radbill noted then, “In other words, the more
active the government, the more the private sector will spend to have its
say…. With the White House injecting billions of dollars into the
economy, lobbyists say interest groups are paying a lot more attention to
Washington than they have in a very long time.”
Of course, this is not a new story. I pointed out in the Wall Street Journal
in 1983 that Hayek had told us what to expect back in 1944:
If more money can be made by investing in Washington than
by drilling another oil well, money will be spent there.
Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek explained the process 40 years ago
in his prophetic book The Road to Serfdom: “As the coercive
power of the state will alone decide who is to have what, the
only power worth having will be a share in the exercise of this
directing power.”
In a graphic on page A6 of the February 13 edition, not available online,
the Washington Post reported that “A Washington Post analysis found
that more than 90 organizations hired lobbyists to specifically influence
provisions of the massive stimulus bill.” The graphic showed that the
number of newly registered lobbying clients had peaked on the day after
Obama’s inauguration and continued to grow as the bill worked its way
through both houses of Congress. More on the frenzied efforts to get a
piece of the taxpayers’ money in the spending bill here and here.
And the beat goes on: The congressional newspaper The Hill reports,
“Lobbyists lining up for shot at climate bill.”
And that of course is why Patrick Appel reports at the Andrew Sullivan
blog that Washington is the hottest city for job-seekers these days.
If you want money flowing to the companies with good lobbyists and
powerful congressmen, then all these spending and regulatory bills may
accomplish something. But we should all recognize that we’re taking
money out of the competitive, individually directed part of society and
turning it over to the politically controlled sector. Politicians rather than
consumers will pick winners and losers.
Just as important, businesses will devote their time, money, and
5
5 August 2009
brainpower to influencing decisions made in Washington rather than to
developing better products and delivering them to consumers. The
tragedy is that the most important factor in America’s economic future —
in raising everyone’s standard of living — is not land, or money, or
computers; it’s human talent. And an increasing part of the human talent
at America’s companies is being diverted from productive activity to
protecting the company from political predation. With every spending
program and every new regulation, the parasite economy sucks in
another productive enterprise. Do we really want the best brains at
companies from General Motors and General Electric (this quarter’s
biggest lobbyist) to Google and Goldman Sachs focused on working
Washington rather than serving consumers?
FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
A Deregulation That Could
Reduce Foreclosures [Cato at
Liberty]
AUG 04, 2009 09:28A.M.
One of the obstacles to reducing mortgage foreclosures is that so many of
the homes being foreclosured upon are not occupied by their owners.
Approximately 20 percent of homes are vacant investor-held properties,
while according to the National Low Income Housing Coalition another
20 percent are occupied by renters.
Addressing the issue of renter occupied foreclosures has been one of the
harder nuts to crack. We should have no sympathy for vacant homes
purchased purely for speculative gain - the best course of action for those
homes is foreclosure, or even better, speculators should be expected to
continue paying those mortgages even in the face of losses. Where homes
are currently rented however, it may be in the interest of both the bank
and the renter to continue that relationship. Unfortunately, there is
one larger barrier: the very same bank regulators who are pushing
lenders not to foreclose.
As banks are not in the business of property management, their
regulators strongly discourage banks from keeping foreclosured
properties on their books. In fact bank regulations generally prohibit
lenders from entering into long-term leases with tenants. Legislation
(HR 2529) introduced by Republican Gary Miller and Democrat Joe
Donnelly would allow banks to do so for up to five years. While the bill is
sure to have some flaws - it merits a closer look.
Although most banks are unlikely to want to become property managers,
allowing some to do so, even on an interim basis could reduce both the
unnecessary eviction of renters and foreclosures on rental properties.
And unlike proposals that would force banks to make uneconomical
modifications, or prohibit lenders from taking ownership of a renter-
occupied home, relaxing regulations governing bank management of
foreclosured properties could keep some families in their homes without
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR lgn@limitedgovernmentnetwork.com 5 August 2009

having to violate contracts or re-distribute wealth. FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS

Obama’s Tax Pledge [The Club

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE BLOG FEEDS
Transparency: Obama’s
Waterloo? [Cato at Liberty]
AUG 04, 2009 09:26A.M.
“When congressmen scoff at the notion of reading legislation
because they aren’t qualified or they aren’t competent to
understand it, how can we be confident that those
congressman are competent to reengineer the entire health
care system?”
So asked a citizen at a town hall meeting where Secretary of Health and
Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA)
held forth before a cantankerous crowd.
for Growth]
AUG 04, 2009 09:07A.M.
From the Chicago Tribune:
Despite warnings from President Barack Obama’s top
economic advisers that new taxes for middle-income
Americans cannot be ruled out, the White House insisted
Monday that the president’s “commitment” to a campaign
pledge to avert new taxes for those earning less than
$250,000 a year holds firm.
[...]”The president’s clear commitment is not to raise taxes on
those making less than $250,000 a year,” [Press Secretary
Robert] Gibbs told reporters pressing for an explanation
about apparent discrepancies in the White House’s message.

It’s a fair question. And President Obama offered an answer during his “I hope you’ll take my reiteration of this clear commitment...
campaign. He promised that he would post bills coming to him from in the clearest terms possible, that he is not raising taxes on
Congress online for five days before signing them. Rather than relying on those who make less than $250,000 a year,” Gibbs said.
Congress, the public should have more oversight of it.
The House bill already taxes people making less than $250,000 a year so
(Alas, it’s a promise he has violated thirty-nine forty-one times. He they’re already off to a bad start.
signed two more bills into law last week within a day of receiving them.)
HT: Steve Bartin
Under President Obama’s “Sunlight Before Signing” pledge or the 72-
hour-hold in Congress preferred by the Sunlight Foundation, members
of Congress and senators would be more reticent to introduce potentially
controversial amendments, and they would be more obliged to know and
defend what is in the bills they vote on.

President Obama set the standard—if not the precedent—by which

lawmaking practice will be judged. He will have to rise to that standard
as the public has more leisure to take the measure of his presidency.
Congress will too.

(It’s not the president’s Waterloo, of course. I just put that in the title to
attract your attention.)