From Louis Slaughter’s House Committee On Rules:

Members of the House Budget Committee meet on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 15, 2010, during the committee’s markup on the Reconciliation Act of 2010.

H.R. 4872 – Reconciliation Act of 2010

Text of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

• Section-by-Section of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute

Text of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 (Senate health bill)

Text of the bill as reported (reported by the Budget Committee)

• H. Rept. 111-443: Budget Committee Report (Volume 1)
• H. Rept. 111-443: Budget Committee Report (Volume 2)

It’s 153 pages of gibberish, of course.

But you will notice that some variation of ‘tax’ shows up 124 times.

The (ahem) ‘cover letter’ to the Congressional Budget Report (a pdf file):

The House Budget Committee’s ranking Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., listens to comments on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 15, 2010, during the committee’s markup on the Reconciliation Act of 2010.

H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010

March 18, 2010

Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker

U.S. House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have completed a preliminary estimate of the direct spending and revenue effects of an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010; that amendment (hereafter called “the reconciliation proposal”) was made public on March 18, 2010. The estimate is presented in three ways:

• An estimate of the budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal, in combination with the effects of H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate;

• An estimate of the incremental effects of the reconciliation proposal, over and above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself;

• An estimate of the budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal under the assumption that H.R. 3590 is not enacted (that is, an estimate of the bill’s impact relative to current law as of today).

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

The reconciliation proposal includes provisions related to health care and revenues, many of which would amend H.R. 3590. It also includes amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes most federal programs involving postsecondary education.

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation proposal— would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138 billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue (see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).

Approximately $85 billion of that reduction would be on-budget; other effects related to Social Security revenues and spending as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service are classified as off-budget. CBO has not completed an estimate of the potential impact of the legislation on discretionary spending, which would be subject to future appropriation action.

CBO and JCT previously estimated that enacting H.R. 3590 by itself would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $118 billion over the 2010-2019 period, of which about $65 billion would be on-budget. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal—assuming that H.R. 3590 had already been enacted would be the difference between the estimate of the combined effect and the previous estimate for the Senate passed bill, H.R. 3590.

That incremental effect is an estimated net reduction in federal deficits of $20 billion over the 2010-2019 period over and above the savings from enacting H.R. 3590 by itself; almost all of that reduction would be on-budget (see the bottom panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).

The budgetary impact of the reconciliation proposal if H.R. 3590 is not also enacted would be different. Although estimates on that basis have been completed for most of the provisions of the reconciliation proposal, CBO does not yet have such an estimate for all of its provisions. By CBO’s estimate, the provisions that have been analyzed so far would reduce deficits by $82 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 6).

Details on the budgetary effects of the health and revenue provisions of the reconciliation proposal, along with its effects combined with H.R. 3590, are provided in Tables 1, 2, and 3:

• Table 1 summarizes the effect on the deficit of the health and revenue provisions of the reconciliation proposal combined with H.R. 3590; it also shows the net incremental effect of those provisions of the reconciliation proposal over and above the impact of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself.

• For the two pieces of legislation combined, Table 2 provides estimates of the changes in the number of nonelderly people in the United States who would have health insurance and presents the primary budgetary effects of the provisions related to health insurance coverage.

• For the two pieces of legislation combined, Table 3 displays detailed estimates of the costs or savings from the health provisions that are not related to health insurance coverage (primarily involving the Medicare program) and from certain of the revenue provisions that are not related to insurance coverage. The table does not include the effect on revenues of title IX, a set of tax provisions whose impact is reported separately by JCT.

Tables 4 and 5 show the incremental budgetary effects of the reconciliation proposal (except for title IX), over and above the effects of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself:

• Table 4 presents the incremental effects of the health and revenue provisions of the reconciliation proposal—that is, the difference between the effects of the two pieces of legislation combined and the effects of H.R. 3590 by itself (as shown in CBO’s March 11 letter to Senator Reid).

• Table 5 summarizes the incremental effects of the health, revenue, and education provisions of the reconciliation proposal, also assuming that H.R. 3590 has been enacted. (The impact of the health and revenue provisions is shown in more detail in Table 4.)

Table 6 shows the estimated effect of enacting the reconciliation proposal relative to current law—that is, assuming that H.R. 3590 is not enacted. That table does not include some effects that have not yet been estimated.

Effects of the Legislation Beyond the First 10 Years

Although CBO does not generally provide cost estimates beyond the 10-year budget projection period, certain Congressional rules require some information about the budgetary impact of legislation in subsequent decades, and many Members have requested CBO’s analyses of the long-term budgetary impact of broad changes in the nation’s health care and health insurance systems.

Therefore, CBO has developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 2010-2019 period by grouping the elements of the legislation into broad categories and (together with the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation) assessing the rate at which the budgetary impact of each of those broad categories is likely to increase over time.

Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP). The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.

Using that same analytic approach, the combined effect of enacting H.R. 3590 and the reconciliation bill would also be to reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP. The incremental effect of enacting the reconciliation bill (over and above the effect of enacting H.R. 3590 by itself) would thus be to further reduce federal budget deficits in that decade, with a total effect that is in a broad range between zero and one-quarter percent of GDP.

Relative to H.R. 3590, the reconciliation proposal would make a number of changes that would affect its longer-term impact on the budget. In particular, it would increase the subsidies offered in the new insurance exchanges and would reduce the impact of an excise tax on health insurance plans with premiums above certain thresholds.

An important component of the longer-term analysis is that, beginning in 2019, the reconciliation proposal would change the annual indexing provisions so that the premium subsidies offered through the exchanges would grow more slowly; over time, the spending on exchange subsidies would therefore fall back toward the level under H.R. 3590 by itself.

Another key component of the longer-term analysis is that, beginning in 2020, the reconciliation proposal would index the thresholds for the high-premium excise tax to the rate of general inflation rather than to inflation plus one percentage point.

CBO has not extrapolated estimates further into the future because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more. However, in view of the projected net savings during the decade following the 10-year budget window, CBO anticipates that the reconciliation proposal would probably continue to reduce budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades, assuming that all of its provisions would continue to be fully implemented.

Congressional rules governing the consideration of reconciliation bills also require an assessment of their budgetary impact separately by title. The effects of the reconciliation proposal over the 2010–2019 period are shown in Table 5, assuming that H.R.3590 is also enacted). CBO’s analysis of the longer-term effects, by title, is as follows:

• Most of the changes to H.R. 3590 that have significant budgetary effects would be made by title I of the reconciliation proposal, so the conclusions about the longer term impact for the proposal as a whole—that it would reduce deficits, relative to H.R. 3590—also apply to that title.

• The changes regarding health care contained in title II have a smaller budgetary impact than those in title I, and would by themselves increase budget deficits somewhat. That title also contains the proposal’s education provisions, which CBO estimates would reduce future deficits. In CBO’s estimation, the savings generated by the education provisions would continue to outweigh the costs related to health care stemming from title II, so that the title as a whole would continue to reduce the budget deficit in future years.

CBO has not yet completed an assessment of the impact for the longer term of enacting the reconciliation proposal by itself.

I hope this analysis is helpful for the Congress’s deliberations. If you have any questions, please contact me or CBO staff. The primary staff contacts for this analysis are Philip Ellis and Holly Harvey.

Sincerely,

Douglas W. Elmendorf

Director

That is to say, this is not a real estimate, since they don’t have the actual reconciliation bill.

But of course all of this is nonsense.

Just like every other CBO estimate about new entitlements throughout its history.

[Note – this posting of the CBO’s cover letter has replaced the earlier post of excerpted articles from the Politico and The Hill.]

Though you won’t hear that from the Associated Press:

First-time jobless claims drop slightly

By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Economics Writer

March 18, 2010

WASHINGTON – The number of newly laid-off workers requesting jobless benefits fell slightly last week for the third straight time. But initial claims remain above levels that would signal net job gains.

New claims for unemployment insurance fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 457,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That nearly matched analysts’ estimates of 455,000, according to Thomson Reuters.

The four-week average of jobless claims, which smooths [sic] out volatility, dropped to 471,250. Still, the average has risen by 30,000 since the start of this year. That’s raised concerns among economists that persistent unemployment could weaken the recovery.

The average number of weekly jobless claims remains above the 400,000-to-425,000 level that many economists say it must fall below before widespread new hiring is likely…

The number of people continuing to claim unemployment benefits rose slightly to 4.58 million. That was similar to what economists expected…

You will notice that for once there is no mention of this being unexpected in the AP’s report.

Which is weird, since the analysts the AP cites are from Reuters, and yet Reuters says in their lead paragraph that their was less of a decline in the jobless rate than was expected:

New jobless claims dip slightly

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The number of workers filing new applications for unemployment benefits fell less than expected last week, while consumer prices were unchanged in February on lower energy prices.

The data on Thursday pointed to a gradual improvement in the labor market and generally muted inflation pressures, which should allow the Federal Reserve to honor its commitment to keep its benchmark interest rate ultra low for a while…

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits fell 5,000 to a seasonally adjusted 457,000 in the week ended March 13, the Labor Department said. Analysts had expected claims to slip to 455,000…

It’s getting so we just don’t know who to believe about the economy anymore.

From the SEIU:

(Click to enlarge)

Save the Date for Immigration Reform In Washington, DC

Join thousands from across the country at the March For America in Washington, DC on March 21, 2010.

It is up to us. This is your call. We need you in DC to show our collective power and energy.

Mark your calendars for Sunday, March 21 and join the March For America.

Change Takes Courage

Today we are at a pivotal moment in the history of this nation. We are faced with a choice. We can do nothing, and watch as new American families are torn apart by the broken immigration system; watch as profiteers continue to take advantage of people desperate for work; and watch as all American families struggle to find good jobs and make ends meet. Or we can stand up, and stand together for our families and our communities. Join thousands from across the country at the March for America in Washington on March 21st. Itis [sic] up to us to make sure that campaign trail promises are turned into real policies that help lift all American families in 2010.

The Time to Act Is Now

Every day that Washington fails to address our broken immigration system and broken economy, Americans become more angry and frustrated with their leaders. Every day that we put off reforming the immigration system more families are torn apart, workers endure more abuse, our national deficit grows as billions in tax revenue are lost, and the rule of law is undermined. Every day that Congress and the President fail to address the growing economic distress in American communities is another day in which American families struggle unnecessarily.

Practical and Doable

This is the right moment for Congress to show it can pass bipartisan legislation by fixing the broken immigration system and fixing the economy. Americans are demanding that Washington produce practical solutions to real problems. Comprehensive immigration reform is such a solution. It will strengthen our families, improve conditions and wages for all workers, make America safer, ensure all workers and all employers are paying their fair share of taxes, and add well over a trillion dollars to our economy.

American Values

Our values as a nation demand economic fairness for everyone and citizenship rights and obligations for all who work hard to sustain our country. Our broken immigration system dishonors our notions of inclusiveness, justice and equality. Our broken economy is the product a fundamental unfairness; Americans know it is a national shame that we can put $23 trillion on the line to rescue Wall Street bankers, but balk at implementing workable answers to an economy that isn’t working for most Americans communities.

We thought fixing healthcare was going to fix the economy. Now it turns out that we have to give citizenship to the 25 million or so people living in our country illegally – and, of course, all their kith and kin still back in their homelands.

By the way, note how much the SEIU’s arguments for amnesty like their arguments for ‘healthcare reform.’

And, just like with ‘healthcare reform,’ this can’t wait. We must have this now.

Before anyone has a chance to think about it too much.

From a mixed emotioned Associated Press:

Report: North Korean executed over currency reform

March 18, 2010

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea executed a former senior official last week as punishment for the country’s botched currency reform, a news report said Thursday.

In November, North Korea redenominated its currency as part of efforts to lower inflation and reassert control over the country’s nascent market economy. However, the measure reportedly worsened the country’s food situation by forcing the closure of markets and sparked anger among many North Koreans left with piles of worthless bills.

Oddly enough, Hugo Chavez did the same thing back in January.

Pak Nam Gi, the ruling Workers’ Party finance and planning department chief who spearheaded the currency reform, was executed by a firing squad in Pyongyang last week, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency reported, citing unidentified sources.

Pak was accused of ruining the nation’s economy in a blunder that also damaged public opinion and had a negative impact on leader Kim Jong Il’s plan to hand power over to his youngest son, Yonhap said…

In other words, Mr. Pak was shot to save face for Kim Jong Il.

Why are we adopting all of the bad practices of third world tinhorn dictatorships, and none of their good ones?

Through the rose-colored glasses of the Washington Post:

Clinton’s agenda for Russia trip reflects improving but fragile relationship

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Philip P. Pan
Thursday, March 18, 2010

MOSCOW — A year after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton presented a mock "reset" button to Russia’s foreign minister, the two nuclear giants have significantly improved their tattered relationship, making progress on U.S. priorities such as Iran and Afghanistan and closing in on a major arms-control agreement, officials from both countries say.

But it has not been easy. Clinton arrived here Thursday morning for a two-day visit. Her agenda reflects the continuing fragility of the new partnership and lingering tensions between the former Cold War foes.

Clinton plans to discuss negotiations on a replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which have dragged on beyond the pact’s expiration in December. She also will talk about possible new sanctions against Iran, an idea that Russia has tentatively accepted but in a milder form than that pushed by the United States and European allies.

The two nations will also review their cooperation with regard to Afghanistan. A Russian agreement to allow the U.S. military to fly troops and equipment over Russian territory is beginning to bear fruit, after months of red tape.

"I think the past year has been successful," said Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament. That’s particularly true, he said, if "we keep in mind what the level of bilateral relations was when Obama came to power. It was less than zero." …

Apart from allowing flyovers to Afghanistan (which are obviously in their interest), where are there any significant signs of improvement in our relations with Russia?

The Russian leadership is as hostile and recalcitrant towards the US as they have ever been since the so-called end of the ‘Cold War.’

And we couldn’t help but notice this editorial from a couple of days ago in Pravda:

Iran: A Sneak Attack is On!

By Lisa KARPOVA

March 16, 200

It has been revealed that hundreds of powerful U.S. “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California in the U.S. to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran. Although Diego Garcia is part of British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

According to reports, the U.S. government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the U.S. navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures. The stealth bomber hangers on the island were being specifically equipped to house the bunker-buster bombs.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Iran is not planning on manufacturing nuclear weapons.

"They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran," said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on U.S. preparations for an attack on Iran. "U.S. bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours," he added.

Ten thousand targets? There is more to this than the concept of overkill or even the remote possibility that there are that many targets that can be described as part of Iran’s nuclear program. It is typical U.S. insanity and murderous behavior. The idea is to devastate, depopulate and rule. Does this planet need yet another people and nation devastated, with its infrastructure attacked by military hardware, made unlivable for its population in the foreseeable future? Does this planet need another area where terrorist bombings are a daily, hourly occurrence? This insanity has to be stopped, and it has to be stopped with all of us.

The civilized world cannot allow this to happen to another country. Iran is an ancient civilization and culture. In over 200 years, Iran has done absolutely nothing to infringe on its neighbors. However, quite the contrary is true. Iran has suffered regime change before at the hands of outsiders and has not forgotten it…

Just to remind, on December 18, 2003, Iran signed the NPT (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards, according greater access and the possibility of intrusive inspections to Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This treaty specifically gives Iran the right to use nuclear energy for PEACEFUL purposes.

On the other hand, Israel sits on over 200 nuclear devices and refuses to sign the NPT. Israel’s nuclear facilities are not available and totally closed for outside inspection by the IAEA…

And yet Iran is put in the sites of U.S. disgusting, filthy, criminal, demonic military hardware? Let it all be cursed! Let the evil they plan for others fall back onto their own heads.

This frightening prospect of an unjustified, unprovoked, unmerciful, aggressive and unmitigated attack against Iran MUST be resisted by all civilized persons on the globe, beginning with those in Britain who must make known to their government that they do not want British territory involved in any aggressive attack against Iran, which will surely lead to a huge regional and possibly global warfare. Things are coming to a critical mass, approaching a point of no return. The time to speak and to act is NOW!

For Iran’s children, for Iran’s innocent, for Iran’s great civilization and past! Civilized humans of the world unite and STOP the insanity, stop the killers and destroyers of civilization, stop the war criminals! Stop aggression! Stop war! Stop imperialism! Damn the bombs! Damn the war pigs! We must all act together or we may all burn together!

Just in case there was any doubt about what a great friend Russia is to the US.

From a not quite outraged Associated Press:

Gov’t bank auditors got big bonuses

By Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press Writer

March 18, 200

WASHINGTON – Banks weren’t the only ones giving big bonuses in the boom years before the worst financial crisis in generations. The government also was handing out millions of dollars to bank regulators, rewarding "superior" work even as an avalanche of risky mortgages helped create the meltdown.

The payments, detailed in payroll data released to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, are the latest evidence of the government’s false sense of security during the go-go days of the financial boom. Just as bank executives got bonuses despite taking on dangerous amounts of risk, regulators got taxpayer-funded bonuses despite missing or ignoring signs that the system was on the verge of a meltdown.

The bonuses were part of a reward program little known outside the government. Some government regulators got tens of thousands of dollars in perks, boosting their salaries by almost 25 percent. Often, though, rewards amounted to just a few hundred dollars for employees who came up with good ideas.

During the 2003-06 boom, the three agencies that supervise most U.S. banks — the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — gave out at least $19 million in bonuses, records show.

Nearly all that money was spent recognizing "superior" performance. The largest share, more than $8.4 million, went to financial examiners, those employees and managers who scrutinize internal bank documents and sound the first alarms. Analysts, auditors, economists and criminal investigators also got awards.

After the meltdown, the government’s internal investigators surveyed the wreckage of nearly 200 failed banks and repeatedly found that those regulators had not done enough…

Because most bank inspection records are not public and the government blacked out many of the employee names before releasing the bonus data, it’s impossible to determine how many auditors got bonuses despite working on major banks that failed.

Regulators says it’s unfair to use those missteps, seen with the benefit of hindsight, to suggest any of the bonuses was improper…

In government, as on Wall Street, bonuses are part of the culture. Federal employees can get extra pay for innovative ideas, recruiting new talent or performing exceptional work. Candidates being considered for hard-to-fill jobs may be offered student loan reimbursement or cash bonuses to get them in the door and keep them from leaving.

The bonus data released to the AP does not say specifically why each person received a bonus. For instance, one person in the OCC’s financial examining division got a $41,000 recruitment bonus on top of a $179,000 salary in 2005. In 2006, the last boom year for banks buying risky mortgages, the FDIC gave out more than 2,000 bonuses to financial examiners.

In 2008, the year the market collapsed, OTS gave 96 financial examiners bonuses of up to $3,000 for exceptional work.

At the three regulatory agencies, the value of the bonuses stayed roughly constant from before the banking boom, through the good times and into the collapse. While the total pales in comparison with the billions spent on Wall Street perks, the justification was similar…

It is a little odd that more than two years into this crisis our watchdog media are just getting around to looking at the regulators.

Also, to be fair, the Bush administration and government regulators like Armando Falcon Jr., (the director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight) did call many times for financial reform.

But they were ignored – or worse.

From the Politico:

CBO crumbles under health workload

By: Erika Lovley
March 17, 2010

The Democrats’ push to get health care reform passed through Congress is putting incredible strain on staff in the Congressional Budget Office — a stressor that may have contributed to the recent incorrect scoring of a draft House provision.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told House Appropriations Legislative subcommittee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) that his staff has been working “100-hour weeks” and cannot keep up with the budgetary and economic impact queries lawmakers have about health care.

“Analysis of competing health care proposals absorbed a huge share of the agency’s resources, and CBO analysts in that area have worked flat out for more than a year,” Elmendorf said today. “…Considerable congressional interest in analysis of health care issues is likely to persist and …the almost round-the-clock schedule maintained this past year by CBO’s current staff cannot be maintained much longer.”

The CBO is under immense pressure from Congress to release the cost estimate of the reconciliation bill for the House legislation. Some lawmakers expect a vote over the weekend…

Wasserman Schultz said she was concerned that Elemendorf’s office had recently sent a scored legislative summary to a House office that later needed to be significantly amended.

Wasserman Schultz’s aides wouldn’t specify where the error occurred, but one aide said that the cost estimate differences were “significant.” …

Elmendorf said the error might have been partially due to a miscommunication between a House aide who received the information, which he said was only an initial projection on the complicated legislative issue.

Congress granted the CBO a supplemental $2 million appropriation in fiscal 2009 to beef up the office’s health care team and other staffing needs.

But in its FY 2011 budget proposal, Elmendorf said he is still looking for funds to add an additional four employees, bringing their number to 258.

The office expects to tackle roughly 600 formal cost estimates, hundreds of informal estimates, about 100 analytical reports and substantial congressional testimony requests in the coming year.

You see, if the CBO could only get the funds to add four (4) employees to their staff of 254, then there will be no problems. (The extra $2 million dollars the CBO got last year apparently wasn’t enough to allow them to hire these four additional wizards.)

Somehow we are reminded of the old proverbial rhyme:

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a nail.

The CBO’s staffing issues aside, this is an obvious attempt by our media masters to blame any delays in the House vote on ‘reconciliation’ on the CBO.

But, after all, what exactly is the rush here?

Does the Democrat leadership really believe they will lose votes if their members talk to their constituents over the Easter recess?

Do they think their House members are so out of touch that they already realize how unpopular this ‘healthcare reform’ cram down is back home?

All they need to do is pick up their telephones.

A press release from the National Council of La Raza:

U.S. President Barack Obama signs the HIRE Act, a job growth initiative, among members of Congress in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, March 18, 2010.

NCLR APPLAUDS CONGRESS FOR COMMITTING TO JOB CREATION IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Mar 17, 2010

Washington, DC—Today the United States Senate passed legislation that could provide up to $1 billion in assistance to the nonprofit sector and create thousands of new nonprofit jobs. NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., applauds the Senate for passing the “Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act.” When signed into law, the act will exempt employers from paying Social Security payroll taxes for unemployed workers they hire in 2010. Like private businesses, nonprofit organizations will also be eligible for this Social Security tax holiday.

How much do you want to bet that when these people reach retirement age they demand that they receive Social Security benefits for their years of employment, anyway.

But, aside from that, how much do non-profits grow the economy? From what we have seen, they tend to have the opposite affect. They tend to do all in their power to limit growth.

“NCLR’s network of nearly 300 affiliated nonprofit organizations that serve predominately Hispanic communities stand to benefit from this legislation when they hire more workers,” said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. “The passage of the ‘HIRE Act’ has the potential to launch a larger plan to create jobs at the local level that serve community needs. We are calling on Congress to see this through.”

NCLR will host a conference call with its Affiliates next week to discuss how community-based organizations can take advantage of this tax incentive when hiring new employees. Nonprofit organizations, such as those in the NCLR Affiliate Network, employ about 10% of the workforce, according to the Alliance for Children and Families. The Social Security tax holiday could create between 8,000 and 18,000 nonprofit jobs in 2010…

To the best of our knowledge this is the first mention we have seen that the $18 billion dollar ‘jobs bill’ about to be signed by Mr. Obama give businesses a ‘holiday’ from Social Security taxes.

And how is it that Congress still refuses to learn the larger lesson here, that tax cuts of any kind always creates more employment.

From CNN’s Money.Com:

Help wanted: Tanning butler

By Annalyn Censky, staff reporter, March 17, 2010

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) – Calling the unemployed! Do you like pool parties, sun tan lotion and hotties?

If so, the South Beach Ritz-Carlton has a position for you: tanning butler. One caveat: Ladies need not apply; this job usually goes to hunky male models.

You could be the South Beach Ritz-Carlton’s next tanning butler.

The Ritz will be posting the gig on Craigslist and in the Miami Herald in the next few days, and it expects a deluge of response.

"We’re looking to fill the position immediately with someone who’s outgoing, positive, energetic and recognizes the role as a brand ambassador," said Ritz-Carlton PR gal Michelle Payer, who invented the position in 2004.

The lucky guy gets paid $20 an hour plus tips to slather sunscreen and spritz Evian on beach-going Ritz guests. Plus, the hours aren’t too bad: Friday through Sunday, noon to 4 p.m., at the beach and on the pool deck.

The position requires a uniform, however — an official "Tanning Butler" T-shirt and holster for carrying bottles of sunscreen — so you can differentiate between the official butler and creeps trying to get frisky.

The last tanning butler — there’s only one in the world at a time — vacated the position for an Armani modeling gig in Italy. And get this — he left on Monday without even giving two weeks notice!

Interested jobseekers should e-mail their headshot and cover letter to Jennifer.Steinmark@ritzcarlton.com.

Oh, and if you’d like a tanning butler T-shirt, the Ritz sells them for $29.50 a piece. So you, too, can convince the ladies — or gents — that you’re qualified to apply sunscreen.

Since it involves solar energy, this must be the first of all of those ‘green jobs’ Mr. Obama keeps promising us.

Still, how can the Ritz-Carlton hope to get away with such blatant sex discrimination?

Where is (former state attorney for Dade County) Janet Reno when you need her?

From the National Republican Congressional Committee:

Code Red Moves Cardoza and Costa to “Yes” Votes on Gov’t Healthcare Takeover After Water Deal

Is this Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?

March 17, 2010

As a vote approaches on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare, Code Red is now considering two supposedly “undecided” California Democrats, Dennis Cardoza and Jim Costa, to now be “yes” votes. 

The U.S. Department of Interior announced yesterday that it is increasing water allocations for the Central Valley of California, a region that depends on these water allocations to support local agriculture and jobs. The region has recently been starved for water and as a result unemployment has soared.  Not surprisingly, Cardoza and Costa had a hand in the announcement:

“Typically, Reclamation would release the March allocation update around March 22nd, but moved up the announcement at the urging of Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congressmen Costa and Cardoza.”(“Interior Announces Increased Water Supply Allocations in California,” U.S. Department of Interior news release, 3/16/10)

Will Cardoza and Costa come clean about this apparent backroom deal for their votes?

Of course they won’t.

And Mr. Gibbs will call anyone suggesting such a thing “very silly.”

From a seemingly surprised Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich to vote "yes" on health care

March 17, 2010

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich waited until Democrats had won last November’s health care reform vote before casting his ballot against it on the House of Representatives floor.

This time around — pressured by everyone from President Obama to Moveon.org — the Cleveland Democrat had no luxury to dawdle before taking a stance. He announced at a Capitol news conference this morning that he’ll vote "yes" on the bill’s latest draft.

"I have doubts about the bill," Kucinich said. "This is not the bill I wanted to support. . . However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation." …

Kucinich’s move came after months of insisting he’d oppose the bill because it doesn’t do enough to curtail insurance company abuses. Kucinich advocates bolstering Medicare and expanding its coverage to include all Americans.

But he acknowledged this morning that his choice now is to either vote "no" on principle, and thereby possibly block the biggest (though imperfect) advance in health coverage in decades, or compromise for the good of the estimated 30 million more Americans who could gain insurance…

His recent criticism of the bill included a column he authored for last Sunday’s Plain Dealer, in which he wrote:

"Even with the few modest improvements in the bill, the insurance companies will still have dozens of loopholes to deny care and continue to find ways to leave Americans with the unpayable bill." …

President Obama personally lobbied for his vote Monday on a ride to Cleveland aboard Air Force One, and at a health care reform rally in Strongsville…

Meanwhile, from way back on October 28, 2009, via C-SPAN and YouTube:

Kucinich: What Do We Stand For: Insurance Companies Or The People?

“Is this the best we can do? Forcing people to buy private health insurance, guaranteeing at least $50 billion in new business for the insurance companies?

Is this the best we can do? Government negotiates rates which will drive up insurance costs, but the government won’t negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies which will drive up pharmaceutical costs.

Is this the best we can do? Only 3% of Americans will go to a new public plan, while currently 33% of Americans are either uninsured or underinsured?

Is this the best we can do? Eliminating the state single payer option, while forcing most people to buy private insurance.

“If this is the best we can do, then our best isn’t good enough and we have to ask some hard questions about our political system: such as Health Care or Insurance Care? Government of the people or a government of the corporations.”

For the record, we suspect that the “careful discussions with President Obama” aboard Air Force One went something like this:

Obama: Look, you effin’ R-word, you think you hate big insurance more than I do? Are you really so stupid as to not get that this is going to destroy the insurance industry?

Who is going to be dumb enough to pay for insurance now when they can wait until they absolutely need it? Well, maybe some of your supporters are that out to lunch, but most people aren’t.

They will see the light and leave those evil insurance companies high and dry — except when they need one of those unnecessary tonsillectomies or amputations that doctors pull.

Kucinich: Ohhh. –Oh my God, is that the Statue Of Liberty?! I’ve never seen it so close up before!

Though, come to think of it, we are probably over-estimating what a hard sell Mr. Kucinich was.

It probably only took a couple commemorative napkins.

From, of all places, the Associated Press:

FACT CHECK: Premiums would rise under Obama plan

By Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

March 17, 2010

WASHINGTON – Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.

Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don’t look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help cover the cost for millions of people.

Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that’s how it works.

Is that "how it works"? What “cost controls” are going to help when insurance companies have to shell out to people who only buy coverage once they need it?

And who will get these “tax credits,” but ‘the poor’ and the rest of the usual suspects, who are already eligible for Medicaid?

Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

"You’ll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket." …

We are supposed to believe that the government will be able to provide insurance at a cheaper rate than the private sector? When has that ever happened before with anything the government has produced?

Besides, the people in this pool will be people who for all extents and purposes have been rejected or priced-out of private insurance. How on earth could their collective rates be lower?

Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

"Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."

A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000…

How could Mr. Obama be expected to know the difference between these two statements? He’s never had to meet a payroll. In fact, he’s probably never had to buy insurance, having been in the public sector all of his ‘adult’ life.

"There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today." …

The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who decide they want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.

Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.

And this is all based on the assumption that more people will buy insurance rather than face the new mandated fine (tax) for being uninsured. But we question that assumption.

Instead, we suspect once insurance companies are required to accept pre-conditions more people will simply drop their insurance until they have a serious accident or get diagnosed with a major illness that requires them to buy it again.

So there will be fewer people ‘in the pool.’ Fewer and sicker people.

Still, it’s quite amazing that the Associated Press would even publish such a headline and article. Though, one has to wonder why the AP waited until it was effectively too late for the American people to do anything to apprise us of this minor detail?

After all, supposedly the whole purpose of ‘healthcare reform’ in the first place was to lower costs.

So if that isn’t going to happen then why are the Democrats turning the Constitution on its head to ram it through?

Of course, we know why.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Obama’s New Partner: Al Sharpton

By PETER WALLSTEN

MARCH 17, 2010

WASHINGTON—With his wavy bouffant and medallion necklaces, the Rev. Al Sharpton famously confronted government officials on behalf of black Americans. Now he has found a new role: telling black leaders to quiet their criticisms and give the government a chance.

President Barack Obama has turned to Mr. Sharpton in recent weeks to answer increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy. Some black leaders are charging that the nation’s first African-American president has failed to help black communities hit hard by the downturn, leaving party strategists worried that black Democrats will become dispirited and skip November’s congressional elections.

Mr. Sharpton has emerged as an important part of the White House response. On his national radio program, he is directly rebutting the president’s critics, arguing that Mr. Obama is right to craft policies aimed at lifting all Americans rather than specifically targeting blacks. One recent on-air fight with Tavis Smiley, a prominent talk show host and Obama critic, grew so heated that it has created a small sensation among black leaders.

"The president does not need to get out there and do what we should be doing," Mr. Sharpton told Mr. Smiley during the testy exchange. He argued that expecting Mr. Obama to become a "black exponent of black views" was "just stupid," because it would create fodder for conservatives looking to defeat legislation that could ultimately help blacks.

In an interview, Mr. Sharpton added that it was a "double standard" for Mr. Smiley and other critics to expect more from a black president than they would demand of a white Democratic president.

Mr. Sharpton is an unlikely White House partner, given his racially polarizing history and efforts by Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign team to steer clear of the civil-rights leader.

But Mr. Sharpton could help ensure that blacks remain energized for November’s elections—an important task in a year that finds the Democratic base to be less enthusiastic about voting than are Republicans…

Actually, Mr. Sharpton campaigned quite vigorously for Mr. Obama. Especially, in September, when he criss-crossed the south to rejuvenate the flagging support for Obama in the ‘black community.’

Which sounds exactly what he is supposed to be doing now.

Mr. Sharpton has been to the White House five times since Mr. Obama took office, most recently this month as part of a small group meeting with economics advisor Lawrence Summers. Mr. Sharpton’s radio program, which airs in 27 markets, has become a friendly platform for administration officials to address black listeners, allowing Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, for example, to take credit for a recent $1.25 billion settlement with black farmers who had sued the government for discrimination.

In case there was still any doubt as to what this wildly expanded and undeserved ‘settlement’ was all about.

Now there are signs that Mr. Sharpton will play a role in this fall’s midterm elections. Democratic National Committee Chairman Timothy Kaine conferred with Mr. Sharpton this month on sending him to black churches and neighborhoods in politically important states to register and mobilize black voters…

Now, Mr. Sharpton’s visits to the White House are announced to the public. Last month, he addressed reporters in the White House driveway after an Oval Office meeting with other black leaders to press the president on jobs. At a White House Christmas party for liberal activists, Mr. Obama went out of his way in welcoming remarks to point out that "Reverend Al" was in attendance, say two participants…

You see how we have gotten beyond race under Mr. Obama? Just like we have gotten beyond partisanship.

Oh, and never mind that Mr. Sharpton still has federal liens against him for back taxes and fines from his various Presidential campaigns and shakedown rackets.

That has nothing to do with his fervent support for Mr. Obama.

He is just doing the right thing.

From a surprisingly skeptical Detroit News:

Judge says Conyers indigent, assigns her tax-funded lawyer

DOUG GUTHRIE
March 16, 2010 

Detroit — Monica Conyers is indigent, according to a federal judge who has appointed a tax-funded public defender to help her appeal the three-year sentence she received last week for bribery conspiracy.

The former Detroit City Council president and wife of U.S. Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Detroit, needs public assistance in her effort to overturn a deal she made to avoid trial on federal charges related to allegations of city contractor bribes.

The fact that her husband was paid more than $170,000 last year isn’t a consideration when calculating her ability to pay a lawyer. Federal law requires the determination of a defendant’s ability to hire a lawyer to be made without regard for the financial ability of the family.

"The information available to the judge established an inability to pay for an attorney by Mrs. Conyers," said a statement issued today by the court’s media information officer, Rod Hansen. "This information included a detailed description of her financial resources in the presentence investigation report. And that Mrs. Conyers was on her own, so to speak, as to such resources. Further inquiry was not appropriate and would have intruded on private matters."

However, the criteria outlined in the law also include consideration of the immediate willingness of a defendant’s family or spouse to retain counsel.

The congressman’s spokeswoman in Washington, Nichole Triplette, did not immediately answer why Conyers apparently hasn’t expressed willingness to fund his wife’s legal defense…

"There is nothing exceptional about the circumstances of this appointment," according to the court’s statement…

John Conyers was reportedly inside his office in the same federal courthouse where his wife was sentenced, but didn’t attend the sentencing. Sources told The News the congressman expressed an interest in attending, but advisers told him he shouldn’t. Conyers chairs the House Judiciary Committee.

Note that the $170,000 salary mentioned for Mr. Conyers does not include bribes and kickbacks.

Also, note that the article does not mention that Mrs. Conyers herself was gainfully employed a Detroit city Council President until July of last year. And, as this case indicates, that was a very lucrative position.

Besides, we don’t even understand how Mrs. Conyers was convicted in the first place. Her husband served a year in Korea as an officer in the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and was awarded combat and merit citations.

Doesn’t the ‘Rangel Rule’ kick in for spouses?

Still, speaking of spouses, it could be worse.

Monica could have started a conservative web site.

From those champions of justice at the Associated Press:

Holder: Osama bin Laden will never face US trial

By Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer Tue Mar 16

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.

In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared terrorists to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure "we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden" not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.

Holder sternly rejected criticism from GOP members of a House Appropriations subcommittee, who contend it is too dangerous to put terror suspects on trial in federal civilian courts as Holder has proposed.

The attorney general said it infuriates him to hear conservative critics complain that terrorists would get too many rights in the court system.

Terrorists in court "have the same rights that Charles Manson would have, any other kind of mass murderer," the attorney general said. "It doesn’t mean that they’re going to be coddled, it doesn’t mean that they’re going to be treated with kid gloves."

The comparison to convicted killer Manson angered Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas, who said it showed the Obama administration doesn’t understand the American public’s desire to treat terrorists as wartime enemies, not criminal defendants.

"My constituents and I just have a deep-seated and profound philosophical difference with the Obama administration," Culberson said.

Holder, his voice rising, charged that Culberson’s arguments ignored basic facts about the law and the fight against terrorists.

"Let’s deal with reality," Holder said. "The reality is that we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden. He will never appear in an American courtroom."

Pressed further on that point, Holder said: "The possibility of catching him alive is infinitesimal. He will be killed by us or he will be killed by his own people so he can’t be captured by us." …

We suspect Mr. Holder could be so sanguine in his prediction because he knows that Mr. Bin Laden is long since dead. Though, of course, this cannot be publicly admitted, since Mr. Obama chided President Bush for so long about not capturing him.

By the way, have you noticed that more than a year later, Mr. Obama still hasn’t captured or killed Mr. Bin Laden, either?

Still, isn’t it amusing to see the top law enforcement officer of the land go from worrying about terrorists’ civil rights to calling for their summary execution on the battlefield and joking about reading Miranda rights to their corpses?

Coincidentally, a recent Democrat poll recommended that the administration ‘act’ tougher on terrorism:

The pollsters said to improve Democrats’ standing on national security, they need to develop a stronger narrative on terrorism, and stress toughness and results…

Who says the Obama people don’t follow the polls?

Still, there is now at least one thing that Charles Manson and Bin Laden do have in common, along with Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

They were all pronounced guilty before their trials by high ranking administration officials.

As we have noted before, Mr. Nixon inadvertently pronounced Mr. Manson guilty. Before quickly retracting his statement.

(Thanks to Rusty Shackleford for the heads up.)

From back on June 2, 2003, via C-SPAN and YouTube:

“The GOP’s intransigence is on full display with the self-executing rule on this legislation to allow low-income American families to benefit from the increase in the child tax credit…

I have said on this floor before when you did not allow us to offer substitutes that you didn’t have the courage of your convictions.

I have said on this floor before when you didn’t allow us to offer amendments that you didn’t have the courage of your convictions.

Now you not only don’t allow us to offer a substitute, you don’t allow us to offer amendments, you don’t even have the courage to put your own bill on the floor.

The public probably doesn’t understand that. This is a rule, not the bill. We’re not debating the bill…

Why? To muzzle us, and to muzzle their folks who they don’t rely on to vote on the substance of this bill but hope and pray they’ll get enough of their people on the procedural end of this bill to carry the day.

That’s unfortunate. Eighty-two billion dollars of deficit that Americans are going to have to pay for. My children are going to have to pay for. My grandchildren are going to have to pay for. And we don’t even have the courage to put the bill on the floor, but this rule roosts…”

But just like Nancy Pelosi’s and Louise Slaughter’s opposition, that was then and this is now.

Such as this, from a joyous New York Times:

Budget Cut for Fence on U.S.-Mexico Border

By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

March 16, 2010

Citing a plague of “cost overruns and missed deadlines,” Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Tuesday that she would cut millions of dollars intended for a high-tech “virtual fence” along the Mexican border that has produced little more than headaches for the federal government.

Ms. Napolitano said her department would divert about $50 million in federal stimulus money intended for the project to other technological needs on the border, including laptops, radios, thermal-imaging devices and cameras requested by border guards.

In addition, she said, no money will be spent on expanding the project beyond two areas in Arizona where it is being tested until the department completes a reassessment she ordered in January.

Ms. Napolitano’s announcement came two days before a scheduled Congressional hearing on the program. The House Homeland Security Committee is expected to receive the latest in a string of Government Accountability Office reports calling the program into question. That new report says tests designed to evaluate the system are flawed and mismanaged…

Of course the GAO, like the CBO, is completely independent and it does not merely spit out whatever the President and the Democrats in complete control of Congress tell it to report.

The virtual fence is part of a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort known as the Secure Border Initiative that was announced with fanfare by the Bush administration in November 2005. Besides increasing the number of guards and expanding a border wall, it promised a sophisticated system of cameras, sensors and radar that would zero in on people crossing the border with new speed and clarity and quickly guide agents to them.

By now, according to the original timeline, the system was supposed to be working along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But shortly after Boeing was awarded the contract, red flags went up over its lack of oversight and potential for cost overruns…

The department has said it was revamping the system to address the problems, though the Obama administration had already scaled back financing for it, to a request of $574 million for the fiscal year that begins in October from the current $800 million Congress has authorized…

[The GAO] has released 14 critical reports that, taken together, point to a system that “was over-promised and under-delivered,” said Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues for the office…

Hallelujah! At last we have a “budget cut” that even the New York Times can support.

Let’s say we start cutting every federal program that has been “was over-promised and under-delivered.” Let’s see what we have left.

Oh, and never mind that this so-called ‘virtual fence’ was touted as the ‘sensible’ alternative to the far too expensive and impractical physically real fence. (Also known as a ‘fence.’)

And never mind that we were told by our watchdog media and the rest of the secretly ‘open borders’ crowd that a virtual fence would work great. Even better than the real thing.

And lo and behold, now we’re told it doesn’t work after all. What a surprise, huh?

But why worry? Our border problems are about to be solved for all time by giving US citizenship to anyone who wants it.

The Democrats have to get their votes from somewhere.

From Bloomberg:

EPA Studying Own Carbon-Trading System, Official Says

By Simon Lomax

March 15 (Bloomberg) – The Obama administration is considering a carbon-trading system under existing law if Congress doesn’t pass cap-and-trade legislation that allows companies to buy and sell the right to pollute, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency official said today.

The existing Clean Air Act “could enable us to include emissions trading” within agency regulations aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other gases that scientists have linked to climate change, Anna Marie Wood, a senior policy analyst at the EPA, said at an event in Washington hosted by the American Bar Association.

“We’re considering all that right now and thinking about what might make sense,” Wood said. While the agency “strongly prefers” that Congress pass new laws dealing with greenhouse gases, “we think that there’s a lot of progress that can be made using certain tools under the Clean Air Act.” …

The budget request showed the EPA’s interest in carbon trading under existing law and there are “continuing signals from the agency that they’re looking at this and evaluating this internally,” Allan Bedwell, a vice president at CantorCO2e, the emission markets unit of Cantor Fitzgerald LP, said in a telephone interview.

If Congress doesn’t pass a cap-and-trade bill this year, it’s likely that the EPA will try “any way it can to reduce emissions in a cost-effective way” using the existing Clean Air Act, Bedwell said.

“Emissions trading is one of the most cost-effective approaches,” Bedwell said…

Hey, maybe the EPA should just ‘deem’ cap and trade passed.

Why not?