Saving the American Dream: The Fiscal Cliff and Beyond

Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.

Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.

As a result, the nation is facing the looming sequester, which will further undermine the defense budget, jeopardizing one of the federal government’s core constitutional responsibilities. Yet it would leave entitlement programs virtually untouched, even though they are the largest driver of spending today and in the future. Meanwhile, the prospect of a huge tax increase in January has had a deleterious effect on the economy for many months, although the effect is only a small portion of the harm the economy will incur if the tax increase ultimately takes effect. America seriously needs a true way forward.

The Heritage plan reflects the need to rein in spending immediately and to rethink major programs. Spending on the open-ended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlements must be brought under control, and the core foundations of these programs should be strengthened.

The following principles guide the policy solutions in Saving the American Dream:

Total spending must be brought under control to balance the budget without raising taxes, ultimately holding revenues at their historical share of gross domestic product (GDP). Entitlement programs should, unlike today, actually guarantee seniors economic security in retirement and be recast as real and sustainable insurance programs focused on those who truly need them. Other spending must be curbed, and the federal government must be restricted to its proper functions. Defense, as a core constitutional function of the federal government, should be fully funded and efficiently delivered. The tax system should be structurally reformed to foster growth by eliminating tax distortions of private economic decisions, especially decisions on savings and investment, and to make the system simpler and more transparent.

Fiscal year (FY) 2012 closed on September 30 with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating spending of $3.5 trillion and a deficit of $1.1 trillion.[2] Debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion (73 percent of GDP). According to the CBO, debt will explode to 199 percent of GDP by 2037, driven by growth in spending that will reach 36 percent of GDP.[3]

The main drivers of spending and debt increases are incontrovertibly the major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, the slow economy with its high unemployment rate, which remains stuck at around 8 percent, also adds to deficits and debt through two channels: mandatory spending for those workers who are most affected by the slow economy (e.g., unemployment compensation) and below-average tax revenues.

It is clear that the top priorities for Congress and the President should be controlling spending, especially entitlement reform, and setting an economic growth agenda through tax reform. After averting the fiscal cliff, Congress and the President should immediately turn their attention to these pressing issues.

As noted, entitlements are the fastest-growing programs. Even if all other spending was eliminated, these programs would still cause large and unsustainable deficits in the future. Their growth is automatic, with autopilot spending increases built in and no serious budgetary constraints. The top priority must be to restructure entitlements and put a brake on their spending levels while strengthening and preserving them for future generations.

A number of robust proposals for health care reforms already exist, both in Congress and in the policy community.[4] Congress and the President should take advantage of this policy momentum and focus on reforming Medicaid and especially Medicare. However, changes in Social Security should follow quickly, and the rules that govern these programs in general should be more consistent. For example, increases in the normal eligibility age should proceed simultaneously for both Social Security and Medicare.

Specific steps for Congress and the President include the following:

The President should submit a budget by the 2013 tax deadline deadline that outlines strong, sweeping changes in entitlement programs that will reduce spending over the 10-year budget window and significantly improve the long-term trajectory of these programs. The President’s budget should lay out specific goals for a pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform plan. Congress and the President should include reforms in entitlement programs and further reductions in other spending areas, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), in exchange for any increases in the debt limit. These should reflect lessons learned from the 2011 Budget Control Act, such as avoiding high-stakes mechanisms like sequestration that are designed to fail. Congress should pass a joint budget resolution by the April 15, 2013, deadline that includes reconciliation instructions for entitlement and tax reform. The budget resolution should also require reforms of other spending programs to bring spending below the BCA levels for 2014 and beyond.

If only one issue is thoroughly addressed in 2013, it should be the federal role in health care, the biggest driver of spending. The flawed Obamacare law only adds to the problem. Instead of expanding the government’s role, health care should follow a true patient-centered, market-based model, including reforms in Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax treatment of health insurance.

Medicare. Medicare’s finances must be brought under control. As a first step, the age of eligibility should be raised gradually from 65 to 68 and then indexed to life expectancy. Premiums for Parts B and D should also gradually increase, thus expanding the current policy for Medicare of adjusting the level of taxpayer subsidies to income, with the most affluent seniors receiving much smaller (or in some cases no) taxpayer subsidies for their health coverage. These steps, among others,[5] should occur immediately because they are easily achieved and less controversial and should be part of new debt-limit legislation.

Within five years of these initial changes, patients should also be transitioned to a defined-contribution or premium-support model that would be adjusted for income. Expanding competition in Medicare would restrain federal spending, slow health care costs, and promote greater innovation in the delivery of care.[6]

Medicaid. Federal spending on Medicaid should be put on a budget subject to regular congressional review to bring greater fiscal certainty and stability to the process. Federal Medicaid spending would follow antipoverty spending caps by reverting to the 2007 spending levels when the economy approaches full employment (e.g., the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent) and be adjusted for medical inflation thereafter.

In lieu of traditional Medicaid, able-bodied individuals and families should receive direct federal assistance in the form of tax credits or direct assistance to enable them to buy private insurance coverage of their choice. For the disabled and frail elderly, Medicaid would remain a joint federal–state safety net program, but states would have additional flexibility to adopt more patient-centered models.

Reform of the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. As a part of tax reform (see below), the employee tax break for employer-sponsored coverage would be converted to a non-refundable tax credit that individuals and families could use to purchase the health plan of their choice.

These larger reforms are best achieved through normal legislative order. This could include the legitimate use of reconciliation as part of a comprehensive budget plan. In any case, Congress should pass a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2014.

Social Security needs to be reformed. It is running permanent cash-flow deficits and has severe programmatic flaws.[7]

First, Social Security’s eligibility age should gradually be increased in tandem with Medicare’s eligibility age. For both, this change is straightforward and could be included in an initial, small reform package. Next, Social Security should return to its original purpose of guaranteeing that all Americans are protected from poverty in retirement. As part of this insurance protection, benefits would evolve to an understandable, predictable flat benefit that is well above the poverty level. With Social Security functioning as an insurance program, moderate-income retirees would receive a smaller check, while affluent seniors would receive no check unless their financial circumstances change.

To encourage people to stay in the workforce longer, those who work beyond full retirement age would receive a higher level of after-tax income until they do retire.

Tax reform would support Social Security reforms by significantly increasing personal savings that seniors can take into retirement, and there would be no limit on the amount of these tax-deferred savings. Thus, more retirement income would be possible than under the current system. Social Security would become a safety valve against economic reversals and a floor for income after the statutory retirement age.

Defense cuts are already reducing military readiness, thus endangering the security of the United States. The defense portion of the BCA cuts is dangerously flawed and must be reversed. In Saving the American Dream, the sequester for defense spending (including the 2013 cuts) is eliminated, and the higher spending is more than offset with reforms in other spending and entitlements. Defense spending is brought slowly up to and held at 4 percent of GDP. Non-defense discretionary spending is set for 2013 at the BCA sequester level and then reduced to 2 percent of GDP, after which it is indexed to inflation.

Spending in 2014 and beyond should include reforms in long-standing but growing and expensive programs such as farm subsidies and transportation. A program of privatization, including federal asset sales, could begin as early as 2015. Anti-poverty spending should be rolled back and capped when the economy approaches full employment and then consolidated into fewer programs that reflect strong incentives for work and marriage.

Tax Reform. The economy remains plagued by the uncertainty of expiring tax policy and an unwieldy and inefficient tax code. Beyond preventing Taxmageddon by extending all current tax policy and delaying the Obamacare tax increases before January 1, 2013, Congress should pass broad substantive tax reform consistent with the New Flat Tax in Saving the American Dream. Tax reform should focus on promoting economic growth by reducing both tax rates and tax distortions while maintaining revenue and distributional neutrality. It should also simplify the tax system and improve its transparency so that taxpayers can better understand the influence of tax policy as well as the true cost of government.[8]

The broad direction for tax reform already in play, especially the bipartisan push for lower corporate income tax rates, is fully consistent with the New Flat Tax. Congress will likely find the goal of lower corporate tax rates quickly running up against the consequent need to lower tax rates for non-corporate businesses. This occurs naturally under the New Flat Tax, which taxes all businesses at a single rate on their domestic net cash flow at the entity level. Likewise, the growing support for a territorial tax system—under which U.S. businesses are taxed solely on their domestic income—is also fully consistent with the New Flat Tax, which levies tax solely on domestic income.

Under the New Flat Tax, the individual income tax and the payroll tax are rolled into one system with the same tax rate that is imposed on business income. Nearly all other federal levies are repealed, leaving a simple system for both individuals and businesses. Under the New Flat Tax as it applies to individuals, only income used for consumption is taxed, thus eliminating the existing tax bias against saving. In addition, all distorting credits, exemptions, and deductions are eliminated, leaving only two credits and three deductions.

The first credit is the above-mentioned tax credit for health insurance. This tax credit is less distortive of economic decisions than current law is, but it remains a clear subsidy for the purchase of health insurance. It is necessary because the current-law tax bias favoring health insurance is so powerful and so entrenched that simply eliminating the tax advantage is impracticable.

The second credit carried over from current law is the earned income credit (EIC). The EIC needs reform in its own right, but it is also the largest income-support component of the overall federal anti-poverty program and one of its most effective elements. Changes in the EIC should then be considered part of the proposed budget for anti-poverty programs.

The three deductions are as follows:

The deduction for charitable expense, which is retained because this tax system taxes the individual on what he or she spends. Charitable contributions benefit the receiving organization and thus should be deductible for the recipient. A deduction for higher education, which recognizes that education expenses are a form of saving and investing simultaneously, which in every other instance is excluded from tax under the New Flat Tax. An optional home mortgage deduction with the proviso that if the homeowner chooses a mortgage with deductible interest, then the lender must, as under current law, continue to pay tax on interest income earned. Alternatively, the home owner may choose to forgo the deduction, in which case the lender earns tax-free interest income and can thus charge a lower mortgage interest rate.

The New Flat Tax, the tax reform plan, is implemented effective January 1, 2014.

Addressing the Fiscal Cliff

Table 1 addresses each element of the fiscal cliff and the proposed steps that Congress should take on each of them.

—Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis and Lazof Family Fellow in Economics, and Stuart M. Butler, PhD, is Director of the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation.

The editors are grateful to the team leaders who worked with policy experts throughout The Heritage Foundation to develop this report: J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy; Rea S. Hederman, Jr., Assistant Director and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis; David C. John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; Nina Owcharenko, Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies; and Drew Gonshorowski, Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis.

This plan was developed as part of the Solutions Initiative and funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peterson Foundation convened organizations with a variety of perspectives to develop plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The American Action Forum, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, each received grants. All organizations had discretion and independence to develop their own goals and propose comprehensive solutions. The Peterson Foundation’s involvement with this project does not represent endorsement of any plan.

View the original article here

What The American Left Would Look Like Without The Two-Party System

The radical British filmmaker Ken Loach has called for the creation of a new political party ideologically to the left of the current Labour Party and more in line with what he and his co-authors see as Labour’s true socialist roots.  Building on the themes of his new documentary about the creation of the modern British welfare state after WWII, The Spirit of ’45, Loach and his colleagues argue that a new party is necessary to fully reject the austerity policies of the Tories and to avoid the fecklessness of Labour in challenging this consensus.

The likelihood of this new party (a) taking off and being successful and (b) being politically attractive to enough voters seems low, given that the “first past the post” system for U.K. parliamentary elections ensures a small, leftish party will lack real power.  Putting the wisdom of this venture aside, it does raise an interesting question about the stability and attractiveness of the major political parties going forward.

In the U.S., our electoral system forces people to choose between two parties that many voters clearly do not like.   What might the American left look if we had a proportional system similar to much of continental Europe?   There’s no way to tell for certain, but based on attitudes and groupings it’s quite possible to see the current Democratic coalition fracturing into three parts – not unlike the breakdown of greens, social democrats, and liberals in Europe.

The biggest part of this center-left coalition would emerge from the traditional base of the Democratic Party represented by labor, African Americans, Latinos, women, and the many constituent groups that have built up around the party over the decades.  Ideologically, this remaining Democratic Party would be all over the map as it is today, basically pursuing center-left policies and values that fit the needs of the component parts.  A second more-ideologically left party (call it a revamped Green Party) composed of environmentalists, progressives, and other social movement types would likely emerge to advocate more forcefully for social justice, civil rights, anti-poverty efforts, sustainability and climate change reduction, steeper progressive taxation, and greater public investment.    A third, even smaller component of centrist types (call it the Moderate Party) would also likely emerge to scoop up the remnants of anti-deficit, pro-business, and socially moderate-to-conservative Democrats.

Assuming that the right would also splinter into three components — a hard core libertarian element, a mainstream GOP arm, and a group of socially conservative, Tea Party-types — one could see how a “grand coalition” of center left and center right parties might coalesce under this electoral scenario to advance the “radical centrism” that many of today’s elites advocate.

As it stands, the American left has figured out how to coexist fairly peacefully within one party, thus keeping our politics more progressive than they might be otherwise under a proportional system.  Given the dim long term prospects of the GOP at the national level, don’t be surprised if we start hearing more mainstream conservatives supporting a move towards a more proportional voting system in the U.S.

View the original article here

Talk:Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will see a significant decline

(Difference between revisions)The newly updated 2012 "Status of Global Mission" report states that atheism is now losing 800 adherents per day rather than the 300 reported in the 2011 IBMR. Also, agnosticism is losing 1,100 adherents per day (I know the article is about atheism, but the agnostic statistic shows decline in secularism as well, good statistic for other articles.)  Here's the link http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/CSGC-Resources.cfm -Clint::Clint, I do believe there are a number of factors that will cause [[global atheism]] to lose adherents at an accelerating rate. For example, creation evangelism is likely to increase.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/evoolutionists-will-soon-by-behind-8.html]  However, could you give me the precise link rather than the general link to the various resources as far as the statistics you gave?  This link is a more general link: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/CSGC-Resources.cfm A more precise URL would be appreciated and I will update content at Conservapedia if it is warranted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 15 May 2012 (EDT)::::Here is a more precise link http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf. Also notice that the number of Christians increases 83,000 per day, a 3,000 per day increase since the last "Status of Global Mission" report. -Clint:::Clint, that is very good news. I think it can be doubled to 1,600 less atheist a day though greater evangelism in Asia, increased [[internet evangelism]], greater creation evangelism, Christian apologetics having a more prominent profile on the internet and Western Christians doing more evangelism in their communities. I think Western Christianity has been too passive when it comes to evangelism in the West and in confronting atheism. Atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to dispel and that is why prominent atheists and evolutionists are chicken to debate. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Global atheism is extremely vulnerable right now and its vulnerability will likely increase with time. Have you seen the Eric Kaufmann material I posted yet? See: [[Decline of atheism]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:54, 15 May 2012 (EDT)::::I actually own the book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? It was very interesting to see the different birthrates of atheist parents vs. Christian parents. -Clint:::Clint, who produced this document as it gives no authors or organizational name: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:18, 15 May 2012 (EDT)Clint, forget my last request. The rate at which global atheism is declining is increasing rapidly according to respected seminary Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) which publishes these statistics in January of every calendar year.The International Bulletin of Missionary Research (IBMR) obtains their data from GCTS reports.In February of 2011, the American Spectator reported that according to IBMR every day there were 300 less atheists a day as can be seen here: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity  I discovered that this came from the GCTS January 2011 report.In 2012, you showed me that a report from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary showed that each day there are 800 less atheists a day as can be seen here: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:51, 15 May 2012 (EDT)::::Ok, no problem. I'm just trying to get the good word out about the Good News! -ClintClint, I added your material to relevant Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:24, 19 May 2012 (EDT)== One thing you need to clarify ==You keep referring to the "leadership" of the atheist movement. What you haven't clarified is how many atheists consider themselves a part of this movement, and are followers of men like Dawkins and Myers, and how many atheists are ''not'' involved with any organized group, and are unaffected by anything it does. I have a feeling there are many more who fall outside of any organization, and who don't give much thought to God or religion or even their own lack of belief, or outright disbelief. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT):::I have never claimed the atheist movement has strong leadership.  In fact, it could be argued that I have argued the opposite (for example, [[Atheism and cowardice]]). Plus, I wrote this article: [[Atheist factions]]. Nevertheless, your "herding cats" comment is a valid point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:43, 28 October 2011 (EDT)::::::SharonW, thanks. I added this sentence: "In addition, there is a lot of disharmony in the atheist movement (see: [[Atheist factions]] and [[Essay: Atheism: A house divided and in global decline|Atheism: A house divided and in global decline]])". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 28 October 2011 (EDT)::::My point was actually not that there was disharmony, but that many people are apolitical, and don't pay attention to anything outside of their own lives. They're just not involved with any movements, or organizations, and many people who might consider themselves agnostic or atheist aren't even aware of these so-called leaders or organizations for atheists. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:30, 28 October 2011 (EDT):::::Wired magazine made the observation that atheists [[Atheism and women|tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males]] which would lend some support to what you have to say - as in "herding cats". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 28 October 2011 (EDT):::::::Thanks Sharon, I added this material: "[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be [[Atheism and women|quarrelsome, socially challenged men.]] " [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 28 October 2011 (EDT)::::::::Talk about completely missing the point. What she was saying is that most atheists aren't part of any "atheist movement." They just don't believe in gods.--[[User:RayFlagherty|RayFlagherty]] 08:16, 23 February 2012 (EST)I don't think the atheists are ready for battle; it's like they got their middle ages armor on while they do an uphill climb on a grease-covered mountain as they read the wrong manuals on how to fight!  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:26, 7 November 2011 (EST):::Yes, the allies of atheism/evolutionism are getting weaker (liberal press, etc.) plus the atheists/evolutionists are totally unprepared for the onslaught of a grassroots campaign like the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:44, 7 November 2011 (EST)Atheists seem intent that there is no God- all while believing that we come from pond slime. They claim that God is some fairy tale that people made up while believing something easily as seemingly impossible. They should really actually listen to and debate creationists, instead of laughing them off as crazy lunatics.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:16, 12 November 2011 (EST)User:Conservative, could you please clean up the references? They look really messy! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:04, 23 February 2012 (EST)::AugustO, thanks. Footnote #5 looked "messy" plus I got rid of two bare links as footnotes. Other than that I think the footnotes are fine in terms of formatting and I will keep them the same. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:45, 26 February 2012 (EST):Just the references? If you ask me the whole article's a mess. --[[User:RayFlagherty|RayFlagherty]] 08:13, 23 February 2012 (EST):::Ray, can you offer us better demographic analysis than Eric Kaufmann on the expected "great shrinking" of [[global atheism]] and how he expects it will affect Western atheism? Does Eric Kaufmann say that atheism will shrink at an increasing rate in the future? Is global atheism shrinking now? Is the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] esteemed by the American public now? What did Sam Harris say how the American public views atheists? Among various worldviews did a reputable survey say that atheists were the least trusted group in America?  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 26 February 2012 (EST)@User:Conservative: '' Other than that I think the footnotes are fine in terms of formatting and I will keep them the same. '' They aren't and you shouldn't:*Footnotes 3 & 4 are identical*Footnotes 5 & 10 are identical*Footnotes 11 & 12 are identicalIf don't know how to handle multiple occurrences of a single source, I'm happy to give a link to a basic tutorial. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:47, 28 February 2012 (EST):::I am really not into using the wiki footnoting format where one footnote is used for multiple citations. It makes it hard for future editing sometimes. Ibid makes sense for footnotes in offline papers though. Sorry, just a preference of mine. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:02, 28 April 2012 (EDT)== Gallup survey shows American atheism is on the rise! ==This [http://www.wingia.com/web/files/richeditor/filemanager/Global_INDEX_of_Religiosity_and_Atheism_PR__6.pdf Win/Gallup International Association survey] (not Gallup Inc. based in the United States. In fact, Gallup Inc. and Gallup International Association are involved in a legal dispute over the use of the Gallup name) invalidates all 10 reasons, because it shows that American atheism is on the rise. [[User:Richman|Richman]] 18:27, 22 September 2012 (EDT)::Let me know when you are ready to cite survey data from competent researchers: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/another-major-flaw-found-in-survey.html Another major flaw found in a survey which claimed global atheism is rising] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 22 September 2012 (EDT):::Conservative, would you be so kind as to clarify what error your source is indicating? Maybe I'm just not reading it right, but the problem with the survey that your link seems to indicate is not really phrased in a way that makes sense to me. I don't want to make a judgment here without fully understanding the criticism, so I'm just hoping to get some clarification! Thanks.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 19:19, 22 September 2012 (EDT)My guess is that you did not read all three articles via that web resource. It will become apparent how shoddy various claims of theirs are based on the data they gathered. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:54, 22 September 2012 (EDT)::::So if I'm reading the articles correctly, the main criticism is that of a small sample size used for extrapolation, both in number of persons and number of countries surveyed. Is that correct?--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 23:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)::::Addendum: In looking through the history of this talk page in attempting to determine what your five consecutive edits were, I note that you have edited the comment of another user, namely [[User:Richman|Richman]]. Without any other understanding of the reasoning before this behavior, I would like to note that I find this morally questionable behavior, at the very least.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 23:20, 22 September 2012 (EDT):::::Please write an abstract for each of the three articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 23 September 2012 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

The newly updated 2012 "Status of Global Mission" report states that atheism is now losing 800 adherents per day rather than the 300 reported in the 2011 IBMR. Also, agnosticism is losing 1,100 adherents per day (I know the article is about atheism, but the agnostic statistic shows decline in secularism as well, good statistic for other articles.) Here's the link http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/CSGC-Resources.cfm -Clint

Clint, I do believe there are a number of factors that will cause global atheism to lose adherents at an accelerating rate. For example, creation evangelism is likely to increase.[1] However, could you give me the precise link rather than the general link to the various resources as far as the statistics you gave? This link is a more general link: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/CSGC-Resources.cfm A more precise URL would be appreciated and I will update content at Conservapedia if it is warranted. Conservative 15:16, 15 May 2012 (EDT) Here is a more precise link http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf. Also notice that the number of Christians increases 83,000 per day, a 3,000 per day increase since the last "Status of Global Mission" report. -Clint Clint, that is very good news. I think it can be doubled to 1,600 less atheist a day though greater evangelism in Asia, increased internet evangelism, greater creation evangelism, Christian apologetics having a more prominent profile on the internet and Western Christians doing more evangelism in their communities. I think Western Christianity has been too passive when it comes to evangelism in the West and in confronting atheism. Atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to dispel and that is why prominent atheists and evolutionists are chicken to debate. See: Atheism and cowardice. Global atheism is extremely vulnerable right now and its vulnerability will likely increase with time. Have you seen the Eric Kaufmann material I posted yet? See: Decline of atheism? Conservative 15:54, 15 May 2012 (EDT) I actually own the book, Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? It was very interesting to see the different birthrates of atheist parents vs. Christian parents. -Clint Clint, who produced this document as it gives no authors or organizational name: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Conservative 16:18, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Clint, forget my last request.

Here is why:

The rate at which global atheism is declining is increasing rapidly according to respected seminary Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (GCTS) which publishes these statistics in January of every calendar year.

The International Bulletin of Missionary Research (IBMR) obtains their data from GCTS reports.

In February of 2011, the American Spectator reported that according to IBMR every day there were 300 less atheists a day as can be seen here: http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity I discovered that this came from the GCTS January 2011 report.

In 2012, you showed me that a report from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary showed that each day there are 800 less atheists a day as can be seen here: http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf Conservative 16:51, 15 May 2012 (EDT)

Ok, no problem. I'm just trying to get the good word out about the Good News! -Clint

Clint, I added your material to relevant Conservapedia articles. Conservative 21:24, 19 May 2012 (EDT)

You keep referring to the "leadership" of the atheist movement. What you haven't clarified is how many atheists consider themselves a part of this movement, and are followers of men like Dawkins and Myers, and how many atheists are not involved with any organized group, and are unaffected by anything it does. I have a feeling there are many more who fall outside of any organization, and who don't give much thought to God or religion or even their own lack of belief, or outright disbelief. --SharonW 10:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

I have never claimed the atheist movement has strong leadership. In fact, it could be argued that I have argued the opposite (for example, Atheism and cowardice). Plus, I wrote this article: Atheist factions. Nevertheless, your "herding cats" comment is a valid point. Conservative 10:43, 28 October 2011 (EDT) SharonW, thanks. I added this sentence: "In addition, there is a lot of disharmony in the atheist movement (see: Atheist factions and Atheism: A house divided and in global decline)". Conservative 10:47, 28 October 2011 (EDT) My point was actually not that there was disharmony, but that many people are apolitical, and don't pay attention to anything outside of their own lives. They're just not involved with any movements, or organizations, and many people who might consider themselves agnostic or atheist aren't even aware of these so-called leaders or organizations for atheists. --SharonW 14:30, 28 October 2011 (EDT) Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged males which would lend some support to what you have to say - as in "herding cats". Conservative 15:18, 28 October 2011 (EDT) Thanks Sharon, I added this material: "Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men. " Conservative 15:26, 28 October 2011 (EDT) Talk about completely missing the point. What she was saying is that most atheists aren't part of any "atheist movement." They just don't believe in gods.--RayFlagherty 08:16, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I don't think the atheists are ready for battle; it's like they got their middle ages armor on while they do an uphill climb on a grease-covered mountain as they read the wrong manuals on how to fight! Karajou 01:26, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Yes, the allies of atheism/evolutionism are getting weaker (liberal press, etc.) plus the atheists/evolutionists are totally unprepared for the onslaught of a grassroots campaign like the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 02:44, 7 November 2011 (EST)

Atheists seem intent that there is no God- all while believing that we come from pond slime. They claim that God is some fairy tale that people made up while believing something easily as seemingly impossible. They should really actually listen to and debate creationists, instead of laughing them off as crazy lunatics.--James Wilson 16:16, 12 November 2011 (EST)

User:Conservative, could you please clean up the references? They look really messy! AugustO 08:04, 23 February 2012 (EST)

AugustO, thanks. Footnote #5 looked "messy" plus I got rid of two bare links as footnotes. Other than that I think the footnotes are fine in terms of formatting and I will keep them the same. Conservative 18:45, 26 February 2012 (EST) Just the references? If you ask me the whole article's a mess. --RayFlagherty 08:13, 23 February 2012 (EST) Ray, can you offer us better demographic analysis than Eric Kaufmann on the expected "great shrinking" of global atheism and how he expects it will affect Western atheism? Does Eric Kaufmann say that atheism will shrink at an increasing rate in the future? Is global atheism shrinking now? Is the atheist population esteemed by the American public now? What did Sam Harris say how the American public views atheists? Among various worldviews did a reputable survey say that atheists were the least trusted group in America? Conservative 18:35, 26 February 2012 (EST)

@User:Conservative: Other than that I think the footnotes are fine in terms of formatting and I will keep them the same. They aren't and you shouldn't:

Footnotes 3 & 4 are identical Footnotes 5 & 10 are identical Footnotes 11 & 12 are identical ditto footnotes 23 & 24

If don't know how to handle multiple occurrences of a single source, I'm happy to give a link to a basic tutorial. AugustO 01:47, 28 February 2012 (EST)

I am really not into using the wiki footnoting format where one footnote is used for multiple citations. It makes it hard for future editing sometimes. Ibid makes sense for footnotes in offline papers though. Sorry, just a preference of mine. Conservative 03:02, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

This Win/Gallup International Association survey (not Gallup Inc. based in the United States. In fact, Gallup Inc. and Gallup International Association are involved in a legal dispute over the use of the Gallup name) invalidates all 10 reasons, because it shows that American atheism is on the rise. Richman 18:27, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

Let me know when you are ready to cite survey data from competent researchers: Another major flaw found in a survey which claimed global atheism is rising Conservative 18:46, 22 September 2012 (EDT) Conservative, would you be so kind as to clarify what error your source is indicating? Maybe I'm just not reading it right, but the problem with the survey that your link seems to indicate is not really phrased in a way that makes sense to me. I don't want to make a judgment here without fully understanding the criticism, so I'm just hoping to get some clarification! Thanks.--DTSavage 19:19, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

My guess is that you did not read all three articles via that web resource. It will become apparent how shoddy various claims of theirs are based on the data they gathered. Conservative 22:54, 22 September 2012 (EDT)

So if I'm reading the articles correctly, the main criticism is that of a small sample size used for extrapolation, both in number of persons and number of countries surveyed. Is that correct?--DTSavage 23:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT) Addendum: In looking through the history of this talk page in attempting to determine what your five consecutive edits were, I note that you have edited the comment of another user, namely Richman. Without any other understanding of the reasoning before this behavior, I would like to note that I find this morally questionable behavior, at the very least.--DTSavage 23:20, 22 September 2012 (EDT) Please write an abstract for each of the three articles. Conservative 00:20, 23 September 2012 (EDT)

View the original article here

Over-Consumption Of Salt Linked To One In 10 American Deaths

Just days after a study linked sugary drink consumption to 180,000 worldwide deaths per year, a study by the same team of Harvard researchers has found salt to be even more deadly.

The preliminary study found a diet high in sodium contributed to 2.3 million cardiovascular deaths worldwide in 2010, and was responsible for one in 10 U.S. deaths. The researchers, who presented the study Thursday at the annual American Heart Association meeting in New Orleans, said 40 percent of those deaths are premature — affecting people 69 years old or younger.

Dariush Mozaffarian, one of the study’s researchers and associate professor of medicine and epidemiology at Harvard Medical School, told ABC News that salt is more dangerous than sugar largely because of its pervasiveness in the American diet — it’s everywhere, especially in processed, packaged foods:

MOZAFFARIAN: Sugar-sweetened beverages are just one type of food that people can avoid, whereas sodium is in everything. [...] It’s really amazing how pervasive it is. For the average person, it’s very hard to avoid salt — you have to be incredibly motivated, incredibly educated, have access to a range of foods and do all the cooking yourself.

It may take motivation and education, but cutting salt may be exactly what Americans need to do to curb the country’s rising obesity epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Pervention, the human body needs only 180 – 500 milligrams of salt per day to function, and the Institute of Medicne recommends 1,500 milligrams as an adequate salt intake level. But 75 percent of people worldwide consume twice that much, with Americans averaging 3,600 milligrams per day. One study found that cutting “hidden” salt — the kinds in packaged and restaurant foods — could result in 11.1 million fewer cases of high blood pressure each year.

And the threat of salt starts at a young age. A recent study found that 75 percent of pre-packaged meals and snacks for toddlers are high in sodium, and some contain as much as 630 milligrams of sodium — more than half of the U.S. Institute of Medicine’s reccommended 1,000 milligrams daily intake for children aged 1 through 3. In a statement, the study’s researchers explained that high salt intake as a toddler could not only lead to childhood obesity or early cases of high blood pressure; it could also hardwire children to crave saltier foods throughout their lives. “The less sodium in an infant’s or toddler’s diet, the less he or she may want it when older,” said Joyce Maalouf, the study’s lead author and fellow at the CDC.

In 2010, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) spearheaded an initiative to encourage food companies such as Kraft, Heinz, Subway and Starbucks to lower the sodium content in their packaged and restaurant food, and it’s starting to work. But so far, the U.S. government hasn’t taken any similar steps to regulate sodium in packaged or restaurant foods — in 2010, it appeared as though the FDA was going to limit the amount of salt in food products, but that rumor was quickly squashed by the agency.

View the original article here

Obama Administration To Protect More Than 240,000 Acres Of American Treasures

Rio Grande del Norte in New Mexico

President Obama plans to use his executive authority to permanently protect five new national monuments next week.  This marks a significant step for the administration: It is now willing to step in and protect special places when Congress refuses to act.

The new monuments will be:

-  Rio Grande del Norte, in New Mexico

-  San Juan Islands, in Washington

-  First State, in Delaware

-  Harriet Tubman Underground Railroad, in Maryland

-  Charles Young Buffalo Soldiers, in Ohio

Of particular note is Rio Grande del Norte, which at 240,000 acres is the largest monument that the administration has designated thus far.  Also, First State National Monument in Delaware will change the fact that the state is the only one in the U.S. without a national park unit.

The announcement of these designations under the 1906 Antiquities Act fits well with President Obama’s challenge to Congress during his State of the Union address:  “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.”  The last Congress was the first since World War II that failed to protect a single new acre of parks, monuments, or wilderness, despite millions of acres proposed for protection by adjacent communities.  As John Podesta, Chair of the Center for American Progress put it, “The last Congress was the most anti-environmental in history, so President Obama is right to respond to the calls of local communities that want their public lands protected.”

The permanent protection of hundreds of thousands of acres is also critical because it is the administration’s next step towards putting the conservation of public lands on equal ground with energy development. In the president’s first term, he leased 6.3 million acres of public lands to oil and gas companies, while only 2.6 million acres were protected by Congress and the executive combined.   Last month former Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt called on the administration to permanently protect one acre for each one drilled.

Today’s news is welcome for any American who see the economic, health, and other long-term benefits of protected public lands, and is an important advancement for the president in the establishment of his conservation legacy.

Jessica is the Manager of Research and Outreach for the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Remarks by the President on American Energy -- Lemont, Illinois

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Argonne National Laboratory
Lemont, Illinois

1:31 P.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody!  (Applause.)  Hello, Illinois!  Hello!  It is good to be home!  (Applause.)

Well, let me begin by thanking Ann for the great introduction, the great work she’s doing, the leadership she’s showing with her team on so many different, amazing technological breakthroughs.  I want to thank Dr. Isaacs and Dr. Crabtree for giving me a great tour of your facilities. 

It’s not every day that I get to walk into a thermal test chamber.  (Laughter.)  I told my girls that I was going to go into a thermal test chamber and they were pretty excited.  I told them I’d come out looking like the Hulk.  (Laughter.)  They didn’t believe that. 

I want to thank my friend and your friend -- a truly great U.S. Senator, Senator Dick Durbin -- huge supporter of Argonne.  (Applause.)  An outstanding member of Congress who actually could explain some of the stuff that's going on here -- Bill Foster is here.  (Applause.)  Congressman Bobby Rush, a big supporter of Argonne -- glad he’s here.  (Applause.)  We’ve got a number of state and local officials with us, including your Mayor, Brian Reaves.  (Applause.) 

And I could not come to Argonne without bringing my own Nobel Prize-winning scientist, someone who has served our country so well over the past four years -- our Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu.  (Applause.) 

Now, I’m here today to talk about what should be our top priority as a nation, and that's reigniting the true engine of America’s economic growth -- a rising, thriving middle class and an economy built on innovation.  In my State of the Union address, I said our most important task was to drive that economic growth, and I meant it.  And every day, we should be asking ourselves three questions:  How do we make America a magnet for good jobs?  How do we equip our people with the skills and training to do those jobs?  And how do we make sure that hard work leads to a decent living? 

Those of you who have chairs -- I wasn’t sure everybody had chairs there.  (Laughter.)  Please feel free to sit down -- I'm sorry.  Everybody was standing and I thought Argonne -- one of the effects of the sequester, you had to -- (laughter) -- get rid of chairs.  (Applause.)  That's good, I'm glad we've got some chairs. 

So I chose Argonne National Lab because right now, few areas hold more promise for creating good jobs and growing our economy than how we use American energy. 

After years of talking about it, we’re finally poised to take control of our energy future.  We produce more oil than we have in 15 years.  We import less oil than we have in 20 years.  We’ve doubled the amount of renewable energy that we generate from sources like wind and solar -- with tens of thousands of good jobs to show for it.  We’re producing more natural gas than we ever have before -- with hundreds of thousands of good jobs to show for it.  We supported the first new nuclear power plant in America since the 1970s.  And we’re sending less carbon pollution into the environment than we have in nearly 20 years.

So we’re making real progress across the board.  And it’s possible, in part, because of labs like this and outstanding scientists like so many of you, entrepreneurs, innovators -- all of you who are working together to take your discoveries and turn them into a business. 

So think about this:  Just a few years ago, the American auto industry was flat-lining.  Today, thanks in part to discoveries made right here at Argonne, some of the most high-tech, fuel-efficient, pretty spiffy cars in the world are once again designed, engineered and built here in the United States. 

And that’s why we have to keep investing in scientific research.  It’s why we have to maintain our edge -- because the work you’re doing today will end up in the products that we make and sell tomorrow.  You’re helping to secure our energy future.  And if we do it well, then that’s going to help us avoid some of the perils of climate change and leave a healthier planet for our kids.  But to do it, we’ve got to make sure that we’re making the right choices in Washington. 

Just the other day, Dr. Isaacs and directors of two of our other national laboratories wrote about the effects of the so-called sequester -- these across-the-board budget cuts put in place two weeks ago -- and specifically the effects it will have on America’s scientific research.  And one of the reasons I was opposed to these cuts is because they don’t distinguish between wasteful programs and vital investments.  They don’t trim the fat; they cut into muscle and into bone -- like research and development being done right here that not only gives a great place for young researchers to come and ply their trade, but also ends up creating all kinds of spinoffs that create good jobs and good wages.   

So Dr. Isaacs said these cuts will force him to stop any new project that’s coming down the line.  And I’m quoting him now -- he says, “This sudden halt on new starts will freeze American science in place while the rest of the world races forward, and it will knock a generation of young scientists off their stride, ultimately costing billions of dollars in missed future opportunities.”  I mean, essentially because of this sequester, we’re looking at two years where we don’t start new research.  And at a time when every month you’ve got to replace your smartphone because something new has come up, imagine what that means when China and Germany and Japan are all continuing to plump up their basic research, and we’re just sitting there doing nothing. 

We can’t afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of the world races forward.  We have to seize these opportunities.  I want the next great job-creating breakthroughs -- whether it’s in energy or nanotechnology or bioengineering -- I want those breakthroughs to be right here in the United States of America, creating American jobs and maintaining our technological lead.  (Applause.)  

So I just want to be clear -- these cuts will harm, not help, our economy.  They aren’t the smart way to cut our deficits.  And that’s why I’m reaching out to Republicans and Democrats to come together around a balanced approach, a smart, phased-in approach to deficit reduction that includes smart spending cuts and entitlement reforms and new revenue, and that won’t hurt our middle class or slow economic growth.  And if we do that, then we can move beyond governing from crisis to crisis to crisis, and we keep our focus on policies that actually create jobs and grow our economy, and move forward to face all of the other challenges we face, from fixing our broken immigration system to educating our kids to keeping them safe from gun violence. 

And few pieces of business are more important for us than getting our energy future right.  So here at Argonne, and other labs around the country, scientists are working on getting us where we need to get 10 years from now, 20 years from now.  Today, what most Americans feel first when it comes to energy prices -- or energy issues are prices that they pay at the pump. And over the past few weeks, we saw -- we went through another spike in gas prices.  And people are nodding here.  They weren’t happy about it.  The problem is this happens every year.  It happened last year, the year before that.  And it’s a serious blow to family budgets.  It feels like you’re getting hit with a new tax coming right out of your pocket.  And every time it happens, politicians -- they dust off their three-point plans for $2 gas, but nothing happens and then we go through the same cycle again. 

But here’s the thing:  Over the past four years, we haven’t just talked about it, we’ve actually started doing something about it.  We’ve worked with the auto companies to put in place the toughest fuel economy standards in our history.  And what that means is, by the middle of the next decade, our cars will go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  And the standards that we set are part of what’s driving some of the amazing scientists and engineers who are working here at Argonne Labs.  We’ve set some achievable but ambitious goals.  So in the middle of the next decade, we expect that you’ll fill up half as often, which means you spend half as much.  And over the life of a new car, the average family will save more than $8,000 at the pump.  That's worth applauding.  That's big news.  (Applause.) 

In fact, a new report issued today shows that America is becoming a global leader in advanced vehicles.  You walk into any dealership today, and you’ll see twice as many hybrids to choose from as there were five years ago.  You’ll see seven times as many cars that can go 40 miles a gallon or more.  And as costs go down, sales are going up.

Last year, General Motors sold more hybrid vehicles than ever before.  Ford is selling some of the most fuel-efficient cars so quickly that dealers are having a tough time keeping up with the demand.  So by investing in our energy security, we’re helping our businesses succeed and we’re creating good middle-class jobs right here in America.

So we’re making progress, but the only way to really break this cycle of spiking gas prices, the only way to break that cycle for good is to shift our cars entirely -- our cars and trucks -- off oil.  That’s why, in my State of the Union address, I called on Congress to set up an Energy Security Trust to fund research into new technologies that will help us reach that goal. 
Now, I’d like to take credit for this idea because it’s a good idea, but I can’t.  Basically, my proposal builds off a proposal that was put forward by a non-partisan coalition that includes retired generals and admirals and leading CEOs.  And these leaders came together around a simple idea -- much of our energy is drawn from lands and waters that we, the public, own together.  So what they’ve proposed is let’s take some of our oil and gas revenues from public lands and put it towards research that will benefit the public so we can support American ingenuity without adding a dime to our deficit.

We can support scientists who are designing new engines that are more energy efficient; support scientists that are developing cheaper batteries that can go farther on a single charge; support scientists and engineers that are devising new ways to fuel our cars and trucks with new sources of clean energy -- like advanced biofuels and natural gas -- so drivers can one day go coast to coast without using a drop of oil. 

And the reason so many different people from the private sector, the public sector, our military support this idea is because it’s not just about saving money; it’s also about saving the environment, but it’s also about our national security.  For military officials -- like General Paul Kelley, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps -- this is about national security.  Our reliance on oil makes us way too dependent on other parts of the world, many of which are very volatile.  For business leaders -- like Fred Smith, the CEO of FedEx -- this is about economic security, because when fuel prices shoot up, it’s harder to plan investments, expand operations, create new jobs. 

So these leaders all say we need to fix this.  This is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea.  This is just a smart idea. And we should be taking their advice.  Let’s set up an Energy Security Trust that helps us free our families and our businesses from painful spikes in gas once and for all.  (Applause.)  Let’s do that.  We can do it.  We’ve done it before.  We innovated here at Argonne.   

And in the meantime, we’ll keep moving on the all-of-the-above energy strategy that we’ve been working on for the last couple years, where we're producing more oil and gas here at home but we're also producing more biofuels, we're also producing more fuel-efficient vehicles; more solar power; more wind power.  We're working to make sure that here in America we're building cars and homes and businesses that waste less energy. 

We can do this.  The nature of America's miraculous rise has been our drive, our restless spirit, our willingness to reach out to new horizons, our willingness to take risks, our willingness to innovate.  We are not satisfied just because things -- this is how things have been.  We're going to try something that maybe we just imagine now, but if we work at it, we'll achieve it.  That’s the nature of America.  That’s what Argonne National Lab is about.  That’s what this facility is about.  (Applause.)  

Two decades ago, scientists at Argonne, led by Mike Thackeray, who’s here today -- where is Mike?  There he is right here.  (Applause.)  Mike started work on a rechargeable lithium battery for cars.  And some folks at the time said the idea wasn’t worth the effort.  They said that even if you had the technology, the car would cost too much, it wouldn’t go far enough. 

But Mike and his team knew better.  They knew you could do better.  And America, our government, our federal government made it a priority, and we funded those efforts.  And Mike went to work.  And when others gave up, the team kept on at it.  And when development hit a snag, the team found solutions.  And a few years ago, all of this hard work paid off, and scientists here at Argonne helped create a lithium ion battery that costs less, lasts longer than any that had come before. 

So what was just an idea two decades ago is now rolling off assembly lines in cutting-edge fuel efficient cars that you can plug in at night.  Well, imagine all the ideas right now with all of these young scientists and engineers that 20 years ago -- or 20 years from now will be offering solutions to our problems that we can't even comprehend -- as long as we're still funding these young scientists and engineers; as long as the pipeline for research is maintained; as long as we recognize there are some things we do together as a country because individually we can't do it -- and, by the way, the private sector on its own will not invest in this research because it's too expensive.  It's too risky.  They can't afford it in terms of their bottom lines.

So we've got to support it.  And we'll all benefit from it, and our kids will benefit from it, and our grandkids will benefit from it.  That’s who we are.  That’s been the American story. 

We don’t stand still, we look forward.  We invent.  We build.  We turn new ideas into new industries.  We change the way we can live our lives here at home and around the world.  That’s how we sent a man to the moon.  That’s how we invented the Internet. 

When somebody tells us we can't, we say, yes we can.  And I'm telling all of you, I am absolutely confident that America is poised to succeed in the same way as long as we don’t lose that spirit of innovation and recognize that we can only do it together.  And I'm going to work as hard as I can every single day to make sure that we do.

So congratulations, Argonne.  (Applause.)  Let's keep it up.  Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless America.

END  
1:50 P.M. CDT

President Obama discusses the need to harness American energy in order to reduce our dependence on oil and make the United States a magnet for new jobs. He highlights his all-of-the-above approach to American energy -- including a proposal to establish an Energy Security Trust, which invests in research that will help shift our cars and trucks off of oil.

In the first foreign trip of his second term in office, President Obama will meet with the new Israeli government and speak to the Israeli people, as well as meet with the Palestinian leadership and the King of Jordan.

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

Portland, Oregon Becomes Fourth American City To Adopt Paid Sick Day Law

Our guest blogger is Jane Farrell, a Research Assistant for economic policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Portland became the fourth American city to approve a paid sick days law Wednesday, an important step forward today that will help the city’s workers, employers, and residents. Portland joined three other cities – San Francisco, Washington DC, and Seattle – and one state, Connecticut, in modernizing its workplace policies and acknowledging an important reality: everybody gets sick but no one should be at risk of losing a job, infecting coworkers or customers, or missing a day’s pay because of an illness.

While the economic and social benefits of paid sick days are numerous, Portland City Councilmembers nevertheless weighed the evidence in favor of and against paid sick leave carefully. Ultimately, they unanimously decided that this policy would help make Portland a stronger city and community. Worker-friendly policies like paid sick leave help reduce turnover, saving businesses time and money they might have spent on training, hiring, and replacing employees. It also strengthens worker loyalty and increases worker productivity.

Paid sick leave also helps lower health care costs by reducing the number of costly emergency room visits Portland hospitals will have to finance or subsidize. While 40 percent of private sector workers across the US lack even one paid sick day, Portland residents who previously lacked this protection can now rest easy – and work even more diligently – knowing they are safe and covered.

View the original article here

Saving the American Dream: The Fiscal Cliff and Beyond

Abstract: Unless Congress and the President act promptly and wisely, sequestration under the Budget Control Act (BCA) will undermine military readiness, and the nearly $500 billion tax increase starting on January 1, 2013, will greatly harm an already weak economy. However, this fiscal cliff can be avoided. The key to avoiding this and future fiscal calamities is reform of the mandatory spending programs, from welfare to Social Security, that currently drive federal deficits. The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan would rein in spending immediately, restructure the major entitlement programs to bring entitlement spending under control over the long term, and strengthen the core foundations of these programs.

Since the Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream plan[1] was first published in April 2011, there has been almost no substantive progress on spending control. The only plausible exception was the flawed Budget Control Act (BCA), a product of a contentious debt limit debate. The complete failure of the resultant bipartisan “supercommittee” to reach agreement was a sad reflection on a Congress that is divided and unwilling to pass the legislation necessary to rein in spending.

As a result, the nation is facing the looming sequester, which will further undermine the defense budget, jeopardizing one of the federal government’s core constitutional responsibilities. Yet it would leave entitlement programs virtually untouched, even though they are the largest driver of spending today and in the future. Meanwhile, the prospect of a huge tax increase in January has had a deleterious effect on the economy for many months, although the effect is only a small portion of the harm the economy will incur if the tax increase ultimately takes effect. America seriously needs a true way forward.

The Heritage plan reflects the need to rein in spending immediately and to rethink major programs. Spending on the open-ended Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid entitlements must be brought under control, and the core foundations of these programs should be strengthened.

The following principles guide the policy solutions in Saving the American Dream:

Total spending must be brought under control to balance the budget without raising taxes, ultimately holding revenues at their historical share of gross domestic product (GDP). Entitlement programs should, unlike today, actually guarantee seniors economic security in retirement and be recast as real and sustainable insurance programs focused on those who truly need them. Other spending must be curbed, and the federal government must be restricted to its proper functions. Defense, as a core constitutional function of the federal government, should be fully funded and efficiently delivered. The tax system should be structurally reformed to foster growth by eliminating tax distortions of private economic decisions, especially decisions on savings and investment, and to make the system simpler and more transparent.

Fiscal year (FY) 2012 closed on September 30 with the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimating spending of $3.5 trillion and a deficit of $1.1 trillion.[2] Debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion (73 percent of GDP). According to the CBO, debt will explode to 199 percent of GDP by 2037, driven by growth in spending that will reach 36 percent of GDP.[3]

The main drivers of spending and debt increases are incontrovertibly the major entitlement programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, the slow economy with its high unemployment rate, which remains stuck at around 8 percent, also adds to deficits and debt through two channels: mandatory spending for those workers who are most affected by the slow economy (e.g., unemployment compensation) and below-average tax revenues.

It is clear that the top priorities for Congress and the President should be controlling spending, especially entitlement reform, and setting an economic growth agenda through tax reform. After averting the fiscal cliff, Congress and the President should immediately turn their attention to these pressing issues.

As noted, entitlements are the fastest-growing programs. Even if all other spending was eliminated, these programs would still cause large and unsustainable deficits in the future. Their growth is automatic, with autopilot spending increases built in and no serious budgetary constraints. The top priority must be to restructure entitlements and put a brake on their spending levels while strengthening and preserving them for future generations.

A number of robust proposals for health care reforms already exist, both in Congress and in the policy community.[4] Congress and the President should take advantage of this policy momentum and focus on reforming Medicaid and especially Medicare. However, changes in Social Security should follow quickly, and the rules that govern these programs in general should be more consistent. For example, increases in the normal eligibility age should proceed simultaneously for both Social Security and Medicare.

Specific steps for Congress and the President include the following:

The President should submit a budget by the 2013 tax deadline deadline that outlines strong, sweeping changes in entitlement programs that will reduce spending over the 10-year budget window and significantly improve the long-term trajectory of these programs. The President’s budget should lay out specific goals for a pro-growth, revenue-neutral tax reform plan. Congress and the President should include reforms in entitlement programs and further reductions in other spending areas, including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), in exchange for any increases in the debt limit. These should reflect lessons learned from the 2011 Budget Control Act, such as avoiding high-stakes mechanisms like sequestration that are designed to fail. Congress should pass a joint budget resolution by the April 15, 2013, deadline that includes reconciliation instructions for entitlement and tax reform. The budget resolution should also require reforms of other spending programs to bring spending below the BCA levels for 2014 and beyond.

If only one issue is thoroughly addressed in 2013, it should be the federal role in health care, the biggest driver of spending. The flawed Obamacare law only adds to the problem. Instead of expanding the government’s role, health care should follow a true patient-centered, market-based model, including reforms in Medicare, Medicaid, and the tax treatment of health insurance.

Medicare. Medicare’s finances must be brought under control. As a first step, the age of eligibility should be raised gradually from 65 to 68 and then indexed to life expectancy. Premiums for Parts B and D should also gradually increase, thus expanding the current policy for Medicare of adjusting the level of taxpayer subsidies to income, with the most affluent seniors receiving much smaller (or in some cases no) taxpayer subsidies for their health coverage. These steps, among others,[5] should occur immediately because they are easily achieved and less controversial and should be part of new debt-limit legislation.

Within five years of these initial changes, patients should also be transitioned to a defined-contribution or premium-support model that would be adjusted for income. Expanding competition in Medicare would restrain federal spending, slow health care costs, and promote greater innovation in the delivery of care.[6]

Medicaid. Federal spending on Medicaid should be put on a budget subject to regular congressional review to bring greater fiscal certainty and stability to the process. Federal Medicaid spending would follow antipoverty spending caps by reverting to the 2007 spending levels when the economy approaches full employment (e.g., the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent) and be adjusted for medical inflation thereafter.

In lieu of traditional Medicaid, able-bodied individuals and families should receive direct federal assistance in the form of tax credits or direct assistance to enable them to buy private insurance coverage of their choice. For the disabled and frail elderly, Medicaid would remain a joint federal–state safety net program, but states would have additional flexibility to adopt more patient-centered models.

Reform of the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance. As a part of tax reform (see below), the employee tax break for employer-sponsored coverage would be converted to a non-refundable tax credit that individuals and families could use to purchase the health plan of their choice.

These larger reforms are best achieved through normal legislative order. This could include the legitimate use of reconciliation as part of a comprehensive budget plan. In any case, Congress should pass a concurrent budget resolution for FY 2014.

Social Security needs to be reformed. It is running permanent cash-flow deficits and has severe programmatic flaws.[7]

First, Social Security’s eligibility age should gradually be increased in tandem with Medicare’s eligibility age. For both, this change is straightforward and could be included in an initial, small reform package. Next, Social Security should return to its original purpose of guaranteeing that all Americans are protected from poverty in retirement. As part of this insurance protection, benefits would evolve to an understandable, predictable flat benefit that is well above the poverty level. With Social Security functioning as an insurance program, moderate-income retirees would receive a smaller check, while affluent seniors would receive no check unless their financial circumstances change.

To encourage people to stay in the workforce longer, those who work beyond full retirement age would receive a higher level of after-tax income until they do retire.

Tax reform would support Social Security reforms by significantly increasing personal savings that seniors can take into retirement, and there would be no limit on the amount of these tax-deferred savings. Thus, more retirement income would be possible than under the current system. Social Security would become a safety valve against economic reversals and a floor for income after the statutory retirement age.

Defense cuts are already reducing military readiness, thus endangering the security of the United States. The defense portion of the BCA cuts is dangerously flawed and must be reversed. In Saving the American Dream, the sequester for defense spending (including the 2013 cuts) is eliminated, and the higher spending is more than offset with reforms in other spending and entitlements. Defense spending is brought slowly up to and held at 4 percent of GDP. Non-defense discretionary spending is set for 2013 at the BCA sequester level and then reduced to 2 percent of GDP, after which it is indexed to inflation.

Spending in 2014 and beyond should include reforms in long-standing but growing and expensive programs such as farm subsidies and transportation. A program of privatization, including federal asset sales, could begin as early as 2015. Anti-poverty spending should be rolled back and capped when the economy approaches full employment and then consolidated into fewer programs that reflect strong incentives for work and marriage.

Tax Reform. The economy remains plagued by the uncertainty of expiring tax policy and an unwieldy and inefficient tax code. Beyond preventing Taxmageddon by extending all current tax policy and delaying the Obamacare tax increases before January 1, 2013, Congress should pass broad substantive tax reform consistent with the New Flat Tax in Saving the American Dream. Tax reform should focus on promoting economic growth by reducing both tax rates and tax distortions while maintaining revenue and distributional neutrality. It should also simplify the tax system and improve its transparency so that taxpayers can better understand the influence of tax policy as well as the true cost of government.[8]

The broad direction for tax reform already in play, especially the bipartisan push for lower corporate income tax rates, is fully consistent with the New Flat Tax. Congress will likely find the goal of lower corporate tax rates quickly running up against the consequent need to lower tax rates for non-corporate businesses. This occurs naturally under the New Flat Tax, which taxes all businesses at a single rate on their domestic net cash flow at the entity level. Likewise, the growing support for a territorial tax system—under which U.S. businesses are taxed solely on their domestic income—is also fully consistent with the New Flat Tax, which levies tax solely on domestic income.

Under the New Flat Tax, the individual income tax and the payroll tax are rolled into one system with the same tax rate that is imposed on business income. Nearly all other federal levies are repealed, leaving a simple system for both individuals and businesses. Under the New Flat Tax as it applies to individuals, only income used for consumption is taxed, thus eliminating the existing tax bias against saving. In addition, all distorting credits, exemptions, and deductions are eliminated, leaving only two credits and three deductions.

The first credit is the above-mentioned tax credit for health insurance. This tax credit is less distortive of economic decisions than current law is, but it remains a clear subsidy for the purchase of health insurance. It is necessary because the current-law tax bias favoring health insurance is so powerful and so entrenched that simply eliminating the tax advantage is impracticable.

The second credit carried over from current law is the earned income credit (EIC). The EIC needs reform in its own right, but it is also the largest income-support component of the overall federal anti-poverty program and one of its most effective elements. Changes in the EIC should then be considered part of the proposed budget for anti-poverty programs.

The three deductions are as follows:

The deduction for charitable expense, which is retained because this tax system taxes the individual on what he or she spends. Charitable contributions benefit the receiving organization and thus should be deductible for the recipient. A deduction for higher education, which recognizes that education expenses are a form of saving and investing simultaneously, which in every other instance is excluded from tax under the New Flat Tax. An optional home mortgage deduction with the proviso that if the homeowner chooses a mortgage with deductible interest, then the lender must, as under current law, continue to pay tax on interest income earned. Alternatively, the home owner may choose to forgo the deduction, in which case the lender earns tax-free interest income and can thus charge a lower mortgage interest rate.

The New Flat Tax, the tax reform plan, is implemented effective January 1, 2014.

Addressing the Fiscal Cliff

Table 1 addresses each element of the fiscal cliff and the proposed steps that Congress should take on each of them.

—Alison Acosta Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis and Lazof Family Fellow in Economics, and Stuart M. Butler, PhD, is Director of the Center for Policy Innovation at The Heritage Foundation.

The editors are grateful to the team leaders who worked with policy experts throughout The Heritage Foundation to develop this report: J. D. Foster, Ph.D., Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy; Rea S. Hederman, Jr., Assistant Director and Research Fellow in the Center for Data Analysis; David C. John, Senior Research Fellow in Retirement Security and Financial Institutions; Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D., Senior Fellow in the Center for Policy Innovation; Nina Owcharenko, Director of the Center for Health Policy Studies; and Drew Gonshorowski, Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis.

This plan was developed as part of the Solutions Initiative and funded by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The Peterson Foundation convened organizations with a variety of perspectives to develop plans addressing our nation’s fiscal challenges. The American Action Forum, Bipartisan Policy Center, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, and The Heritage Foundation, each received grants. All organizations had discretion and independence to develop their own goals and propose comprehensive solutions. The Peterson Foundation’s involvement with this project does not represent endorsement of any plan.

View the original article here

Lieberman joins American Enterprise Institute

Former Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is joining the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank announced Monday.

Lieberman will serve as cochairman of the American Internationalism Project, alongside former Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

"The American Internationalism Project, under the leadership of Sen. Lieberman and Sen. Jon Kyl, is critical to opening a discussion about the challenges facing America in the coming decades--and strategizing about how to meet them," AEI president Arthur C. Brooks said in a statement.

Lieberman, who opted in 2012 not to run for reelection, said there is currently an "urgent need to rebuild bipartisan —indeed non-political— consensus for American diplomatic, economic, and military leadership in the world."

"That's why I am grateful to AEI for initiating and sponsoring this project and why I look forward to leading it with my friend Jon Kyl," Lieberman said.

Roughly a week ago AEI announced that Kyl had joined the American Enterprise Institute as a visiting fellow. Kyl served also decided to retire from the Senate in 2012.

Lieberman, formerly the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was one of the chief architects of a comprehensive cybersecurity bill that failed to pass the Senate last year. Despite the gridlock, Lieberman has continued his call for Congress to pass cybersecurity legislation to help protect American critical infrastructure from cyberattacks. 

Lieberman was former Vice President Al Gore's Democratic runningmate when Gore ran for president in 2000. Lieberman served as a Democrat until 2006 when he faced a primary challenge from businessman Ned Lamont. Lieberman eventually won reelection as an Independent in that race.

In 2008 Lieberman endorsed Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) presidential candidacy and spoke at the Republican National Convention. More recently Lieberman has caucused with Democrats.

—Jennifer Martinez contributed reporting.

View Comments

View the original article here

American Epidemic: Rise In Diabetes Rate Is The ‘Main Driver’ Of Increased U.S. Medical Costs

The reality of America’s obesity and diabetes epidemics and their resulting effects on national health care costs have been well-established — and on Thursday, a new report revealed that the public health crisis has gotten even worse in the last decade.

According to the report by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), direct and indirect health care costs associated with diabetes rose from $174 billion in 2007 to $245 billion in 2012 — an increase of 41 percent over 5 years. Only a little bit of that can be attributable to general medical inflation, which has actually been slowing down in the last couple of years. The sheer scope of the increase indicates that more and more Americans are falling prey to the disease — and it’s taking a clear toll on U.S. health care spending:

“As the number of people with diabetes grows, so does the economic burden it places on this country,” [said ADA's Chief Scientific & Medical Officer, Robert Ratner, in a statement.]

The study finds that medical expenditure for people with diabetes is about 2.3 times higher than for people who don’t have the disease and that the main driver of the increased overall financial burden on the country is the rise in proportion of the population that has the disease.

“The cost of diabetes is rising at a rate higher than overall medical costs with more than one in 10 health care dollars in the country being spent directly on diabetes and its complications, and more than one in five health care dollars in the US going to the care of people with diagnosed diabetes,” says Ratner.

Diabetes and obesity-related illnesses tend to disproportionately affect populations that are also on government-subsidized health programs — especially low-income Americans — and made up anywhere between 10 and 12 percent of all health insurance spending back in 2006. Considering the new report’s findings, that number has probably ballooned further. The study found that 64 percent of diabetes-related care, specifically, was funded by Medicare, Medicaid, and military health care programs.

View the original article here

GOP: Democrats' budget will ‘crush American workers’

A senior Republican launched a preemptive political strike Saturday against the budget plan that Senate Democrats will offer next week, alleging it won’t address the national debt or help workers.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, used the GOP’s weekly address to make his party’s case against the 10-year plan that Democrats hope to steer through the committee.

He said that debt is slowing the economy and depressing wages, and that balancing the budget and ending the deficit – which Sessions calls “the great challenge of our time” – can be achieved by holding annual spending growth to 3.4 percent annually.

“But I fear the Democrat proposal will fail this defining test and will never achieve balance. I fear it will crush American workers and our economy with trillions in new taxes, spending and debt,” Sessions said.

“I fear Chairman Murray will follow the President’s lead: raising taxes to enrich the bureaucracy at the expense of the people,” he said, referring to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

The blueprint to be unveiled Wednesday is the first formal budget plan that Senate Democrats have tried to move through the chamber in several years.

Sessions's remarks are part of intense political positioning on fiscal policy by both parties at a time when Republicans are resisting White House calls for new tax revenues to be included in any deal on spending and entitlements.

The coming week will offer contrasting visions on Capitol Hill because House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who was the GOP’s vice presidential candidate, will unveil the House Republicans’ budget plan.

“Government has never been bigger or more out of control. They say there is no problem with waste, fraud, and abuse; they say the problem is you; they say you are not sending them enough money; they say they have wisely spent every penny. So, you must just send them more. And, if you don’t? Well, they won’t stop spending, they’ll just borrow more,” Sessions said.

“These destructive policies cannot continue. We are at the breaking point,” he said.

Sessions said Republican plans will create jobs and boost pay without adding to the debt.

His address touts an array of plans such as ensuring welfare offices become “employment and job training” offices; making more areas available for oil-and-gas drilling; ending “burdensome” regulations; enforcing an immigration policy that “protects legal U.S. workers from unlawful competition,” and several others.

Sessions devotes much of the speech to alleging that Democratic policies are failing the poor and that federal anti-poverty programs are ineffective, alleging that “Compassion demands that we change.”

“President Obama speaks of his deep concern for struggling Americans, yet his plans are focused on growing government – not the economy. He has no effective plan to create better jobs, more hiring or rising wages."

The comments arrive amid a larger effort by Republicans, following their failed 2012 White House campaign and loss of seats in Congress, to make the case that their policies as helpful to struggling workers.

Republicans plan to move legislation through the House next week called the “Supporting Knowledge and Investing in Lifelong Skills (SKILLS) Act,” which would streamline and reorient nearly three-dozen federal job training programs in a way that supporters say will better connect workers to job openings.

View Comments

View the original article here