‘Education Is a Right’: The New Gateway Drug

http://biggovernment.com/dhunter/2010/03/30/education-is-a-right-the-new-gateway-drug/

by Derek Hunter

"Education is a right!" That was the mantra of the "progressives" marching a few weeks ago against proposed tuition increases for college students.  Implicit in that chant is the thought that college should be free for everyone, after all you can't charge for a "right." While I'd love to retroactively wash my hands of my student loan payments, this "belief" doesn't hold up to scrutiny because it exposes the blatant hypocrisy of those chanting it.

No responsibility at all.

To understand this you must first understand what is, in fact, a right. Many wrongly think the Constitution grants us our rights as Americans, that the right to free speech is our "First Amendment Right."  Nothing could be more wrong.  The First Amendment does not grant you a right to free speech, it says you are born with it and the government cannot infringe upon it. (Read this for an explanation of this point.)

So, if education is a right along the lines of speech, the government has no business being involved in it in the first place. Yet those seeking a "free" education for everyone do not seek a government-free education, they seek a government monopoly of it.  Since education is a human right, the involvement of government can, logically, only serve to infringe upon that right.  But that's not what these people are really about.

Were these protesters of the mind that education is a human right they would not support the concept of the federal government seizing the means by which so many, particularly the poor, exercise that right – student loans.  Nothing could be more threatening to a "right" than the government being the arbiter of who gets the means to exercise it and those who doesn't.  But on this, the "progressives" cheer.

More than that, were education a right these "freedom fighters" would seek to break the shackles of the public school system where students are forced into schools based simply on where they live, not their choice or the quality of education. Yet there were no signs decrying the imposition of only one location at which students could exercise this "human right," and no chants either.

This was about money, entitlement and control, plain and simple. The more the government does for us, the more it can do to us, and these "progressives" seek to do a lot to us.

While these protests have died down for the moment, they will be back once the hangover from the party celebrating the government's takeover of a significant portion of our health care system wears off because these people do not tire.  Like the Terminator, they cannot be reasoned with and they will not stop. Like a fat guy bellying up to the buffet just before closing time, he will take every last shrimp to the point of vomiting and will complain they won't replenish. No amount is ever enough, and no proof of the failure of their opinions will ever convince them. They believe the only reason their ideals failed to work elsewhere was because THEY weren't the ones implementing them. THEY can do it!

There's something to be said for a belief in something so strong that you cannot be dissuaded, but the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over expecting a different result.

Are these people insane? No.  They know what they're doing, and they know why they're doing it.  They don't seek to make the education system better or more fair – if they did they'd be for choice in it to weed out the failing schools and teachers – they seek control.  The control they seek is complete and unforgiving.

"Progressives" choose their battles wisely, and they are chosen very specifically. What better way to get more ears to spread your lies to than to strike out at something so many middle class young adults hate in common – their student loan payments. But motive is important, as is impact. While I hate my student loans, it is not for the return on that investment. I would not be where I am and doing what I do were it not for them, and amassing that debt made me acutely aware of the fact that college wasn't simply an excuse to drink myself into a Kennedy-like stupor every night, I HAD to work to pay back those loans. That reality helped focus me at a time when I, and millions of others, needed focus. And it worked.

While I grind my teeth as I write that check, I can afford that check and ones for all the other bills I have because of that loan. Would I like someone to snap their fingers and make it go away?  You better believe it! The same could be said for my cable and electric bills, but that doesn't make me want to take to the streets. I went into it with my eyes open, as did every other person in this country who chose to go to college with the help of student loans.

Now the federal government will decide if a student is worthy of help paying for college through the student loan program.  If not, the options will be limited and punitive. The government chosen losers will have to either work their way through school, which is good, or parents will have to take out personal loans, perhaps even second mortgages, to help defray the costs.  In a time of high unemployment and an uncertain economic future thanks, in large part, to the mortgage mess the government created, is even more personal debt tied to property a good idea?

The system as it existed was not perfect, but students and parents were free to shop around to find the deal closest to perfect for their needs. Now the government holds the wallet, and the keys to your future. When the only hope so many have says no, where do you go from there? There are many people and organizations that were throwing rocks at police a few weeks ago who hope it will be into their waiting arms.

NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

By Blake Snow

NASA can put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was back then. 

NASA / Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Maps from NASA's GISS reveal temperatures where no data exist, thanks to mathematical extrapolation of data.

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

E-mail messages obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) -- the scandalized source of the leaked Climate-gate e-mails -- and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center.

The e-mails from 2007 reveal that when a USA Today reporter asked if NASA's data "was more accurate" than other climate-change data sets, NASA's Dr. Reto A. Ruedy replied with an unequivocal no. He said "the National Climatic Data Center's procedure of only using the best stations is more accurate," admitting that some of his own procedures led to less accurate readings.

"My recommendation to you is to continue using NCDC's data for the U.S. means and [East Anglia] data for the global means," Ruedy told the reporter.

"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink." 

Global warming critics call this a crucial blow to advocates' arguments that minor flaws in the "Climate-gate" data are unimportant, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- that the Earth is getting warmer. But there's a good reason for that, the skeptics say: They all use the same data. 

"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results," says James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. Earlier this month, in an updated analysis of the surface temperature data, GISS restated that the separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations."

Neither NASA nor NOAA responded to requests for comment. But Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, still believes the validity of data from NASA, NOAA and East Anglia would be in jeopardy only if the comparative analysis didn't match. "I see no reason to question the integrity of the raw data," he says. "Since the three organizations are all using mostly the same raw data, collected by the official weather agency of each individual country, the only issue here is whether the corrections done to the raw data were done correctly by CRU."

Corrections are needed, Masters says, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.

"It would be nice if we had more global stations to enable the groups to do independent estimates using completely different raw data, but we don't have that luxury," Masters adds. "All three groups came up with very similar global temperature trends using mostly the same raw data but independent corrections. This should give us confidence that the three groups are probably doing reasonable corrections, given that the three final data sets match pretty well."

But NASA is somewhat less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data earlier this month. 

In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, NASA adjusted the raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way. NASA determines which stations are urban with nighttime satellite photos, looking for stations near light sources as seen from space.

Of course, this doesn't solve problems with NASA's data, as the newest paper admits: "Much higher resolution would be needed to check for local problems with the placement of thermometers relative to possible building obstructions," a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."

Still, "confidence" is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes. According to a December survey, only 25 percent of Americans believed there was agreement within the scientific community on climate change. And unless things fundamentally change, it could remain that way, said Taylor. 

"Until surface temperature data sets are truly independent of one another and are entrusted to scientists whose objectivity is beyond question, the satellite temperature record alone will not have any credibility," he said.

Romney defends Mass. health care law

http://www.boston.com/news/health/articles/2010/03/30/romney_defends_massachusetts_health_care_law/

Points to differences from Obama overhaul

By Sasha Issenberg Globe Correspondent / March 30, 2010

AMES, Iowa — Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts, even as he pointed to crucial distinctions between it and a similar national program enacted last week by Democrats.

"Overall, ours is a model that works,'' Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. "We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution. Why is it that President Obama is stepping in and saying 'one size fits all' ''?

Obama's signing of a federal health care law has put Romney — a possible 2012 presidential candidate — again on the defensive over the most significant achievement in his brief career in public office. The former governor, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate again for president in 2012, had labeled Obama's bill "unhealthy for America'' and has called for its repeal, even as conservative critics say it was modeled on Romney's policy.

Yesterday, Romney proudly acknowledged that his bill included a set of new insurance regulations that "President Obama always likes to talk about in his health care plan — the good stuff.'' Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama's plan.

The accounting of "some similarities'' and "some differences'' between the two systems was a more delicate comparison than Romney has offered recently, when he wholly rejected the idea that the two had anything significant in common.

"People often compare his plan to the Massachusetts plan,'' Romney said in an interview last month. "They're as different as night and day. There are some words that sound the same, but our plan is based on states solving our issues; his is based on a one-size-fits-all plan.''

In the last week, many health care policy specialists, Democrats celebrating the bill's passage, and Republicans condemning it have come to another conclusion. The difference between the two systems, they say, is slim.

"Basically, it's the same thing,'' said Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney and Obama administrations on their health insurance programs. A national health overhaul would not have happened if Mitt Romney had not made "the decision in 2005 to go for it. He is in many ways the intellectual father of national health reform.''

After Congress last week passed the national plan, considered the most expansive social legislation to become law in nearly a half-century, Romney wrote it was an "unconscionable abuse of power'' that "will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt.'' Romney's political action committee, a leading supporter of Republican candidates nationwide, has begun a campaign to support those who voted no as part of what it calls a "Prescription to Repeal.''

Romney says he will not decide whether to run again until after the midterm congressional elections in November. Yesterday, his national tour promoting his best-selling book, "No Apology,'' returned him to the early-caucus state of Iowa for his first solo events there since he ended his 2008 campaign, and reinserted Romney's health care views into the context of presidential politics.

"His problem is not to get demagogued that the Obama bill and his bill are the same thing,'' said Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist who helped to direct Romney's gubernatorial campaign. "The question for Mitt is, if he runs: Can he keep his own health care identity — his brand — and not let his opponents suck him into a false label?''

Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, the most active of Romney's potential presidential rivals, has repeatedly invoked Romney's bill unfavorably as a precedent for Obama's. "Looking at the Massachusetts experience, it would not be one I would want for the country to follow any further,'' Pawlenty told the Nashua Telegraph this past weekend.

Romney faced a similar predicament during his last presidential run, when opponents attempted, with various degrees of success, to portray his record in Massachusetts as evidence of liberal priorities. Over the course of his campaign, Romney went from touting his health care policy to lamenting it to saying it was not really his, often at a disorienting pace.

State legislators had made changes to the bill over his veto, Romney said, even though when he signed the law he called it "exactly what we'd hoped for.'' Regardless, he argued during his campaign, he believed that the Massachusetts plan would not necessarily work everywhere and that states should be free to follow their own strategies.

Romney, who finished second at the Iowa caucuses in 2008, spent much of that campaign working to distance himself from Massachusetts' political culture. Yet the farther Romney gets from his State House service, the more he finds himself having to discuss the details of his tenure.

"I don't pretend for a minute that our system is perfect,'' Romney said of the Massachusetts plan. "I think it's better than what we had, and I think people can learn from what we have done, and I think there are changes I would make to it.''

In his book, Romney describes a personal awakening on the issue of health insurance that has led him to share many of the assumptions underpinning the Obama plan. Both programs declare universal coverage as a goal, requiring individuals to purchase their own coverage and offering subsidies to those unable to afford it. That strategy sets him apart from many national Republican leaders, who rarely cite universal coverage as an objective and who have backed a lawsuit by state attorneys general asserting that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

"I'm not at all surprised to think I have differing views on some topics than my fellow Republicans,'' said Romney. "I think it's very important to get everybody insured.''

In Ames, Romney said he opposed new taxes levied by Obama and cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, which he described as fiscally reckless while noting the Massachusetts plan required no new funding. Gruber said Romney's criticism was "disingenuous,'' given that the state already had revenue committed to emergency medical care.

Republican strategists predicted that as the 2012 primaries approach, conservative critics would probably continue describing "Romneycare'' and "Obamacare'' as sister initiatives. Romney will have to explain why the distinction between a state-level plan and a federal one is philosophical and not only technical, they said.

"He's going to need to say exactly why the bill he signed in Massachusetts is different and better than Obamacare,'' said Jon Seaton, a Republican consultant who ran Senator John McCain's 2008 Iowa caucus campaign.

"He's going to need to answer the question if this issue is still as hot then as it is now.''

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

Chicago Trib: Federal budget deficits running wild...an institution that seems unable to stop spending beyond its means

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-buffett-20100329,0,7563220.story

4:39 p.m. CDT, March 29, 2010

For many decades, U.S. government securities have been the epitome of safe, dull investments. If you wanted to be absolutely positive you'd get your money back and then some, Treasury bills were the way to go. Right now, lots of Americans who put their money into big mortgages or stocks a decade ago wish they had gone the more mundane route.

But it's mundane no more. With federal budget deficits running wild, investors are growing uneasy at the idea of lending money to an institution that seems unable to stop spending beyond its means. Last month, something extraordinary happened: Two-year bonds offered by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. commanded lower yields than those offered by the U.S. government. As Bloomberg.com put it, "The bond market is saying that it's safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama."

That may sound common-sensical — Buffett has experience at meeting payrolls, while Obama does not — but it's actually a surprising perception. Berkshire Hathaway, after all, conceivably could make so many mistakes that it runs out of money and closes down. But the U.S. government is not about to run out of money, even if it keeps overspending.

Why not? First, it can appropriate more of its citizens' earnings through the tax system. Second, and more important, it can print money to pay its bills. Warren Buffett doesn't have those options.

So it's hard to see why investors would be leery. Well, actually, it's not so hard: The federal government is digging itself deeper into debt every month and intends to keep doing so indefinitely.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offers a prognosis: "Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020." Interest payments would quadruple.

The long-term problem here is not that the government eventually would default on its obligations. The danger is that it would create money to make those debts payable, a course that would lead to much higher inflation. Then, yields on even impeccable corporate bonds would climb with those of T-bills.

The economy would also suffer as businesses and households scrambled to cope with the disruptive effects of soaring prices. It would suffer again if and when the government decided to curb inflation by driving up interest rates — a step that virtually guarantees a sharp downturn.

Frightened investors may be wrong to think they're less likely to get their money back from the government than from Buffett's Berkshire.

But they're not wrong to be frightened.

Get more stories like this. Sign up for home delivery today.

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

Obama to allow oil drilling off Virginia coast

Who would've thought....better than nothing, eh

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100331/D9EPI2PG0.html

Mar 31, 5:18 AM (ET)

By PHILIP ELLIOTT

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is allowing oil drilling 50 miles off Virginia's shorelines. At the same time, he is rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

Obama's plan offers few concessions to environmentalists, who have been strident in their opposition to more oil platforms off the nation's shores. Hinted at for months, the plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama was set to announce the new drilling policy Wednesday at Andrews air base in Maryland. White House officials pitched the changes as ways to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and create jobs - both politically popular ideas - but the president's decisions also could help secure support for a climate change bill languishing in Congress.

The president, joined by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, also was set to announce that proposed leases in Alaska's Bristol Bay would be canceled. The Interior Department also planned to reverse last year's decision to open up parts of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Instead, scientists would study the sites to see if they're suitable to future leases.

Obama is allowing an expansion in Alaska's Cook Inlet to go forward. The plan also would leave in place the moratorium on drilling off the West Coast.

In addition, the Interior Department has prepared a plan to add drilling platforms in the eastern Gulf of Mexico if Congress allows that moratorium to expire. Lawmakers in 2008 allowed a similar moratorium to expire; at the time President George W. Bush lifted the ban, which opened the door to Obama's change in policy.

Under Obama's plan, drilling could take place 125 miles from Florida's Gulf coastline if lawmakers allow the moratorium to expire. Drilling already takes place in western and central areas in the Gulf of Mexico.

The president's team has been busy on energy policy and Obama talked about it in his State of the Union address. During that speech, he said he wanted the United States to build a new generation of nuclear power plans and invest in biofuel and coal technologies.

"It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development," he warned.

Obama also urged Congress to complete work on a climate change and energy bill, which has remained elusive. The president met with lawmakers earlier this month at the White House about a bill cutting emissions of pollution-causing greenhouse gases by 17 percent by 2020. The legislation would also expand domestic oil and gas drilling offshore and provide federal assistance for constructing nuclear power plants and carbon sequestration and storage projects at coal-fired utilities.

White House officials hope Wednesday's announcement will attract support from Republicans, who adopted a chant of "Drill, baby, drill" during 2008's presidential campaign.

The president's Wednesday remarks would be paired with other energy proposals that were more likely to find praise from environmental groups. The White House planned to announce it had ordered 5,000 hybrid vehicles for the government fleet. And on Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are to sign a final rule that requires increased fuel efficiency standards for new cars.

IRS Says It Needs More 'Resources' to Implement Tax Provisions of New Law

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Tax/health-reform-law-expanded-irs-threat-taxpayers/story?id=10238411

By DEVIN DWYER

March 30, 2010

Ask critics of the Democrats' health care overhaul about the law's impact, and among the "horrors" they may describe is an army of Internal Revenue Service agents with "dangerously expanded authority."

Treasury officials claim that there have been about 900 threats in recent years.

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee warn that as many as 16,500 new IRS auditors and investigators -- or 17 percent of the agency's current work force -- could be needed to administer and enforce new health insurance rules under the law.

That could mean more audits, confiscated refunds and incursions into details of individuals' health insurance plans -- all at a cost of up to $10 billion over 10 years, they said in a report published last week.

"When most people think of health care reform, they think of more doctor exams, not more IRS exams," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, ranking member on the House Joint Economic Committee. "Isn't the federal government already intruding enough into our lives?"

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act authorizes the IRS, the agency that collects taxes and enforces internal revenue laws in the U.S., to collect penalties imposed on individuals for not having health insurance, and on companies for not offering it when the mandates take effect in 2014.

But IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman said taxpayers have nothing to fear.

"I think there have been some misconceptions out there," Shulman told a House committee last week, insisting the new law will not fundamentally alter the relationship between the agency and taxpayers.

Shulman said the new health care law puts the onus on taxpayers to report their insurance coverage on tax forms much as they report income and interest earnings.

"All that will happen with the IRS is similar to a current 1099, where a bank sends the IRS a statement that says 'here's the interest' someone owes, and they send it to the taxpayer," he said. "We expect to get a simple form that ... says this person has acceptable health coverage."

He said the Department of Health and Human Services will set guidelines for what constitutes "acceptable" health coverage.

But just how the mandate will be enforced if a taxpayer doesn't report coverage -- or reports unacceptable coverage -- is unclear. Details of how the provision will work, and IRS's role in how it will work, are still being determined.

Prudential to take $100M health care charge in 1Q

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jq4y4VraHNPT_G-NnV80IEiW-FkwD9EOJ5E80

AP) – 22 hours ago

NEW YORK — Insurer Prudential Financial Inc. said Monday that it will take a $100 million charge in the first quarter in relation to the recent health care overhaul legislation.

The life insurance and annuities provider said in a regulatory filing that it will take the charge against earnings in the first quarter.

Prudential joins a growing list of companies that have said they will take accounting charges because of the health care bills. AT&T said last week it would take a $1 billion charge in the first quarter. AK Steel Corp., 3M Co., Caterpillar Inc., Deere & Co. and Valero Energy have also said they would take smaller charges.

Prudential said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the health bill signed into law by President Barack Obama last week and a companion measure he is expected to sign Tuesday will reduce its tax deduction for retiree health care costs beginning in 2013.

Companies that provide prescription drug benefits for retirees have been getting subsidies covering 28 percent of eligible costs but could deduct everything they spent on the benefits — including the federal money — from their taxable income.

However, beginning in 2013, the health care overhaul will allow them to only deduct the amount of their own money that they spent. Prudential said it had taken a charge to reflect the increase in taxes it expects because of the changes.

The insurer earned $3.41 billion on revenue of $27.7 billion last year, when it was helped by a gain on the sale of its stake in a brokerage joint venture.

Shares of Prudential rose 70 cents to close at $59.91.

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Clips from Benson, Obama and others

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfwXEbAlVQk

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GfwXEbAlVQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GfwXEbAlVQk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Mike Lee Did Well in the Caucuses

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Dear Mike Lee Supporters and Delegates,   First and foremost, a BIG THANK YOU to all of our supporters and volunteers! Caucus night last Tuesday was an amazing success. Literally hundreds of calls and e-mails swamped the campaign with reports of precinct meetings throughout Utah.  The sentiment was overwhelmingly against the incumbent and very favorable to Mike. YOU DID IT! It might have been scary for you, or at the very least uncomfortable. But because of your efforts we have an amazing head start with a large percentage of delegates elected being Mike Lee Delegates or leaning heavily that way. The voice of the people will be heard. This is truly the grassroots of politics. An astounding number of passionate Utah voters came out to caucus night last week... nearly triple the attendance at the 2008 caucuses.   What was it like in your precinct meeting?  In one meeting reported, 21 precincts met in a Junior High School auditorium. There had been a constant flow of people coming from all directions to the front doors of the Junior High.  Flyers for Mike were handed out as fast as they could be given. People came with determination and passion written all over them. They came with purpose! The auditorium was filled to overflowing with people standing in the aisles, along the walls, even on the risers and stage. But that was not all. Those who couldn't get in just went to their designated precinct rooms. The precinct meetings were held in, again, overflowing classrooms. The voters were anxious but patient, wanting everything to be fair. In one precinct of 86 voters, 12 people were nominated for two positions of State Delegate. It was very clear that the voters wanted to know who the nominees would support for Senate. The incumbent was not a favorite, to say the least. One nominee who professed absolute support for Mike won a State Delegate seat with over twice as many votes of any other nominee. After all the business was completed in this particular precinct caucus, it was near midnight. Wow! Do not be mistaken: these voters have a voice and they will be heard!   We don't stop here! The State Delegates have been elected and we still need your help to contact all 3500 of them to share the message of principle, of protecting and making laws based on our Constitution, and of telling Washington that what they are doing is wrong for us and wrong for America.  Continue to talk to your family, friends, and neighbors.  Let them know about Mike, about his website, and about upcoming events where they can meet and talk to him themselves. LET'S TAKE IT AT THE STATE CONVENTION, MAY 8TH!   The following is important rally information for Tomorrow, Tuesday March 30th. Please come, and bring your friends and neighbors. Wear your "I LIKE MIKE" t-shirts and buttons. Tuesday, March 30th at 10:00 am, Old Utah County Courthouse, Corner of University and Center  Tuesday, March 30 at 2:00pm, Utah State Capitol, South Steps  Please arrive early as parking may be difficult.    Mike will also be holding a cottage meeting/rally back in Utah County that night.  Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 7:00pm - 9:00pm, Noah Webster Academy, 205 East 400 South, Orem, UT  MORE UPCOMING EVENTS THIS WEEK:  3/29 Mon 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM, Tea Party Express - St. George, Bluff Street Park, 600 North Bluff Street  3/30 Tue 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM, See Above   3/30 Tue 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM See Above  3/30 Tue 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM See Above  3/31 Wed 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM, Summit County Convention, Park City HS  3/31 Wed 7:30 PM - 9:30 PM, Wasatch County Convention  4/1 Thu 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM, Daggett County Convention, County Courthouse, Manila, Utah We also want to mention and thank you for the huge support at our rally last Tuesday at Noah's in South Jordan.  CNN was there to interview Mike and tape the proceedings of nearly 250 Mike Lee supporters cheering, sporting their "I LIKE MIKE " shirts and buttons, waving flags and enjoying a great lunch put on by some amazing women on the campaign staff.  We had also enjoyed a delicious breakfast at Mike's earlier that morning where a reporter from New York Times was there. But more importantly it was a big thank you again to all those who had called their 50 names.   Jump on board! We can use your help. The race is in full swing and swinging our way!   Bill Lee Field Director Mike Lee for Senate (801) 722-4646 blee@mikelee2010.com ### Authorized and paid for by Friends of Mike Lee, Inc. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website, mikelee2010.com, or are a state/county delegate.

Sen. Baucus says purpose of health care bill is to create redistribution of income

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/democratic-senator-health-care-law-address-mal-distribution-income/

As Democrats tout the moral underpinnings of the federal health care system overhaul -- ensuring health care coverage for nearly all Americans -- one senator appeared to go off message when he said the legislation would address the "mal-distribution of income in America."

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

That contrasted with the arguments Democrats have been making in the past year for reinventing the health care system: to expand health care coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans and tighten regulations on insurance companies while reducing the federal deficit. . . .

AT&T to Book $1 Billion Cost on Health-Care Reform

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-26/at-t-to-take-1-billion-charge-on-health-care-reform-update1-.html

By Amy Thomson and Ian King

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.

A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

"Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees," said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares "overweight" and doesn't own any himself.

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

"As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company," the carrier said in the filing.

3M Cost

AT&T's announcement was followed about an hour later by 3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.

Michael Coe, a spokesman for the carrier, declined to comment. Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc., which also employs more than 200,000 people, declined to comment.

New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so "may have significant implications for both retirees and employers."

AT&T rose 9 cents to $26.24 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have fallen 6.4 percent this year.

Union Contracts

AT&T employees represented by the Communications Workers of America union have health benefits locked in via contracts that don't expire until 2012 and 2013, Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the union, said in an interview. About 58 percent of the carrier's workforce is represented by the union, AT&T said in a filing.

Obama signed the health-care reform policy into law on March 23 after a year of pushing the legislation through Congress without a single Republican vote. The new law will be phased in over several years and gives tens of millions of uninsured Americans health coverage. The bill, projected to cost almost $1 trillion, also calls for new taxes on the highest earners and fees on health-care companies.

Much of the public is still unsure about the plan with four in 10 Americans in favor of it, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. Obama is planning a follow-up campaign to sell the law -- the biggest change to the health system since Medicare was enacted in 1965 -- to the public.

--With reporting by Roger Runningen in Washington and Alex Nussbaum in New York. Editors: Lisa Wolfson, Stephen West

To contact the reporter on this story: Ian King in San Francisco at ianking@bloomberg.net; Amy Thomson in New York at athomson6@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tom Giles at tgiles5@bloomberg.net; Julie Alnwick at jalnwick@bloomberg.net

Timeline of the Higher Taxes and Medicare Cuts in the Dems' Health Bill...

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/WM_hcr_timelinel.pdf

Patrick Henry Caucus Co-Founder and Utah Representative Ken Sumsion Endorses Mike Lee

http://www.mikelee2010.com/patrick-henry-caucus-co-founder-and-utah-representative-ken-sumsion-endorses-mike-lee/

March 26th, 2010

Leader of Utah's largest legislative district encourages delegates and constituents to back Lee in restoring Constitutional debate to Congress

Salt Lake City, UT, March 26, 2010 — Utah State Representative Ken Sumsion (R-American Fork) is the latest to join the list of state legislators endorsing Mike Lee's campaign for the U.S. Senate. At a training and "Meet the Candidates" event Thursday night for newly-elected delegates in Legislative District 56, Sumsion handed out a letter indicating his view of the Senate race.

Sumsion framed the letter as an attempt to highlight his efforts to address "an out-of-control federal government." Stating that he initially hesitated to endorse a challenger in the Senate race due to his role in the Patrick Henry Caucus, he was strongly urged by delegates and citizens in his district to speak out.

"I am supporting Mike Lee for U.S. Senate," Sumsion wrote. "I am very comfortable that Mike understands the Constitution and is well grounded in conservative values after working with him on numerous pieces of legislation, including health care and federal land issues."

Reacting to this new endorsement, Mike Lee expressed his appreciation for the symbolism conveyed by Sumsion's support. "I'm pleased that Rep. Sumsion has endorsed my candidacy for the U.S. Senate. An increasing number of state legislators—advocates of limited government, fiscal conservatism, and state sovereignty—are adding their support to our campaign. Ken has done a great job advancing these caucuses in Utah, and I'm happy to know that he feels I will be their champion within the halls of Congress."

About Mike Lee: An attorney from Alpine, Utah, Mike has spent his career helping individuals and organizations get overreaching government regulations and control out of their lives and businesses. A lifetime student of the Constitution, he graduated from the Brigham Young University Law School. Mike served as a law clerk to Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and later spent time as General Counsel to Governor Jon Huntsman. Mike has twice served as a law clerk to current Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He first clerked for the solidly conservative jurist at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, then was asked to return as a clerk during Justice Alito's important first year on the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court. Mike has also held positions in private practice, and is currently a partner with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Howrey LLP. His understanding of the Constitution and law have made him a valuable resource for individuals and organizations throughout the country.

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

By David M. Dickson

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

"An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference," said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying."

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

"That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios "above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more," according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

CBO projected the 2011 deficit will be $1.34 trillion, not much different from the administration's estimate of $1.27 trillion. However, CBO's estimate of the 2020 deficit at $1.25 trillion significantly exceeds the administration's $1 trillion estimate.

Political Tide Could Wash Away Utah Senator (Bennett)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/us/politics/26bennett.html?pagewanted=1

Political Tide Could Wash Away Utah Senator

By JEFF ZELENY

Published: March 25, 2010

SALT LAKE CITY — Senator Robert F. Bennett parked his white Acura, walked through the doors of Bryant Middle School and stood alone as he began the obstacle course that will determine his political fate.

Monica Almeida/The New York Times

Senator Robert F. Bennett of Utah, who faces challenges in his re-election bid this year, at his campaign office in Salt Lake City.

"Do you need my ID?" Mr. Bennett asked, reaching for his wallet as he approached the registration table at his neighborhood Republican caucus, the first step in his effort to secure his party's nomination to a fourth term. No, a volunteer said with a smile. In Utah, of course, he is well known. And he recalls a time he was well liked.

The dissatisfaction with Washington sweeping through politics is not only threatening the Democratic majority in Congress, it is also roiling Republican primaries. The Tea Party movement and advocacy groups on the right are demanding that candidates hew strictly to their ideological standards, and are moving aggressively to cast out those they deem to have strayed, even if only by participating in the compromises of legislating.

There is no bigger quarry in the eyes of many conservative activists than Mr. Bennett, who has drawn seven challengers and will not know for six weeks whether he will even qualify for the ballot. His fate is being watched not only by grass-roots conservatives testing their ability to shape the party, but also by many elected Republicans in Washington who are wondering, If Bob Bennett is not conservative enough, who is?

"If the anti-incumbent tide is as strong as some people think it is, I will be swept out, despite all my efforts," Mr. Bennett said in an interview. "If the anti-incumbent tide is a lot of conversation, but has no center of gravity as a true political movement, then I'll be just fine. There's no way to know."

For all the anger directed at President Obama and his party from the right, especially after the passage of health care legislation, the first opportunities for Tea Party members and the groups seeking to channel their antigovernment energy into electoral politics are in Republican primaries. Mr. Bennett is especially exposed to the grass-roots anger. The quirky nominating system in Utah means that 3,500 delegates must give Mr. Bennett their blessing before he can face the primary electorate in June.

The first test for him came on Tuesday evening, when Republicans gathered in precinct meetings like the one here at Bryant Middle School to select delegates for the state convention in May. Attendance more than doubled from two years ago, underscoring a high degree of interest in the Senate race and the direction of the party.

In this unusual contest — akin to a miniature version of the Iowa presidential caucuses — there is little room for error. So Mr. Bennett found an aisle seat in Row F of the auditorium, slumped his 6-foot-6 frame into a red theater-style seat and waited for the proceedings to begin. He did not set off to meet voters, but they came to meet him.

"This negative garbage isn't going to work against you," said David S. Ostler, a retired state representative and longtime friend. "It'll backfire."

The senator is not convinced. His own polling shows him in third place, he said, trailing "Anybody-but-Bennett and Undecided." He said he knew that a tough fight for re-election awaited him after he voted for the bank bailout in 2008 and a few days later walked into a town meeting and "it was through clinched teeth that they welcomed me."

The rise of the Tea Party movement, along with an investment in the race by the Club for Growth, the antitax Washington-based group that seeks to influence Republican primaries, has turned the race into what the soft-spoken senator calls "the nastiest one I have experienced."

Mike Lee, 38, is among those challenging Mr. Bennett. As Mr. Lee met with voters on a recent day in Cedar Hills, the largest applause came when he said Republicans must look inward to resolve the problems entrenched in Washington.

"Congress has created a monster through its seniority system," said Mr. Lee, a former Supreme Court clerk for Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. "It's a bring-home-the-bacon problem. It's part of the 'I've got seniority so you need to re-elect me' problem. The longer they're in, the more they have an opportunity to say, 'You can't replace me.' "

Conservative advocacy groups have consistently given Mr. Bennett high marks, including an "A" ranking from the National Rifle Association, a 98 percent rating by the United States Chamber of Commerce and an 84 percent rating from the American Conservative Union.

Obama Orders Lenders to Cut Mortgage Payments for Jobless...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502426.html

By Renae Merle and Dina ElBoghdady

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 26, 2010

The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it is tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday.

This Story

• Foreclosure prevention: Are you eligible for aid?
• Aggressive steps readied to fight foreclosures
• Full coverage: Foreclosures

Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower's income, which would typically be the amount of unemployment insurance, for three to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to skip payments altogether.

The new push, which the White House is scheduled to announce Friday, takes direct aim at the major cause of the current wave of foreclosures: the spike in unemployment. While the initial mortgage crisis that erupted three years ago resulted from millions of risky home loans that went bad, more-recent defaults reflect the country's economic downturn and the inability of jobless borrowers to keep paying.

The administration's new push also seeks to more aggressively help borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, offering financial incentives for the first time to lenders to cut the loan balances of such distressed homeowners. Those who are still current on their mortgages could get the chance to refinance on better terms into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

The problem of "underwater" borrowers has bedeviled earlier administration efforts to address the mortgage crisis as home prices plunged.

Officials said the new initiatives will take effect over the next six months and be funded out of $50 billion previously allocated for foreclosure relief in the emergency bailout program for the financial system. No new taxpayer funds will be needed, the officials said.

The measures have been in the works for weeks, but President Obama is finally to release the details days after his watershed victory on health-care legislation. Following that bruising battle on Capitol Hill, his administration is now welcoming a chance to change the subject and turn its attention to the economy and, in particular, the plight of the unemployed -- concerns that are paramount for many Americans.

The administration has been facing increasing pressure from lawmakers and housing advocates to overhaul its foreclosure prevention efforts. So far, fewer than 200,000 borrowers have received permanent loan modifications under its $75 billion marquee program, known as Making Home Affordable. In the meantime, there is a growing backlog of distressed borrowers awaiting help from their lenders, which threatens to undercut efforts to stabilize the housing market.

Challenges unmet

Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert M. Allison Jr. told a House panel Thursday that "we did not fully envision the challenges that we would encounter" when the earlier program was launched.

The efforts have been hampered by the difficulty of helping unemployed homeowners, who struggled to qualify for the government's mortgage relief plan. In requiring temporary relief for jobless borrowers, known as forbearance, officials are hoping to give them time to find a new job. Some will still need more assistance after the six-month period while others will ultimately lose their homes, administration officials said.

"We certainly support a forbearance opportunity for unemployed borrowers," said John A. Courson, chief executive of the Mortgage Bankers Association. He said he had not seen full details of the program.

Four measures

In addition to mortgage relief for unemployed borrowers, the program features four other key elements, including several steps to address the growing population of borrowers who owe significantly more than their home is worth, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official announcement had not been made. Underwater borrowers now make up about a quarter of all homeowners, according to First American CoreLogic. Economists consider these homeowners at higher risk of default because they cannot sell or refinance their home when they run into financial troubles.

The first key element is that the government will provide financial incentives to lenders that cut the balance of a borrower's mortgage. Banks and other lenders will be asked to reduce the principal owed on a loan if the amount is 15 percent more than their home is worth. The reduced amount would be set aside and forgiven by the lender over three years, as long as the homeowner remained current on the loan.

Until recently, administration officials had been reluctant to encourage lenders to cut the principal balance, worrying that this would encourage borrowers to become delinquent. But as federal regulators have struggled to make an impact on the foreclosure crisis, those qualms have weakened.

"We would prefer to see a required principal forgiveness program. But this is helpful," said David Berenbaum, chief program officer for the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a nonprofit housing group. "This is another tool that will help consumers weather the crisis."

Second, the government will double the amount it pays to lenders that help modify second mortgages, such as piggyback loans, which enabled home buyers to put little or no money down, and home equity lines of credit.

These second mortgages are an added burden on struggling homeowners, especially when their total debt, as a result, is greater than their home value.

Federal officials have estimated that about half of all troubled homeowners have a second mortgage and last year launched a program to encourage lenders to restructure them. That effort has struggled to get off the ground.

Third, the new effort also increases the incentives paid to those lenders that find a way to avoid foreclosing on delinquent borrowers even if they can't qualify for mortgage relief. For example, the administration is scheduled to launch a program next month encouraging lenders to have borrowers sell their homes for less than the mortgage balance in what is known as a short sale.

Fourth, the administration is increasingly turning to the Federal Housing Administration to help underwater borrowers who are still keeping up their payments. The aim is to help these borrowers refinance into a more affordable loan. The FHA will offer incentives to lenders that reduce the amount borrowers owe on their primary mortgages by at least 10 percent.

For those borrowers who have more than one mortgage on their house, the FHA will allow refinancing of the first loan only. The new loan and any second mortgage could not exceed 15 percent of the home's value. This approach is meant to benefit not only borrowers but also lenders by allowing them to offload mortgages that might otherwise fail.

Only homeowners who are refinancing their main residence, have a credit score above 500 and can document their income are eligible.

Administration official say this refinancing program should not strain the FHA's already weakened finances because the effort will be financed with up to $14 billion out of the federal bailout program.

MSNBC Host: Time For "Socialism" In Talk Radio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/25/msnbc_host_time_for_socialism_in_talk_radio.html

March 25, 2010

MSNBC Host: Time For "Socialism" In Talk Radio

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULMdDA37Zq4&feature=player_embedded

Radio Equalizer: In an unusually candid rant, MSNBC libtalker Ed Schultz tells radio listeners he believes the next "socialist" takeover by the government should be on all the radio airwaves.

WSJ: Companies are already warning about higher health-care costs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Democrats dragged themselves over the health-care finish line in part by repeating that voters would like the plan once it passed. Let's see what they think when they learn their insurance costs will jump right away.

Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.

In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Mr. Reed specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion—equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan—will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209.

In a $5.4 billion revenue grab, Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses. Verizon and other large corporations warned about this outcome.

U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings.

While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees. So much for Mr. Obama's claim that if you like your coverage, you can keep it—even at Fortune 500 companies.

In its employee note, Verizon also warned about the 40% tax on high-end health plans, though that won't take effect until 2018. "Many of the plans that Verizon offers to employees and retirees are projected to have costs above the threshold in the legislation and will be subject to the 40 percent excise tax." These costs will start to show up soon, and, as we repeatedly argued, the tax is unlikely to drive down costs. The tax burden will simply be spread to all workers—the result of the White House's too-clever decision to tax insurers, rather than individuals.

A Verizon spokesman said the company is merely addressing employee questions about ObamaCare, not making a political statement. But these and many other changes were enabled by the support of the Business Roundtable that counts Verizon as a member. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's health-reform ideas are 180 degrees from Mr. Obama's, but Verizon's shareholders and 900,000 employees and retirees will still pay the price.

Businesses around the country are making the same calculations as Verizon and no doubt sending out similar messages. It's only a small measure of the destruction that will be churned out by the rewrite of health, tax, labor and welfare laws that is ObamaCare, and only the vanguard of much worse to come.

Bond markets reflect the true cost of Obamacare | Washington Examiner

Bond markets reflect the true cost of Obamacare | Washington Examiner

Anybody but Bob? Bennett may be in big trouble

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14751894

Sen. Bob Bennett's re-election bid could be in serious trouble, based on reports of widespread opposition to the incumbent at Tuesday's Republican caucuses.

While not definitive, interviews with a dozen caucus-goers around the state reflected a familiar theme: Support was not coalescing behind any Bennett challenger, but there was a strong "anybody-but-Bennett" sentiment.

Jim Bennett, the senator's son and campaign spokesman, said the campaign is optimistic and believes that many Bennett supporters got elected as delegates, but may not have made as much noise as the anti-Bennett crowd.

"We're waiting for the hard data to come in, but we are encouraged by what we've seen so far," he said. "We've heard plenty of anecdotal evidence that Senator Bennett has done very well in parts of the state and we've also heard there is a very large contingent of people who are genuinely open to deciding who they are going to support."

Over the next six weeks, Bennett and his challengers will fan out to solidify support from the newly elected crop of 3,500 delegates. Bennett would need to get support from 60 percent of the field to avoid a June primary and more than 40 percent to avoid being bounced at convention.

Bennett is being challenged by attorney Mike Lee, businessman Tim Bridgewater, conservative activist Cherilyn Eagar, former congressman Merrill Cook and a handful of lesser-known hopefuls.

The degree with which people were

---

Advertisement

---

frustrated with Bennett was surprising, said Ryan Frandsen, who attended his caucus in Provo.

Frandsen worked on Rep. Chris Cannon's campaign in 2008 and said there was clearly a sense of frustration in that election, but if it was just bubbling through the surface then, it has erupted into a volcano this year.

Cannon barely survived the Republican convention in '08 and was drubbed in the Republican primary that year by upstart Jason Chaffetz. But it's not just the conservative activists who are frustrated this year, he said.

The far right is "still angry, but some of that anger has bled into the mainstream as well," Frandsen said. "It's not a very favorable position for Senator Bennett."

Those who attended caucuses in Logan, Centerville, West Jordan, Salt Lake City, Provo, Ogden, Holladay and Draper reported similar results.

"I didn't hear anyone voice an opinion in favor of Bennett," Scott Turner said of his packed caucus meeting in West Jordan. "People generally had a feeling ... that it's time for us to get somebody that remembers Utah and isn't so caught up in everything in Washington."

Tyler Riggs, a first-time caucus-goer in Logan, said that the delegates elected from his caucus were willing to consider any of the candidates in the Senate race -- except for Bennett.

BenJoe Markland, who was elected as precinct chairman at his South Ogden caucus, said a lot of people didn't know who the challengers to Bennett were. "In the end, they just didn't want Bob."

Markland said people felt like Bennett had broken his promise to only serve two terms. A few who supported him argued that Bennett's seniority in Congress was valuable.

Around the state, attendance at the caucuses was reportedly through the roof, as Republicans packed into more-than-standing-room-only meetings.

"It was a huge turnout," said Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen. "My guess is it's going to be two to three times the normal turnout."

Typically between 30,000 and 35,000 attend the caucus meetings he said. This year, he said the number could reach 75,000.

Quin Monson, associate director for the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy at Brigham Young University, attended a caucus and the turnout was remarkable, but "people respond more when they're feeling under siege."

But he said there may have been more support for Bennett than was apparent.

"The people who I saw who were anti-Bennett were the most vocal, but I think there was a group of delegates in our caucus and probably at other caucuses who were, if not pro-Bennett, were not antagonistic," said Monson, "but they were a little intimidated by the vehemence of the anti-Bennett crowd."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35819673/ns/us_news-life//

Utah, Florida help non-residents pack guns

Why two states' permits are such hot tickets for concealed-carry crowd

	Utah firearms expert W. Clark Aposhian: "We don't just deny a permit based on a subjective line in the dirt where a border is."  View related photos

By Mike Stuckey

Senior news editor

msnbc.com

updated 2 hours, 46 minutes ago

The one-third or so of American adults who can't obtain permits to carry concealed weapons from their home states need only look to Florida and Utah — and their mailboxes — to legally carry hidden guns.

Because both states grant concealed-carry permits to non-residents and have reciprocal agreements with other states under which their permits are recognized, possession of a Utah or Florida permit gives non-residents the right to carry hidden firearms in as many as 32 other states — though often not the one in which they live.

Tens of thousands of gun owners have obtained the non-resident permits, and their numbers are surging.

---

That has helped fuel the larger debate over concealed-carry permits. Gun-rights activists say Americans who pack heat to defend themselves are exercising a legitimate right and have helped reduce the nation's crime rate. Gun-control advocates say that there's no proof that gun-toting civilians make the streets any safer and that looser concealed-carry laws are a recipe for disaster.

As the debate continues, the Utah and Florida permits are becoming ever-hotter tickets for out-of-state gun owners.

"Protect your family when traveling!" shouts a headline on one of dozens of Web sites that offer training and help with the paperwork to obtain the Utah and Florida permits. "You don't have to be a resident of Utah or Florida!"

The non-resident permits are roundly criticized by gun-control advocates, who see the states that issue them as tools of groups like the National Rifle Association.

INTERACTIVE Going For Their Guns See which states offer "shall issue" concealed-weapons permits; "may issue" and "no issue" states also are shown.

"I think the reason states are doing this, especially Florida, is the sheer power of the gun lobby in those state legislatures," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, which seeks a ban on private ownership of all handguns. "It's not a question of what is in a state's interest, but what is in the gun lobby and gun industry's interest."

But NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam called non-resident permits an "organic" solution to needlessly restrictive state gun laws.

"There are people in all these states that are trying to get right-to-carry permits and are not able to," he said. "As a result, they're forced to explore other avenues. The solution to that would be for as many states as possible to have a 'shall-issue' permit system," which allows most adults to obtain concealed-carry permits on demand.

Big increases in two states
The popularity of non-resident licenses with gun owners from heavily populated states like California and New York, which do not have "shall-issue" systems, has helped fuel big increases in both Utah and Florida's concealed-carry permit numbers. That in turn has contributed to the nation's fivefold increase in concealed-weapons permits, from fewer than 1 million in the 1980s to an estimated 6 million today.

In Florida, the number of new and renewal applicants for concealed-carry permits from out of state increased 529 percent — from 2,703 to 17,003 — from 1999 to 2009, compared with a 145 percent increase in applications from residents of the Sunshine State over the same period.

Florida is on a pace to grant new and renewed permits to about 25,000 out-of-state residents in the current fiscal year. Of 692,621 current Florida concealed-carry license holders, 71,059, or more than one in 10, are not state residents.

Over the past 10 years, the number of concealed-carry permits issued by Utah has surged 431 percent, from 40,363 to 214,403, a figure that would represent nearly 8 percent of the state's population. But more than half the permits now go to non-Utah residents, up from just 12 percent a decade ago. Of the 1,011 instructors authorized by Utah to teach its concealed-carry license class, 641 live out of state — 100 in California alone — while 370 are Utah residents.

Both states require applicants to undergo background checks and submit to fingerprinting. Florida requires proof of firearms training that can be satisfied in a number of ways; Utah requires applicants to take a four-hour class on gun-safety and legal issues taught by a state-certified instructor. The Florida license costs $117 and is good for seven years. Utah charges $65.25 for a five-year permit.

The time and expense are well worth it to gun owners who want to pack their pistols in as many places as they legally can. Non-resident Florida licenses are good in 30 other states and non-resident Utah licenses are honored in 29 other states. The reciprocating states largely overlap, but there are a few differences. By obtaining both, for example, a resident of Illinois, which does not grant concealed-gun licenses to civilians, could legally carry in 32 states outside of his or her own, including the neighboring states of Missouri, Indiana and Kentucky.

Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business/economy/25social.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1269532867-XBP3QEnjFZYKshKqFiS7+w

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Published: March 24, 2010

• • 
    

The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security.

Multimedia

Graphic

Shrinking Sooner Than Expected

This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.

The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program's revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.

Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program's finances.

"When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits," Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.

That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.

Still, Mr. Greenspan, who later became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, said: "I think very much the same issue exists today. Because of the size of the contraction in economic activity, unless we get an immediate and sharp recovery, the revenues of the trust fund will be tracking lower for a number of years."

The Social Security Administration is expected to issue in a few weeks its own numbers for the current year within the annual report from its board of trustees. The administration has six board members: three from the president's cabinet, two representatives of the public and the Social Security commissioner.

Though Social Security uses slightly different methods, the official numbers are expected to roughly track the Congressional projections, which were one page of a voluminous analysis of the federal budget proposed by President Obama in January.

Mr. Goss said Social Security's annual report last year projected revenue would more than cover payouts until at least 2016 because economists expected a quicker, stronger recovery from the crisis. Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2 percent in 2009 and 8.8 percent this year, though unemployment is hovering at nearly 10 percent.

The trustees did foresee, in late 2008, that the recession would be severe enough to deplete Social Security's funds more quickly than previously projected. They moved the year of reckoning forward, to 2037 from 2041. Mr. Goss declined to reveal the contents of the forthcoming annual report, but said people should not expect the date to lurch forward again.

The long-term costs of Social Security present further problems for politicians, who are already struggling over how to reduce the nation's debt. The national predicament echoes that of many European governments, which are facing market pressure to re-examine their commitments to generous pensions over extended retirements.

The United States' soaring debt — propelled by tax cuts, wars and large expenditures to help banks and the housing market — has become a hot issue as Democrats gauge their vulnerability in the coming elections. President Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to examine the debt problem, including Social Security, and make recommendations on how to trim the nation's debt by Dec. 1, a few weeks after the midterm Congressional elections.

Although Social Security is often said to have a "trust fund," the term really serves as an accounting device, to track the pay-as-you-go program's revenue and outlays over time. Its so-called balance is, in fact, a history of its vast cash flows: the sum of all of its revenue in the past, minus all of its outlays. The balance is currently about $2.5 trillion because after the early 1980s the program had surplus revenue, year after year.

Now that accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink, as outlays start to exceed revenue. By law, Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any given year.

For accounting purposes, the system's accumulated revenue is placed in Treasury securities.

In a year like this, the paper gains from the interest earned on the securities will more than cover the difference between what it takes in and pays out.

Mr. Goss, the actuary, emphasized that even the $29 billion shortfall projected for this year was small, relative to the roughly $700 billion that would flow in and out of the system. The system, he added, has a balance of about $2.5 trillion that will take decades to deplete. Mr. Goss said that large cushion could start to grow again if the economy recovers briskly.

Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office's projection shows the ravages of the recession easing in the next few years, with small surpluses reappearing briefly in 2014 and 2015.

After that, demographic forces are expected to overtake the fund, as more and more baby boomers leave the work force, stop paying into the program and start collecting their benefits. At that point, outlays will exceed revenue every year, no matter how well the economy performs.

Mr. Greenspan recalled in an interview that the sour economy of the late 1970s had taken the program close to insolvency when the commission he led set to work in 1982. It had no contingency reserve then, and the group had to work quickly. He said there were only three choices: raise taxes, lower benefits or bail out the program by tapping general revenue.

The easiest choice, politically, would have been "solving the problem with the stroke of a pen, by printing the money," Mr. Greenspan said. But one member of the commission, Claude Pepper, then a House representative, blocked that approach because he feared it would undermine Social Security, changing it from a respected, self-sustaining old-age program into welfare.

Mr. Greenspan said that the same three choices exist today — though there is more time now for the painful deliberations.

"Even if the trust fund level goes down, there's no action required, until the level of the trust fund gets to zero," he said. "At that point, you have to cut benefits, because benefits have to equal receipts."

Stephanie Strom contributed reporting.