Consistently, the political Left insists that conservatives have no solutions to offer. It's not true, of course. Still, liberals cling to this mantra.
It's no secret what the average American family does when income drops: It spends less and saves more. In fact, we've seen just that during these past two recessionary years. The personal saving rate, barely 1 percent of income in the first quarter of 2008, reached 5 percent last year and remains above 3 percent.
Every day at 9 a.m. the Mary Queen of Vietnam community center opens its doors to distribute 25 food vouchers. Several weeks ago people started lining up at 5 a.m. Now the line forms at 2 a.m.
Millions of Americans face potential financial ruin because they bought homes they couldn't afford. Often, these homeowners were lured by initially low interest rates that provided the illusion of affordability. After a few years, these "teaser" rates reset upward, creating unaffordably high mortgage payments.
As we celebrate Labor Day, let’s remember what makes this holiday possible in the first place: American workers. For the most part that means small business.
President Obama has called for a huge tax increase to take effect on January 1, 2011. Instead of reducing spending, he proposes to raise taxes on a wide swath of taxpayers—including small businesses—despite the weak economic recovery. Congressional Democrats stand poised (immediately following the November elections) to endorse the President’s request and threaten to go much further. Proponents of letting the tax cuts expire—which would indeed be a tax hike—have offered a wide array of justifications for this wrongheaded policy. Heritage Foundation fiscal policy expert J. D. Foster wades through the myths and straw arguments to set the record straight.
The Economic Freedom Act, proposed by Representative Jim Jordan, would terminate the ineffective Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), and substitute a proven way to stimulate the economy: tax relief—from permanent repeal of the capital gains and death taxes to significant reductions in payroll taxes and the top corporate tax rate. Analysts at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) conducted static and dynamic analyses of the act (H.R. 5029), finding that over the long term, dynamic economic effects would offset much of the cost of the tax relief. In the short term, the act would increase the deficit if it was not coupled with reductions in spending. This means a specific plan for spending cuts is imperative. The CDA analysts detail the economic and fiscal effects of the Economic Freedom Act’s spending and tax cuts.
Imagine you are one of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top political strategists. The polls show your party needs a game-changer, something that will transform what looks like a losing political hand into a winner. “I know,” you shout, “let’s push for a large tax increase on the ‘fortunate few’ — the 2 or 3 percent of the population with so much money they won’t even miss a few thousand bucks. The other 97 or 98 percent will feel no pain, and we’ll be able to call ourselves deficit hawks when all those billions start rolling in.”
With or without Obamacare, health insurance costs are on the rise, and the new law doesn’t do much to stop them from climbing. If anything, several provisions of the legislation passed in March could drive costs higher than they would have been under prior law—unless, of course, insurers can find other ways to bring these costs down.
Remember the Cornhusker Kickback? It was a giveaway to Nebraska brokered in order to secure the vote of one of its senators for Obamacare. After word of the scam broke, pressure mounted on Congress to drop the provision, which it eventually did.
Obamacare is on the march, and state policymakers must decide by 2014 how they will respond to this encroachment on state’s rights to control their own health insurance markets. The state of Utah has been on the reform path since 2005. With its system of defined contributions (as opposed to the standard defined benefits), a functioning health insurance exchange, and appropriate risk-adjustment mechanisms, Utah has given its workers the freedom to choose among many health plans with different levels of benefits, instead of remaining tied to the one-size-fits-all approach dictated by Washington. The Heritage Foundation has discerned five distinct lessons that the other 49 states can learn from Utah’s experience. The time for learning—and for action—is now.
Since the passage of President Obama’s unpopular Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many states have pushed back against the federal government’s intrusion into the nation’s health care system. This includes challenging the constitutionality of the law’s insurance mandate and calling for repeal and replacement of the law.
The reason that America needs health care reform, and the reason that the cost of health care is going up dramatically faster than we can afford and faster than everything else in the economy, is that government has broken the system. The health care system we have today is a product of policy decisions that were made in the 1990s, but it is also true that the debate on those decisions was decisive in 1994 in effecting a political revolution. Today, with enactment of the Obama health care plan, conservatives once again have such an opportunity, but merely replicating the posture of the 1990s is not enough. They have to pursue an aggressive, consequential health care reform proposal that will positively affect the lives of millions of Americans. It is equally important that Members of Congress, who represent the American people, do their will and fix this program and at the same time preserve individual freedom and personal choice.