Jonathan Kantrowitz

I’ve written before about the problems with the current Energy Reform bill. It accomplishes little good, and may, in fact, be worse than no bill at all.

Here is more evidence of it lack of positive effect:

The agriculture provisions of the bill, however, open two loopholes that threaten to let coal-fired power plants and other big climate polluters off the hook and slow progress toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

First, the bill allows polluters to take credit for meeting their required pollution reductions by paying farmers, not to put new conservation practices in place, but simply to keep doing what they were already doing. This could allow the equivalent of over 67 of the dirtiest power plants to avoid any controls on greenhouse gas emissions while missing the opportunity to encourage farmers to do more to protect the climate.

Second, the bill provides no guarantee that key conservation practices that are generating credits for polluters will actually stay in place over the long-term.

Read the whole report for details of how this whole exercise can accomplish nothing.

It’s hard to find words to describe how ridiculous Jim Amann’s campaign for Governor is.

He’s raised only about $8,000 this quarter. That’s on top of $0 in the first quarter, and $9,545 in qualifying contributions last year. His explanation:

(H)e said it’s hard to compare his campaign committee to the exploratory committees of the other two Democratic candidates and Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

“We’re right in the ballpark with these guys,” Amann said referring to Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy and Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz.

“These guys” have raised over $240,000 each – do you think that only about $17,000 of each $240,000 is in qualifying contributions of $100 or less? It’s almost certainly much, much more.

But even that $17,000 isn’t really Amann’s total. Actually he is in a deep hole, because he has totally screwed up his finances by transferring money improperly from HIS exploratory committee:

Amann transferred $35,488 from his exploratory committee into his candidate committee, but he had only raised $9,545 in qualifying contributions of $100 or less. The rest came in amounts of up to $375.

The screw-up has launched an audit of Amann’s campaign by the state Elections Enforcement Commission, a cumbersome and time-consuming process that requires documentation for every check cashed and could take months to complete.

Amann started out his campaign spending money like a drunken sailor:

Amann’s kick-off party at the Klein theater in Bridgeport in February had all the trappings of an election year-rally — 21 months before Election Day. And campaign records show he paid handsomely for the show: $3,729 for the theater rental; $1,665 to the stagehands union; $1,200 for “security”; $2,650 for photography and videography; and $169 for decorations. And it wasn’t even a fund-raiser: The rally didn’t raise a cent for the campaign.

Amann’s also shelling out $2,044 a month renting a storefront ($8,176 spent so far) in a Milford strip mall to use as headquarters, which held its grand opening April 28. And he has charged hundreds of dollars in meals to the campaign, from Stonebridge Restaurant in Amann’s hometown to Max Downtown and the Officer’s Club in Hartford. Then there’s a one-off charge for Foxwoods valet parking, which the paperwork describes simply as “attendance at dinner.”

Amann needs to raise $250,000 to qualify for public funds, which he claims is his only goal and says is the reason counting how much someone raises is not important. But at the rate of $8,000 per quarter it will take him over 7 1/2 years to raise that much.

When will this buffoon decide enough is enough?

Some critics of the economic recovery law (or “stimulus” bill) that President Obama and Congress enacted early this year are mischaracterizing how it was supposed to work and what it was supposed to do. For instance, some critics complain that, because unemployment has risen in recent months, the law is not working. Others claim that states are improperly using the money to close budget shortfalls or finance short-term projects.

These and a number of other criticisms are off base. The law – officially the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act – is working as intended. Without it, the economy and the job prospects for many Americans would be worse.

The $787 billion in new spending and tax cuts was supposed to slow the economy’s downward spiral and then help it recover over time from what will be the nation’s deepest recession in decades, if not since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The law was designed to save and create more than 3.5 million jobs over the next two years, according to the Obama Administration, and to help states close their budget shortfalls so they could avoid even greater spending cuts and larger tax increases than they are already enacting to meet their balanced budget requirements.

Here are key points to keep in mind about the recovery law:

1: The recent rise in unemployment does not mean the law is not working.
No mainstream economist believed the law would immediately revive the economy and cause unemployment to begin falling. In addition, at the time Congress enacted the law, virtually all forecasts in both the public and private sectors underestimated the severity of the downturn. Nevertheless, the law has slowed the decline and will help the turnaround occur sooner than it would have otherwise.

2: The Administration and Congress expected the stimulus money to be spent gradually over the next two to three years, and what’s been spent to date is stimulating the economy and helping millions of Americans.

3: The nation faces a very serious long-term budget problem, but the recovery law will exacerbate that problem only a very small amount.

Although the recovery law significantly increases short-run deficits, the fiscal effects of the bill over the long run are tiny. In January, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculated that the recovery law would add just 3 percent to the budget shortfall through 2050. That’s because the tax cuts and new spending in the law are temporary. The main driver of the nation’s long-term budget shortfall is ongoing factors, the most notable of which is steadily rising health care costs.

CBO projects that the law will increase the number of people with jobs by 2.5 million next year. In addition, millions of others will benefit from the higher incomes produced in an economy that is less weak than it otherwise would have been. The economy clearly needed the boost in demand that the new spending and tax cuts generate. Failing to provide this boost due to fear of very slightly increasing the long-term budget problem would have been foolish.

4: The law was specifically designed to help states close their budget shortfalls.
State revenues have fallen sharply due to the recession. As a result, states face a combined $350 billion in projected budget gaps over the next two years. Because states also face legal requirements to balance their budgets, they must enact program cuts and tax increases to close their budget gaps. Such measures, however, reduce demand for goods and services, making a weak economy even weaker. Without federal funds, states would have to take even more dramatic measures that, by reducing demand, would cost jobs and make the recession even more severe.

The recovery law is giving states roughly $140 billion over the next two years in Medicaid and education funding, reducing the $350 billion shortfall by that amount, helping states avoid some of the largest program cuts they were contemplating, and reducing the negative impact of their budget-balancing steps on the economy. Virginia, for example, reversed plans to end funding for hundreds of sheriffs’ deputies, thousands of school personnel, and three mental health facilities. New York reversed a major proposed cut to senior citizens’ prescription drug benefits and another major cut to school funding.

5. States are spending money appropriately and as expected.

Source:
Correcting Five Myths About the Stimulus Bill

The famously non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has published an analysis of Health Care Reform and the Federal Budget which is well worth reading in its entirety.

Here are some of the highlights:

The Federal Budget Outlook

The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care. Federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid have increased from 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1970 to more than 5 percent in 2009; and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current policy, they will exceed 6 percent of GDP in 2019 and about 8 percent in 2029. Most of that increase will result from rising costs per capita, rather than from the aging of the population. As a result, the country faces difficult and fundamental trade-offs between limiting the growth of Medicare and Medicaid relative to GDP, accepting a continuing increase in taxes relative to GDP, and reducing other spending relative to GDP, possibly to levels not experienced in this country in more than 40 years.

Moreover, serious fiscal imbalances are not a far-off problem. Under current law, CBO projects, Medicare’s Part A trust fund—which pays for inpatient services, post-acute care, and hospice services and receives revenues principally from the payroll tax—will have insufficient funds to pay for all covered services starting in 2017.

The Potential Impact of Expanding Health Insurance Coverage on the Budget Outlook

The federal government’s financing of health care will total more than $1 trillion in 2009, all told. Federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are about $700 billion; tax preferences for health care (especially the exclusion of premiums for employment-based health insurance from income and payroll taxes) amount to more than $250 billion; and the federal government also pays for veterans’ health care, public health initiatives, and other health programs. Already, those direct and indirect payments for health care account for nearly 60 percent of total health expenditures for the nation….

Many proposals to significantly expand insurance coverage would add to federal costs by providing large subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance…

Some policy options under consideration would yield savings that grew in tandem with health care spending—reducing the level of federal spending on health care but not affecting the measured rate of spending growth after the first few years…

Significant savings seem possible because the available evidence implies that a substantial share of spending on health care contributes little if anything to the overall health of the nation. Therefore, experts generally agree that changes in government policy have the potential to produce substantial savings in both national and federal spending on health care without harming health….

Perhaps the most compelling evidence about the extent of inefficiency in the health sector is that Medicare spending varies widely across different regions of the country, but the variation is not correlated with available measures of the quality of care or health outcomes. Researchers affiliated with the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care have compared the Medicare spending for enrollees across the nation, controlling for demographic characteristics such as age, sex, and race. According to those researchers’ calculations, Medicare spending could be reduced by almost 30 percent if outlays in medium- and high-spending regions were reduced to the average level in the lowest-spending decile…

Many experts think that transformational changes in health care financing and delivery could reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health by more than the 10 percent increase that would result from a large-scale expansion of insurance coverage…

Considerable consensus exists among experts about some types of changes that are likely to make the health sector more efficient: move away from a fee-for-service system toward paying providers for value, perhaps through fixed payments per patient, bonuses based on performance, or penalties for substandard care; provide stronger incentives for both providers and patients to control costs, through higher cost-sharing requirements or tighter management of benefits; and facilitate good decisionmaking by providers and patients by equipping them with more information about the effectiveness of different treatments and the quality of care delivered by different providers. Those changes in the flow of money and information would spur and facilitate other changes in the organization and delivery of health care…

Policy Options That Could Produce Budgetary Savings in the Long Run

A number of specific reforms show great promise for reducing federal spending on health care over time without harming people’s health…

A study conducted by Foreclosure1.com of its users shows support for Obama’s economic proposals, particularly those geared towards homeowners. When President Obama took office in January 2009, one of his first actions was to begin assembling an economic stimulus plan that would help revive the U.S. economy. The bill passed, although its $787 billion price tag caused some controversy, particularly among Republicans.

The stimulus package includes an $8,000 tax credit for individuals buying their first home, tax cuts spread out weekly on paychecks for individuals and families, an increase in the child tax credit, unemployment benefit extensions, and other measures aimed at providing immediate relief to those most affected by the economic downturn.

Even before the stimulus passed, Obama had passed measures to assist homeowners in danger of losing their homes through foreclosure. The measure rewarded lenders who reduced interest rates or refinanced mortgages to assist troubled homeowners.

While these measures have been controversial in some circles, a survey conducted between May 1 and June 1, 2009 of Foreclosure1.com users found most people support Obama’s efforts. More than 1,000 people from all over the United States and across both genders participated in the survey.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents supported Obama’s economic proposals – more than double the number of people who did not support the measures he has been taking to improve the financial situation of the country. More than half (55%) supported his effects to help homeowners who were at risk of losing their homes compared to just 27% who did not support these efforts. In fact, Obama’s efforts seem to have reduced concern about mortgages for most respondents. When asked to identify the most important economic issue facing the country, only 16% named the mortgage crisis. In contrast, 35% said unemployment, 22% said inflation, and 13% said taxes.

Another piece of Obama legislation designed to help homeowners has also received support:

A report co-authored by Jon Orszag, a former economic advisor to President Clinton, and economist Doug Fontaine concludes that the Homeowners’ Defense Act of 2009 (HR 2555) is an effective vehicle to help deal with the financial devastation following major natural catastrophes, to alleviate a potential source of shock to the U.S. economy, and to provide assurances to homeowners that they will have the ability to rebuild and recover in the aftermath of a massive hurricane or earthquake.

“The inevitable occurrence in the future of massive hurricanes like Katrina, Rita, Andrew, Ivan and Ike, or a replay of earthquakes like those that emanated from Northridge, San Francisco or across the American heartland from New Madrid, Missouri, make it imperative that the nation, in order to protect American families, move as quickly as possible to enact a comprehensive, integrated program that is economically sound and marshals the resources of the private and public sectors,” said Jonathan Orszag, a Senior Managing Director of Compass Lexecon, a world-renowned economic consulting firm.

“Major catastrophic events can pose a serious threat to the economy, especially in its present distressed condition, and highlight market failures in the private insurance and reinsurance industries that should be addressed before the next major catastrophe strikes,” Orszag said.

The 30-page report was commissioned by ProtectingAmerica.org, a non-profit organization of first responders and disaster response groups, leading businesses including insurers, as well as more than 300 other organizations and 20,000 individual members.

“The Homeowners’ Defense Act of 2009 would leverage public and private resources and mandate more comprehensive prevention and mitigation. As such, the proposed legislation represents an economically sound solution to address the inefficiencies that plague the current system of disaster relief,” Orszag said.

The Orszag-Fontaine report notes that the current after-the-fact system of catastrophe relief relies on ad hoc government intervention that leads to the financing of relief efforts through taxpayer-funded bailouts. These bailouts are inequitable insofar as people who reside in areas not susceptible to catastrophic events are called upon to share in the financial burden created by a major catastrophe. Moreover, from an economic perspective, the current system distorts the incentives of residents in exposed areas to take prudent actions to lessen the potential damage to their properties or families.

In the report, Orszag, who in addition to serving on President Clinton’s National Economic Council also served as the Director of the U.S. Commerce Department’s Office of Policy and Strategic Planning and as an Assistant to Secretary of Commerce, and Fontaine assess alternatives that have been discussed to address the shortcomings of the current system.

“The more than $400 billion in capital that some have claimed the insurance industry has at its disposal to cover losses for future catastrophes is, upon close inspection, not available for those purposes. Other proposals such as the use of catastrophe bonds and insurance derivatives may play a supplemental role, but are not sufficient in and of themselves to address effectively the shortcomings of the current system,” Orszag said.

The Homeowners’ Defense Act of 2009 [HR 2555, sponsored by Rep. Ron Klein (FL-22)] contains the following key provisions:

The Act facilitates the ability of state-sponsored insurance funds to bundle voluntarily their catastrophic risk with one another through a National Catastrophe Risk Consortium (the “Consortium”).

With the approval of participating states, the Consortium can issue financial instruments linked to the catastrophe risks insured or reinsured through its members.

It provides a federal guarantee of state funds’ bond obligations, thereby supporting the capacity of state plans to issue bonds and address timing risk
.
It establishes a standard attachment point for a national catastrophe fund layer of protection.

It creates the Federal Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund, which will collect premiums from the sale of contracts for reinsurance coverage.

Under the Act, premiums for reinsurance are based upon expected losses plus a modest expense load.

It requires participating states to provide coverage under their insurance and reinsurance programs at rates that are actuarially sound.
It requires participating states to adopt and enforce mitigation measures, to establish an insurance rate structure that accounts properly for investments in mitigation, and to encourage the development of comprehensive land use and zoning plans that reflect the state’s exposure to natural catastrophes.

John Orman has passed away.

John and I go back a long way. We each ran quixotic campaigns for Congress against entrenched Fairfield County Republican incumbents.

I always enjoyed meeting with and talking to John, and reading whatever he had to say. He was a distinguished professor of politics at Fairfield University and frequently quoted. He was the best kind of political activist – outspoken, articulate and involved. He recognized the viper in our midst early on.

John Orman was fighting the good fight against Lieberman long before most of us, going back to 2000. Here are a couple of articles from way back then:

NY Times

Fairfield Mirror

He was a master of the best political weapon of all, humor. And it was never more on display when in a brilliant example of chutzpah and bravado, John seized control of the mythical Connecticut for Lieberman Party. John’s artistry highlighted the incredible shenanigans that allowed Lieberman to get on the ballot as the candidate for a party that never had a single member until John joined.

Here are some write-ups of John’s coup:

My Left Nutmeg

Editor and Publisher

The fun continued at the first CFL meeting, at which I had the honor of being elected John’s Vice-Chairman. The meeting has been described by one attendee as her favorite political meeting of all time. It was truly hilarious, and garnered some more great publicity.

Here are some write-ups of the meeting:

CTBob

CT Local Politics

The complete video, again from the great CTBob:

John and I had some more fun together at Joe’s expense:

What a sad passing indeed.

An analysis of campaign finance data by Public Campaign Action Fund, a national campaign finance watchdog group, found that members on the House Financial Services Committee have received $62.9 million in campaign donations from financial, insurance, and real estate interests. The data, which was compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, covers lifetime campaign contributions received by the 71 members on the committee.

“Wall Street and their allies on Capitol Hill should not write the rules that govern the financial, banking, and housing industries,” said David Donnelly, national campaigns director for Public Campaign Action Fund. “Their years of influence peddling, big money campaign contributions, and unaccountable rampant greed got us into this mess. Congress should follow Chairman Barney Frank’s example and stand up to these well-heeled special interests. It’s time to put consumers, workers, homeowners, and taxpayers first for a change.”

“Americans know that campaign contributions matter,” continued Donnelly. “Members of Congress will be held accountable for whether they side with Wall Street and the big banks or if they side with the rest of us to restore some stability and responsibility to the marketplace.”

The release of the analysis comes as the House Financial Services Committee prepares to hear legislation drafted by the Obama Administration to establish a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, a measure vehemently opposed by the major business and financial interests. Yesterday, several news outlets exposed that as many as seven trade associations were preparing to launch a major public relations and lobbying campaign to defeat the consumer friendly piece of legislation.

Public Campaign Action Fund’s analysis of campaign contributions found that:

The average committee member took $885,586 from the financial, insurance, and real estate interests over their career.
The financial, insurance, and real estate interests already donated $2.25 million to committee members in the first quarter of 2009.
Twenty-three members of the committee took more than a million dollars in campaign cash from the industries, including 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. Forty-three members received at least $500,000.
The list was topped by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) at $3.62 million and Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) at $3.12 million, both of whom represent districts outside the geographic home of the industry in New York City.
Public Campaign Action Fund is a national nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing comprehensive campaign finance reform. The group also works to hold elected officials accountable for the favors they do for special interest backers.

I have described myself as a health nut on this blog – but that was because I was given very little room for self-description. Let’s just say that I try to take very good care of ny health, and read up on all current health research that applies to the average person as much as possible. Here is some of the most recent research: (Click on the links for more information about each item)

High protein diets threaten bone and muscle – solution – eat more fruits and vegetables, or take potassium bicarbonate pills.

Diets high in protein and cholesterol could cause liver cancer.

Eating certain vegetables can lower blood pressure.

Adding a moderate, but not high, amount of walnuts to an otherwise healthy diet may help older individuals improve performance on tasks that require motor and behavioral skills.

Dietary curcumin, a bioactive component in curry and turmeric, could stall the spread of fat tissue by inhibiting new blood vessel growth, called angiogenesis, which is necessary to build the tissue.

A new review is available of the health benefits of red wine, which I have written about here, and here and most recently here:

And surprise! well planned vegetarian diets are healthful.