Tag Archives: heritage foundation

Inside the Uninsured Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

What do we know about the health care uninsureds in our country? That there are somewhere around 46 million people in this category, the national total is slightly over 16% and Indiana’s percentage is nearly the same.

Gallup, the polling people, have some more numbers. Their recent surveys tell us there are more uninsured in Texas, New Mexico and Mississippi (between 24% and 27% in each state) and the lowest totals are in Massachusetts (5.5% with its "universal" coverage), and Vermont, Minnesota and Hawaii (all in the 8.5% range). The Gallup results also show regional trends — lower numbers of uninsured in the Northeast and higher figures in the South and West. They link varying amounts of Hispanic populations as one of the reasons for the difference.

But there are more numbers that should not be forgotten: 45% of the uninsured are in that status for less than four months and only 16% are uninsured for more than 18 months. According to the Heritage Foundation, 20 million are in households with incomes more than twice the poverty level, approximately nine million are on Medicaid and nearly as many are illegal immigrants. The problem, experts say, is the lack of portability in insurance (those who change jobs often go in and out of the uninsured count). Policy changes regarding tax treatment and portability would be a huge first step in the right direction.

The point: Yes, the many Americans without insurance is a problem and part of the health care reform debate, but take a closer look at the numbers before forming your opinion on what needs to take place. 

Wage Hike Bad News for Unskilled Workers

Posted on by
Reply

Remember the past battles over minimum wage increases? The most recent was two years ago when Congress passed a three-part pay hike. The final installment went into effect last Friday, raising the minimum wage to $7.25.

It makes some sense on the surface. It makes none in reality. We’ll let Heritage Foundation expert James Sherk explain. Read his entire column here.

Unemployment will not fall until businesses resume investing in new enterprises. Ask yourself: Will raising the minimum wage encourage or discourage such investing? Will it encourage or discourage entrepreneurs from starting new small businesses? Raising the minimum wage now will help keep unemployment among unskilled workers high.

Rep. Flake Proposes End of Donor States

Posted on by
Reply

Interesting analysis this week from Arizona congressman Jeff Flake and the Heritage Foundation’s Ronald Utt. Their message: donor states — those that pay more in federal fuel taxes than they receive back in highway funds (Indiana has been on that list for years) — need to band together when the transportation bill is reauthorized later this year.

They go so far as to suggest the following:

The most effective reform would be to cut out Washington regulators and bureaucracy altogether. Simply let each state keep the 18.3 cents per gallon federal fuel tax paid by motorists within its borders (as well as the diesel fuel tax paid by truckers). In turn, states would be held fully responsible for their own transportation programs. The upshot: State transportation agencies would have the funds and the flexibility needed to keep things running smoothly within their borders.

D.C.-based central-planning and financial management made sense back in 1956 when the sole task of the new federal program was to build the interstate highway system coast to coast and border to border. But that task was completed in the mid-1980s.

Don’t know if that is the answer, but it does make you think there has to be a better way. Read their full analysis.

Chao: Let’s Hope President Lives Up to Rhetoric on Open Trade

Posted on by
Reply

"As we go forward, we should embrace a collective commitment to encourage open trade and investment, while resisting the protectionism that would deepen this crisis." — President Barack Obama

Elaine Chao, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, outlines her hope that the president’s actions live up to his words when it comes to free trade (the above quote is taken from an open letter he wrote for publishing just before the recent G-20 Summit). In a column penned for the Heritage Foundation, she contends that history has proven the inherent flaws in protectionism :

We have been down this road before. The Tariff Act of 1930, sponsored by Sens. Reed Smoot and Willis C. Hawley, is infamous for deepening and prolonging the Great Depression. When the Smoot-Hawley bill landed on President Herbert Hoover’s desk, more than 1,000 economists urged him to veto it. Tragically, the president ignored their pleas. Other nations retaliated, and America learned a painful lesson.

By 1932, U.S. exports to Europe were just one-third of what they had been in 1929. The precipitous drop claimed many jobs, contributing to the economic misery that saw the U.S. unemployment rate soar to 25.1 percent in 1933 from 7.8 percent in 1930. Americans did not suffer alone. World trade overall fell two-thirds in the first few years of the Depression.

Today it is apparent that some in Washington have forgotten that history or never bothered to learn it. Lawmakers at home, as well as abroad, are embracing protectionism for the 21st Century that threatens to make an already severe economic crisis even worse.

The World Bank recently reported that, since the beginning of the current economic crisis, countries around the world have enacted 47 measures that restrict trade at the expense of other nations. These instigators include the United States and 16 fellow members of the G-20 whosigned a pledge just four months ago to eschew protectionist measures.

She also claims Obama is off to a rough start, as he signed off on some protectionist measures included in the recent stimulus bill. Read the entire column and let us know what you think.

You Want My Money to Do What?

Posted on by
Reply

What’s going on in Washington these days? In four simple words — money is being spent. (Some would add "at the expense of our future," but we’ll leave that discussion for another time.)

Since there is such a spending frenzy, maybe Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin thinks no one will notice as he tries to add a few billions to the tab in the Fair Elections Now Act. Who will benefit from this economic rescue, bailout or stimulus plan? It’s Durbin and his colleagues. He (representatives John Larson of Connecticut and Walter B. Jones Jr. of North Carolina deserve their spotlight in the Hall of Shame for introducing similar legislation in their chamber) wants mandatory use of public resources (taxpayer dollars) to fund congressional campaigns.

Why is this a bad idea? Just a few of the many reasons:

  • The presidential check-off system on tax returns never worked (it was voluntary; maybe that’s why Durbin wants to take your money without giving you a choice)
  • Durbin wants to tax government contractors, putting them in a position of having to fund political candidates with whom they might be vigourously opposed. Never mind that little item called the First Amendment
  • The House version calls for taking proceeds from Federal Communications Commission sales. This limited funding source is now being used to help reduce the ballooning federal deficit — a far more worthy cause
  • Elimination of the need to have at least some good, solid ideas in order to attract local, private sector funding. Instead, under these plans, meet some minimal fundraising requirements and the public coffers are open for your use — or abuse

I could go on. The Heritage Foundation does in a strong rebuttal. But it’s bills like this that unfortunately make so many people have so little confidence in our elected leaders. What are they thinking?

Take a Look at the ‘American Option’

Posted on by
Reply

A federal stimulus package is coming. We’re convinced of that. The good news is that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels and other state leaders are planning what to do with the funds coming our way. Let’s hope the basic principle of "one-time funds that should not be used for ongoing programs" wins out in the end.

But what form will the stimulus take? The version passed by the U.S. House was heavy on spending and light on actual economic stimulation. Many smart people over the years have studied and reported that the way to generate economic momentum is through putting more money in the hands of the people — indviduals, entrepreneurs and business leaders. Tax cuts, proper incentives and investments in long-term assets are good things.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) seems to have an "American Option" plan that fits that description. Does it have all the answers? Probably not. But it certainly seems to deserve some serious consideration. If bipartisanship is going to come into play in the new administration, blending the best from various stimulus plans would be a good place to start.

The Heritage Foundation offers some analysis.

Coal Making Comeback for Some Businesses

Posted on by
Reply

America’s new likely Energy Secretary, nominee Steven Chu, is on record saying coal is his "worst nightmare." Well, he obviously hasn’t been locked in solitary with a stereo looping that migraine-inducing terror of a song, "Bad Day." That is my worst nightmare, and I’d contend it’s far worse than anything coal will ever provide.

But Chu’s (and Obama’s) aversion to coal is hardly music to the ears of the nation’s coal producers, namely the top five producing states (Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Texas). This is likely why the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council has a different take on coal:

For good measure, coal is affordable. On December 27, the New York Times ran a fascinating story titled "Burning Coal at Home Is Making a Comeback". While still a tiny fraction of the market, the story explained how the number of homes using coal as a heating fuel has risen. Coal consumption as a heating fuel, it was reported, hit a low in 2006, then rose by 7 percent in 2007 and more than 10 percent during the first eight months of 2008.

Opportunities have expanded for some small businesses. For example: "Dean Lehman, the plant manager for Hitzer Inc., a family-owned business in Berne, Ind., that makes smaller, indoor coal stoves, said his stoves were on back order until March. And Jeffery Gliem, the director of operations at the Reading Stove Company and its parent, Reading Anthracite, in Pottsville, Pa., which supplies coal and stoves to 15 states in the Northeast and Midwest, said the uptick in interest was the largest he had seen in 30 years. ‘In your typical year you might have five, six, seven thousand stoves being sold,’ Mr. Gliem said. ‘This year it was probably double that.’"

To get an idea on the cost differential, consider the following: "Coals vary in quality, but on average, a ton of coal contains about as much potential heat as 146 gallons of heating oil or 20,000 cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. A ton of anthracite, a particularly high grade of coal, can cost as little as $120 near mines in Pennsylvania. The equivalent amount of heating oil would cost roughly $380, based on the most recent prices in the state – and over $470 using prices from December 2007. An equivalent amount of natural gas would cost about $480 at current prices." 

UPDATE: The Heritage Foundation just released this series of questions for Chu, as well.

Advice for Obama: How to Really Cut Spending

Posted on by
Reply

The Heritage Foundation’s Brian M. Riedl and Alison Acosta Fraser offer advice to President-elect Obama regarding how he can keep his promise to issue a "net spending cut." The authors point out that most incoming presidents promise to do so, yet fail when it comes time to make tough choices. They write:

The American people have repeatedly expressed exasperation at the pork, runaway spending, and budget deficits that have plagued Washington during this decade. You were elected President on the promise of fiscal responsibility and a "net spending cut." Scaling back planned "stimulus" spending that would likely fail to help the economy would be a strong first step toward fulfilling your promise. Reforming Social Security and Medicare before more of the 77 million baby boomers begin to collect benefits is also imperative.

The writers also offer some key tips (they’re in bullet points so you know they mean business). Here are a few:

  • Define "net spending cut"
  • Cut farm subsidies
  • Reform entitlement programs
  • Devolve more programs to state and local governments
  • Use PAYGO to prevent expensive new entitlements

New School: Advice for Obama on Education

Posted on by
Reply

This Heritage Foundation column offers President-elect Obama advice regarding what should be done to heal America’s educational system. The authors list the following as the most imperative actions the administration should pursue:

  • Reform federal K-12 education programs to encourage state and local reform and facilitate greater parental choice.
  • End ineffective, wasteful, or duplicative education programs.
  • Protect and expand school choice in Washington, D.C.
  • Fix ineffective federal early childhood education programs rather than adding new ones.
  • Call attention to the real engines of reform: the power of parents and successful reform models at the state and local levels.

They conclude:

You were right to say during your campaign that "we cannot be satisfied until every child in America…has the same chance for a good education that we want for our own children." But four decades of experience with increasing federal involvement has shown that Washington cannot deliver on that promise. Instead of further expanding federal authority in education, your Administration should empower those who have more power to make a difference in children’s education, especially parents. 

The Obama Administration and Health Care

Posted on by
Reply

Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation recently scribed a piece called "Think Small," outlining what President Obama must do regarding health care strategy. He stresses the following key points, but I recommend reading the column in full:

1. Make a strong commitment to bipartisanship (don’t be like Bill Clinton).

2. Rather than finding new money to spend during these tough economic times, he should find ways to more efficiently spend the money we are already allocating toward this.

3. Allow the states flexibility to redesign existing health care programs and use the money more efficiently to reach the goal of maximizing affordable coverage.

4. Remember that Americans are very conservative about their health care. Those with coverage are extremely nervous about changing what they already have.