Tuesday, December 15, 2009
CitizenLink: Marriage Penalty Hidden in Health Care Reform
CitizenLink: Marriage Penalty Hidden in Health Care Reform: "an unmarried couple each making $30,000 a year would pay $1,320 combined each year for private health insurance. If that couple chose to marry, their premium would jump to $12,000 a year, a difference of $10,680."
Unemployment and the Stimulus
December 4: "In a report done by the incoming Obama Administration, it was estimated that passage of a significant federal stimulus plan would keep unemployment numbers around 8%. Without federal relief, the report projected that unemployment would grow to over 9%.
Now, almost a year after the report was released, national unemployment sits at 10% despite the approval of a massive $787 billion stimulus bill."
Now, almost a year after the report was released, national unemployment sits at 10% despite the approval of a massive $787 billion stimulus bill."
State Superintendent Superpowers
December 11: "DPI would not only have the power to completely control a school or school district in need of improvement, it would have the power to set the criteria to determine how a district becomes 'in need of improvement.'"
Fiscal Task Force a Turkey | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary
Fiscal Task Force a Turkey | Chris Edwards | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Spending has soared so high that 40 percent of this year's budget will be funded by borrowing."
"spending is expected to skyrocket from 21 percent of the economy in 2008 to at least 40 percent by 2050, or more if a new federal health plan is enacted."
"Under a cap, Congress could not increase total annual outlays by more than the growth in some economic variable such as personal income, perhaps averaged over five years. If it did, the administration would be required at the end of the year to determine the amount of the excess and cut programs across the board to meet the cap.
It's true that Congress could rewrite or suspend such a statutory cap if it didn't want to comply with it down the road. But a cap would be a high-profile symbol of budget restraint for taxpayers to rally around and defend. It would be easy for concerned citizens to understand a law that said that the government's budget shouldn't grow faster than the average family's budget."
"spending is expected to skyrocket from 21 percent of the economy in 2008 to at least 40 percent by 2050, or more if a new federal health plan is enacted."
"Under a cap, Congress could not increase total annual outlays by more than the growth in some economic variable such as personal income, perhaps averaged over five years. If it did, the administration would be required at the end of the year to determine the amount of the excess and cut programs across the board to meet the cap.
It's true that Congress could rewrite or suspend such a statutory cap if it didn't want to comply with it down the road. But a cap would be a high-profile symbol of budget restraint for taxpayers to rally around and defend. It would be easy for concerned citizens to understand a law that said that the government's budget shouldn't grow faster than the average family's budget."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)