Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (42374)	3/24/2010 11:56:32 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Gallup: Healthcare reform a 'political victory' for Obama Gallup's latest poll on healthcare reform, conducted after the bill's passage, shows almost half the public approving. Nearly 4 in 5 Republicans, however, are 'angry' or 'disappointed.' The Christian Science Monitor By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer posted March 24, 2010 at 4:16 pm EDT csmonitor.com Washington — One poll does not a trend make, but Gallup has some good news for President Obama: Its first poll on healthcare reform since Congress passed legislation late Sunday shows nearly half the American public approving. Some 49 percent of American adults called the new law “a good thing,” compared with 40 percent who called it a “bad thing.” Two weeks before the congressional vote, Gallup found 45 percent of Americans favored passage and 48 percent opposed. In the latest results, Gallup sees “a clear political victory” for Mr. Obama and his allies in Congress. Gallup also notes the wide disparity in partisan reactions, with 82 percent of Democrats either “enthusiastic” or “pleased” and 79 percent of Republicans either “angry” or “disappointed.” “Whether these groups’ views on the issue harden or soften in the coming months could be crucial to how healthcare reform factors into this year’s midterm elections,” writes Lydia Saad of Gallup. Healthcare 101: What the bill means to you Gary Langer, director of polling at ABC News, says the Gallup result means that a “winner’s bounce” is possible, but he needs more data to know. A poll released Tuesday by Bloomberg showed no such bounce. The survey found 38 percent of Americans favored the healthcare overhaul versus 50 percent who opposed it. The poll was conducted both before and after the House vote, between March 19 and 22, though the polling firm found no meaningful movement of opinion after the bill had passed. As always, the wording of the questions could have affected the outcome. In the Bloomberg National Poll, conducted by Selzer & Co., respondents were asked whether they “favor or oppose the healthcare overhaul plan.” “Anything called a ‘massive overhaul’ will be complicated, and it is hard for people to see what is in it for them,” J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co. in Des Moines, Iowa, told Bloomberg News. “Even as Americans of all stripes agree there are problems with the current system, the escalating deficit makes them worry what the country can really afford.” In the Gallup question, the healthcare bill was described as one that “restructures the nation’s healthcare system.” On Thursday, Obama heads to the University of Iowa, in Iowa City, for a speech on the new healthcare law, a signal that the White House knows it still has some selling to do. Iowa City is a heavily Democratic part of the state, and Obama used it as a regular backdrop during his presidential campaign. His victory in the Iowa caucuses, the first nominating contest in 2008, helped propel him to his party’s nomination.

To: TimF who wrote (42374)	3/29/2010 9:49:13 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Planting the Seeds of Disaster By Robert Samuelson March 29, 2010 WASHINGTON -- When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody's Investors Service -- the bond rating agency -- published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama's health care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook. Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings. A further irony will not escape historians. For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis. The president and his supporters, the historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered -- though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain. Receive news alerts Sign Up Robert Samuelson RealClearPolitics Obama USD Congressional Budget Office Medicare Congress U.S. government House of Representatives Moody's Investors Service United States President Washington [+] More Let's be clear. A "budget crisis" is not some minor accounting exercise. It's a wrenching political, social and economic upheaval. Large deficits and rising debt -- the accumulation of past deficits -- spook investors, leading to higher interest rates on government loans. The higher rates expand the budget deficit and further unnerve investors. To reverse this calamitous cycle, the government has to cut spending deeply or raise taxes sharply. Lower spending and higher taxes in turn depress the economy and lead to higher unemployment. Not pretty. Greece is now experiencing such a crisis. Until recently, conventional wisdom held that only developing countries -- managed ineptly -- were candidates for true budget crises. No more. Most wealthy societies with aging populations, including the United States, face big gaps between their spending promises and their tax bases. No one in Congress could be unaware of this. Two weeks before the House vote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its estimate of Obama's budget, including its health care program. From 2011 to 2020, the cumulative deficit is almost $10 trillion. Adding 2009 and 2010, the total rises to $12.7 trillion. In 2020, the projected annual deficit is $1.25 trillion, equal to 5.6 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That assumes economic recovery, with unemployment at 5 percent. Spending is almost 30 percent higher than taxes. Total debt held by the public rises from 40 percent of GDP in 2008 to 90 percent in 2020, close to its post-World War II peak. To criticisms, Obama supporters make two arguments. First, the CBO says the plan reduces the deficit by $138 billion over a decade. Second, the legislation contains measures (an expert panel to curb Medicare spending, emphasis on "comparative effectiveness research") to control health spending. These rejoinders are self-serving and unconvincing. Suppose the CBO estimate is correct. So? The $138 billion saving is about 1 percent of the projected $12.7 trillion deficit from 2009 to 2020. If the administration has $1 trillion or so of spending cuts and tax increases over a decade, all these monies should first cover existing deficits -- not finance new spending. Obama's behavior resembles a highly indebted family's taking an expensive round-the-world trip because it claims to have found ways to pay for it. It's self-indulgent and reckless. But the CBO estimate is misleading, because it must embody the law's many unrealistic assumptions and gimmicks. Benefits are phased in "so that the first 10 years of (higher) revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending (increases)," ex-CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in The New York Times. Holtz-Eakin also noted the $70 billion of premiums for a new program of long-term care that reduce present deficits but will be paid out in benefits later. Then there's the "doc fix" -- higher Medicare reimbursements under separate legislation that would cost about $200 billion over a decade. Proposals to control health spending face restrictions that virtually ensure failure. Consider the "Independent Payment Advisory Board" aimed at Medicare. "The Board is prohibited from submitting proposals that would ration care, increase revenues or change benefits, eligibility or Medicare beneficiary cost sharing," says a summary by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. What's left? Similarly, findings from "comparative effectiveness research" -- intended to identify ineffective care -- "may not be construed as mandates, guidelines or recommendations for payment, coverage or treatment." What's the point then? So Obama is flirting with a future budget crisis. Moody's emphasizes two warning signs: rising debt and loss of confidence that government will deal with it. Obama fulfills both. The parallels with the recent financial crisis are striking. Bankers and rating agencies engaged in wishful thinking to rationalize self-interest. Obama does the same. No one can tell when or whether a crisis will come. There is no magic tipping point. But Obama is raising the chances. realclearpolitics.com