GOP set to roll out $2.5 trillion in cuts over next 10 years
It’s just a start: GOP set to roll out $2.5 trillion in cuts over next 10 years.
It’s just a start: GOP set to roll out $2.5 trillion in cuts over next 10 years.
Here is the text of the bill to repeal Obamacare, as introduced today.
I’m not the only one saying it: Two hundred economists ask lawmakers to repeal Obamacare. Key quote:
The letter from economists said the law is “fiscally dangerous at a moment when the United States is already facing a sea of red ink. It creates a massive new entitlement at a time when the budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlements. At a minimum, it will add $1 trillion to government spending over the next decade,” the letter stated. “Assertions that these costs are paid for are based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements, and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases.
What Congress should cut. And they find $3 trillion in only 14 paragraphs. Key quote:
None of this will be easy. Many will likely demagogue any reduction in the rate of growth of spending as a devastating “cut.” But the politics of spending has changed, and there is an expectation among fiscally conservative voters—Republicans, independents, tea partiers and even Democrats—that the government tighten its belt, just as American families have been forced to do. Some in the Republican establishment have already started complaining that this is too politically difficult. These naysayers misread today’s political climate. Should they succeed in blocking change, tea party voters will hold them just as accountable as big-spending Democrats.
Repeal the damn bill! By large majorities, surveyed doctors believe that ObamaCare will hurt care quality and doctor pay. Key quote:
During the next 5 years, the quality of health care in this country will improve (18%) stay same (17%) deteriorate (65%).
The Affordable Care Act will result in physician reimbursement becoming more fair (9%) neither fair nor unfair (17%) less fair (74%).
Overall, the impact of the Affordable Care Act for patients will be positive (27%) neutral (15%) negative (57%).
Overall, the impact of the Affordable Care Act for physicians will be positive (8%) neutral (14%) negative (78%).
An idiot on parade: Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said on Tuesday that repealing the national health care law would violate the Constitution. From the comments:
What’s even scarier than this speech, given by crazed Marxist ideologue Lee: The voters who re-elect her, over and over again.
NASA’s safety panel fears the consequences of the present confusion in space policy.
More battles in the space war over NASA:
The squealing is getting louder: NPR has launched an offensive against the congressman who wants to cut its funding.
I wish Congress understood this: Almost three quarters of the public opposes raising the country’s debt limit.
Earlier this week NASA submitted a report to Congress reviewing the design and construction status of the heavy-lift rocket and manned capsule that Congress has required them to build and launch by 2016. NASA’s conclusion: the space agency doesn’t think it can do the job in the schedule or budget that Congress has provided.
NASA does not believe this goal is achievable based on a combination of the current funding profile estimate, traditional approaches to acquisitions and currently considered vehicle architectures. . . . We will not commit to a date that has a low probability of being achieved.
NASA’s conclusions here are not surprising. The agency had been having trouble building Constellation on the much bigger budget and longer schedule given to them by past Congresses. For them to build the-program-formerly-called-Constellation for less money and in less time is probably impossible.
Nonetheless, this was the response of the Senate Commerce committee:
The production of a heavy-lift rocket and capsule is not optional. It’s the law.
This is why I have been saying that the money for this program is nothing more than pork. Congress knows that nothing can be built on this budget, but wants the money spent nonetheless, to keep people employed in their districts.
Meanwhile, in sharp contrast, Space Adventures yesterday announced a new deal with Russia, whereby the Russians have agreed to build and launch one extra Soyuz capsule per year, beginning in 2013, to fly 3 tourists to ISS. In addition, there is this report today about how SpaceX is successfully meeting all its milestones in building its cargo ferry for ISS. An earlier report last week also noted how Orbital Sciences is also moving forward with its cargo ferry, with a planned first test launch by the end of 2011.
All in all, this news is not good news for NASA. The space agency’s manned spaceflight program appears to have two futures, neither of which will involve it continuing to build rockets or fly humans into space. In one option, the new Congress, when it finally sits down to write a budget, will decide that pork and happy constituents are more important than a balanced budget, and will appropriate the money for the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. NASA will struggle hard to build it, but will not succeed. Thus, no government-built manned space program.
In the second option, Congress will agree with me and decide that it just doesn’t have money for pork, especially considering the terrible state of the federal budget. Moreover, seeing the success of the private efforts of SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and Space Adventures, Congress will wonder why it needs to pour more billions into a vain effort by NASA to build something it can’t, when there are other private companies that can do it, and do it for less. In this circumstance, it will be very easy for them to cut the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Once again, no NASA manned program.
Neither scenario is actually a bad thing. What we are actually seeing play out here is the free competition of different companies attempting to provide a service to a customer, and the customer eventually picking the best company from which to buy the product. NASA, as a government agency, simply can’t compete, and unless Congress decides to provide them welfare, will lose this competition hands down.
The U.S. will still have the capability of getting into space, but for far less money. And having multiple private companies competing to provide this service will also encourage innovation, something the rocket industry has sorely needed these past five decades.
Washington’s five most ridiculous reactions to the Arizona shooting.