After long fight, Roche to release all Tamiflu drug data

LONDON, April 4 (Reuters) - After a lengthy fight, Swiss drugmaker Roche Holding AG said it had agreed to hand over data from all clinical trials of its best-selling flu drug Tamiflu to a group of outside researchers.

Tamiflu has been approved by regulators worldwide and stockpiled by many governments in case of a pandemic, but some scientists claim there is little evidence it works and have lobbied since 2009 for Roche to release all its trial data.

Sales of the drug hit close to $3 billion in 2009 due to the H1N1 swine flu pandemic, although they have since declined.

In an email to the Cochrane Collaboration, a non-profit group that reviews trial data to assess the value of drugs, Roche said it would provide clinical study reports on all the 74 studies into its medicine, over the next few months.

A copy of the April 2 email was supplied to Reuters on Thursday.

Roche said it would edit the study reports to ensure patient confidentiality and protect legitimate commercial interests, adding that handing over the information would take time since some of the reports ran to thousands of pages.

Campaigners who have been pushing pharmaceutical companies to be more open said they were pleased Roche had finally done the right thing, although they argued it should not have delayed access to the data in the first place.

"It shouldn't have taken the researchers years of persistence and publicity to get these Tamiflu results," said Sile Lane, director of campaigns at Sense about Science.

The Cochrane group gave Roche's move a cautious welcome but its researchers said they were still concerned that editing of the data and other problems might make analysis and interpretation difficult.

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-Medical device maker Cytori loses approval fight

WASHINGTON, March 22 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that the Food and Drug Administration acted correctly when it denied fast-track approval of two stem cell-related medical devices made by Cytori Therapeutics Inc.

The FDA had reasonable evidence to find that the devices were not substantially equivalent to devices already on the market, according to the unanimous ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The FDA's decision meant that Cytori had to conduct extensive clinical research as part of premarket approval.

Tom Baker, Cytori's director of investor relations, said the court ruling does not change the status quo because the company has a clinical trial under way.

"That will continue to be our priority and primary path to market," Baker said in a phone interview on Friday.

The clinical trial started last year and the company plans to have initial data in the first half of 2014, he said.

Cytori is hoping to develop a treatment for heart failure in which regenerative stem cells from a patient's own fat tissue would be injected into heart muscle, all in one procedure.

The appeals court ruling relates to two medical devices designed to extract stem cells from fat tissue, the Celution 700 and the StemSource 900.

Cytori and the FDA disagreed over how similar the devices are to existing devices that extract stem cells from blood or bone marrow. Devices that are similar to already approved ones require less testing.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel that the appeals court must be careful when questioning the scientific judgment of an agency such as the FDA.

"FDA concluded and explained that fat is not blood and that the difference matters. A court is ill-equipped to second-guess that kind of agency scientific judgment," Kavanaugh wrote.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to comment.

View the original article here

Medical device maker Cytori Therapeutics loses approval fight

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Global Fight Against Tuberculosis

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoFri 22 Feb 13 | 01:22 PM ET Turberculosis is making a global comeback, including in the United States. Dr. William Schaffner of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the concern surrounding the disease.

View the original article here

Why Manny Pacquiao Refusing To Fight In Vegas Doesn’t Prove A Problem With American Tax Policy

Conservatives are overjoyed at the news that boxer Manny Pacquiao is refusing to fight his next bout in the United States because he doesn’t want to pay taxes, and anti-tax groups like Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform are already using it as an example of how America’s “punitive” tax policy makes it less competitive with other countries around the world.

ATR first worries that the American tax code will make it more likely that other boxers follow Pacquiao’s lead, then expands into a broader critique of taxes on ordinary American investment:

Fewer boxing matches per year would mean fewer vendors, a decrease in tourism, and less money being spent in host cities. Hosting a major sporting event has proven to create jobs and insert economic life within the city. The federal government needs to follow the examples being set by GOP governors seeking to reduce their respective state’s income tax burden or risk losing investments across every industry.

At the end of the day, people migrate and invest in places where they will receive the most for their services and skills. The higher the income tax, the less return these same people will see. By continuing to have this excessively high income tax, the U.S. continues to discourage businesses and workers looking to make profitable investments.

The most obvious problem with this thinking is that the Marquez-Pacquiao fight is somehow going to bring great benefit to Las Vegas. It won’t. Fight or no fight, Vegas hotels and casinos are going to be full of high-rollers and ordinary gamblers and non-gamblers alike, because it’s Las Vegas. The utility of a sporting event in that type of economy is almost certainly even smaller than the utility of bigger sporting events, and gearing tax policy toward the attraction of sporting events is a terrible idea anyway.

The real problem, though, is the idea that tax policy is somehow the only factor in where future fights will take place. Fight promoters are going to lose a substantial amount of money if Pacquiao and Marquez fight in Asia, because more people will pay to watch if they fight in the U.S. That means there is an advantage for promoters and even most boxers to fighting in the U.S. even if they have to pay higher tax rates. It even extends in Pacquiao’s case, since lower tax rates aren’t the only reason he wants to fight in southeast Asia: nearing the end of his career, the Filipino boxer sees it as an opportunity to broaden his global fan base.

And that hits at the fallacy of ATR’s broader critique of American tax policy. Conservatives aren’t necessarily wrong when they argue that “people migrate and invest in places where they will receive the most for their services and skills.” Where they go wrong is in assuming that tax rates are the only or even the dominant determinant in that equation, and in assuming that people and their investments automatically flow to the lowest tax rate attainable. Place matters to people, and the United States is still a more advantageous place to do business, make social and business connections, and live than many other countries with lower tax rates. That’s why rich people don’t flee high-tax states like California and New York en masse, because California and New York still offer business and social advantages to many of the people who choose to live there that other states don’t have. And it’s why businesspeople and their investment don’t just up and leave the U.S. even though we charge a higher personal tax rate than many other countries. There’s no evidence backing up the claim that taxing the rich hurts growth or drives away investment, and in the U.S., periods of higher marginal tax rates actually featured higher rates of economic growth.

There are any number of reasons why people choose to live, invest, and do business in the places they do, and taxes fund many of the things, from education to infrastructure to law enforcement that protects against the graft and corruption that are the price of doing business in Macau, that make certain places advantageous to others. Conservatives don’t like to acknowledge that reality, though, because it makes it obvious that race-to-the-bottom tax policy, in which wealthy people like Pacqiuao benefit at the expense of everyone else, is a fallacious idea.

View the original article here

US must do better in preparing professionals to help fight cyber attacks

By James Gabberty, professor of information systems, Pace University, New York City - 02/15/13 04:00 PM ET

While dozens of U.S. banks are in the midst of reviewing their information security policies after falling victim to recent successful network intrusions resulting from cyber-attacks, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and even Twitter have joined the ranks of other high-value companies to have been targeted by hackers, most notably from China and Iran. It should come as no surprise to anyone following U.S. Internet vulnerabilities that China has been named as principal culprit behind a massive, sustained cyber-espionage campaign that threatens the nation’s economic competitiveness, according to a report released today by The National Intelligence Estimate.

While U.S. officials debate over what new measures, if any, to put in place to protect our economic interests, firms - both public and private – should consider what they can do to thwart these attacks from re-occurring, or to at least minimize the collective threat they pose to American business.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that qualified information security practitioners are few and in high demand, especially as current and planned regulatory initiatives such as Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank further constraining their availability.

Even from the perspective of the U.S. military, information security workers represent much more than basic levers of economic growth - they are a crucial component of the nascent effort to defend the nation’s information assets and our digital infrastructure. And we are losing the battle.

Given the mutual dependency of our economic and military infrastructure on the continuous availability and flow of confidential and high integrity data, one solution to solving the perpetual network probes and vulnerability scanning challenging U.S. companies is to retrain IT workers in the short term until long-term measures are put in place to protect our information infrastructure. But how can this be accomplished? After all, it takes years of technical training to produce computer and network programmers that can assist in combatting attacks from abroad. This may be true, but it is not the only way to protect U.S. economic interests.

One proven method is to train current IT workers by the thousands with the right mix of technical and managerial know-how that can be achieved in months, not years. Fortunately, the kind of training that these workers need already exists and is available through specialized training and professional credentialing agencies that specialize in information security, strategy and governance. 

While the majority of network breaches are caused by social engineering – that is, leveraging the end user as an attack vector though which unauthorized access is gained to sensitive computing assets such as communication and database servers – some other protective measures are available now and should be implemented immediately to effectively curb future exploits that can threaten even the most protected computer enclaves.

Although social engineering points to a failure at the top of the organization to link information security with corporate strategy (as well as a lack of end user training that could effectuate a first line of defense against would-be attackers), more frequent reviews of corporate strategies needs to be done, with special attention paid to ensuring that the firm’s information security strategies are aligned with business strategies.

Furthermore, sensible sharing of current attack vectors used by untrustworthy state actors from abroad against our economic assets, as witnessed by our intelligence community, needs to take place. All too often, many U.S. businesses are simply unaware as to how to best keep their firms from falling victim to common methods used by foreign actors to steal sensitive intellectual property. Less than one year ago, for example, Dupont scientist Tse Chao pleaded guilty in federal court to stealing the color white, or more specifically, the secret recipe for the firm’s Titanium Dioxide that is used to make products white, as in paint, toothpaste, and even Oreo cookie filling! You can be sure that Dupont has revised its security strategy, but what are other firms, especially those that have not yet been victimized, doing to forestall becoming victims themselves?

Infected USB drives, for example, sprinkled in corporate parking lots and commuter trains floors is a common attack methodology used by adversaries to gain access to computer networks with miniscule effort, since the workers themselves are culpable of spotting them, picking them up, and inserting them into their computers when they arrive at work. How many of us have ‘gotten the memo’ about this simple attack technique? If nothing else, security awareness training for all computer users both inside and outside the firm is absolutely necessary and can help stop nefarious activities from succeeding.

Computer worms and scripted malware, on the other hand, don’t necessarily involve human interaction and often rely on that leveraging previously reconnoitered network servers that are misconfigured or run outdated operating systems, or even unstable software that is vulnerable to getting inside corporate networks. Locating IP addresses (the addressing scheme the Internet uses to relay information) of misconfigured devices is a trivial task, since one can simply search online search to learn how to perform ‘penetration testing’ , and since most laptop and tablet users don’t know how to configure their devices and user accounts properly before plugging into the Internet, it becomes even easier to hack into systems. Perhaps more worrisome is the trend of smartphones that connect to corporate servers; these devices have paltry security features and are increasingly being used as a gateway to internal networks by hackers. Phone hacking, as famous Hollywood types have become aware, is commonplace. [hint: turn off Bluetooth unless you are using it!]

The path to train the kind of IT worker that is urgently needed today is not found in traditional academic degree programs, but instead is found in the professional credentialing agencies that specialize in identifying and developing solutions against the kinds of attacks we are witnessing daily. Of course, the traditional academic programs of study are necessary to provide deeper insight into the IT function, but the quicker path to securing America’s national economic interests is through professional information security training and credentialing associations.

Although there are literally hundreds of information security certification programs available, several in particular provide the kind of critical training that can transform interested students into ‘cyber warriors’ to stave off most of the attacks coming out of Asia. A good idea is to spend some time reviewing which certifications are in high demand (easily obtained through trade magazines) and determining which for-profit agencies offer the biggest return on training dollar. The overall objective here, of course, is to bring about a highly skilled IT workforce that possessed, for example, a thorough understanding of proper incident handling techniques so when breaches do occur, they can quickly be identified, contained, and eradicated, not to mention the payoff that firms acquire when reviewing recent unsuccessful hacking attempts and adjusting the firm’s overall security strategy. 

Furthermore, insight into common attack methods, malware analysis capabilities, network defense-in-depth techniques, and sound information security governance and policy frameworks that can boost the defensive postures of all firms and is also a necessary component of responding to the threats from network-based attacks. We simply cannot wait for a reversal in declining enrollment trends in the computing sciences to turn the tide against IT-leveraged international corporate espionage and should be doing everything we possibly can to keep our secrets protected.

While no one doubts that corporate information security policy starts at the top, the NIEs report makes it abundantly clear that current information security policies are proving ineffective. Too much trust is placed on lower-level technicians to ward off attacks on the firm. To stay ahead of so-called ‘script kiddies’ trying to hack into a company’s network is one thing, to keep away nation states hell bent on gaining access is another. This fact, coupled with the relatively miniscule amount of proven cyber warriors available today ultimately limits the ability of most firms to simply keep up with the ever-morphing catalog of millions of computer worms and viruses that grow by the thousands each day, hence the call for more certified IT security practitioners.

To protect against the potential devastation that the nefarious activities by hackers everywhere pose to all of us, it is vital stay in lockstep with the protocols being used by the most sophisticated malware purposefully designed to evade the most cleverly configured intrusion prevention & intrusion detection systems currently used throughout U.S. companies, but we are falling short. The ugly truth is that the bad guys, whoever they are, are outperforming our ability to defend our vital infrastructure and this is one race that our society cannot afford to lose.

The threats that loom over our digital infrastructure will undoubtedly multiply, causing risk to increase to untenable levels, the levels that are often associated with calamitous security breaches. So, at least for the foreseeable future, professional certifications will help to stem the tide of ever-mounting encroachment attempts, at least until academia eventually figures out a way to speed up its sometimes outmoded approach to teaching practical ways to stay abreast of a changing technological landscape.

Gabberty is a professor of information systems at Pace University in New York City and teaches graduate-level courses in systems analysis & design, telecommunications and information security. He is an alumnus of MIT and NYU’s Polytechnic Institute and has served as an expert witness in telecommunication and information security at the federal and state levels.

View Comments

View the original article here

Wealthy Professional Boxer Refuses To Fight In U.S. Because He’d Have To Pay Taxes

Manny Pacquiao, the Filipino boxing champion who regularly pulls in guaranteed purses north of $20 million a fight, is now refusing to hold his next bout in Las Vegas because the United States insists on taxing the income of people who make money inside its borders.

The fight, Pacquiao’s fifth against rival Juan Manuel Marquez, would guarantee him a $25 million purse if it’s fought in Las Vegas. But American taxes would eat a significant chunk of that, while fighting it in either Singapore or Macau wouldn’t tax his earnings, the fight’s promoter said. That’s a major concern for Pacquaio, who needs to hoard as much money as he can before his career ends, his manager told Yahoo:

“We were talking only this morning about where and when and against who he would fight next,” Koncz told Yahoo! Sports. “One thing we agreed on is that the taxes make Vegas a no-go. You’re a fighter up there risking your life in the ring, so you have to maximize what you are going to get out of it.

“I know, Manny knows, that he only has a certain number of fights left, maybe one, maybe three. We don’t know. So that means the priorities change a little bit at this point.”

Pacquiao isn’t the only professional athlete to complain about American taxes recently. Professional golfer Phil Mickelson, who made more than $40 million last year, threatened to move from California and even give up golf because of high tax rates in his home state. Anti-tax groups have trumpeted both Mickelson and Pacquiao as examples of high taxes hurting the U.S., even if the rich are still paying historically low tax rates amid budget cuts to programs that benefit people who don’t have the luxury of making millions of dollars to hit a golf ball or box for a living.

These athletes, of course, have the right to perform their craft wherever someone will pay them to do it. But it’s hard to feel sympathy for Pacquiao, who would still clear $15 million — an amount that would take the average American household 284 years to equal — if the fight were held in the United States.

View the original article here

Sen. Toomey: GOP should risk shutdown to force spending cuts in debt-limit fight

By Alicia M. Cohn - 01/02/13 09:20 AM ET

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) on Wednesday called for Republicans to be ready to shut down the government to gain spending cuts in exchange for raising the nation’s debt-limit.

"We Republicans need to be willing to tolerate a temporary, partial government shutdown," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Toomey’s comments come after the House and Senate passed a bill extending middle-class tax rates and avoiding January’s rate increases for most taxpayers.

But the measure which also delays the sequestration cuts until March faced strong opposition from House Republicans who said it failed to address spending cuts. Both sides are now gearing up for battles over the debt-limit, which Toomey said would provide the GOP the leverage needed to force significant deficit reduction.

The Treasury said Monday that the U.S. had reached its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit. Secretary Geithner said the department had begun instituting “extraordinary measures” to avoid default. 

Toomey said that markets would suffer less from the "temporary disruption" of a government shutdown than from Washington showing an unwillingness to tackle its deficit woes.

President Obama has already warned Republicans, though, that he will not tolerate another extended debate over the debt ceiling. The negotiations over increasing the debt ceiling in summer 2011 resulted in an extended standoff between Obama and Republicans, a threat of a government shutdown, and a credit downgrade for the country. Obama said he would not allow that to happen again.

“While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” he said on Tuesday night. 

“If Congress refuses to give the United States government the ability to pay these bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy would be catastrophic — far worse than the impact of a fiscal cliff,” Obama added.

Toomey disagreed with Obama's argument that the debt ceiling is about paying past debts.

"It's to enable him to engage in the future spending that he wants," he said.

Toomey, who voted for the tax legislation passed New Year’s Day by the House and Senate, also responded to criticism from those on the right who saw the vote as a capitulation by GOP lawmakers to the president. 

The measure indefinitely extends the expiring Bush-era tax rates on annual family income up to $450,000, and for individuals up to a $400,000 cut off. It also lifts the top capital gains and dividends rates to 20 percent, extends unemployment benefits for a year, and delays for two months the automatic spending cuts triggered by the sequestering process. 

Democrats widely supported the legislation after a personal appeal by Biden but many Republicans continued to resist raising tax rates on any Americans, and also expressed dismay that the deal does not contain spending cuts.

It passed with only 85 Republican votes in the House, but all except five Republican Senators voted for it.

Conservative RedState blogger Erick Erickson on Tuesday called out Toomey by name, along with his GOP colleagues Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), writing they should be "ashamed" of their votes for the bill, which was negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Erickson added that any member of Congress who believes they have better leverage over Obama in the upcoming debt-ceiling debate "is fooling themselves to avoid having to realize what a fool they are."

Toomey said Republicans' backs were "up again the wall" on the bill, which sought to undo the tax rate hikes which went into effect on Jan. 1. 

"We spared as many Americans as we possibly could from a tax increase," he argued on MSNBC, calling it a "very unusual situation" where Congress was scrambling to halt laws already on the books.

View Comments

View the original article here

President Obama to Barnard College: "Fight for a Seat at the Head of the Table"

President Obama to Barnard College: "Fight for a Seat at the Head of the Table" | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts State of the Union

Watch the Enhanced Video

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff 2009 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War The Way Forward in Afghanistan Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Supporting Business Blueprint for an America Built to Last Education Energy & Environment Ethics Fiscal Responsibility Excess Federal Properties Interactive Map Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Rural Rural Tour 2011 Seniors & Social Security Service Taxes The Buffett Rule Tax Receipt Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Women We Can't Wait

See executive actions President Obama has taken

Your Federal Tax Receipt

See how your federal tax dollars are spent

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Jack Lew Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House

Take an interactive tour

Inside the White House History Décor and Art Interactive Tour Video Series Google Art Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2012 Easter Egg Roll 2011 Easter Egg Roll Holidays 2011 Kitchen Garden Tours Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('.topnav-feature','#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • The White House Blog   #subhead-wrapper{background: url("/sites/default/themes/whitehouse/img/blog_breadcrum.jpg") top left no-repeat !important;height: 16px;}.blog-header{ background: url("/sites/default/themes/whitehouse/img/blog_header.jpg") no-repeat scroll left top transparent; height: 84px; width: 976px; position: relative;}.blog-header-text{ color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 3em; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 20px 0px 0px 20px; text-shadow: 2px 2px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3);}.blog-header-text a{ color: #fff; text-decoration: none;}.blog-header-text a:hover{ text-shadow: 3px 3px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.3); text-decoration: none;}#breadcrumb{ color: #fff; height: 16px}#breadcrumb a{ color: #fff !important;}.header-subscribe{ position: absolute; right: 21px; top: 54px;}The White House BlogSubscribe Our Top Stories President Obama Calls for a Simpler Refinancing Process President Obama's To-Do List for Congress: Reward American Jobs, Not Outsourcing President Obama on Ending the War in Afghanistan President Obama Asks Students to Tell Congress: #DontDoubleMyRate President Obama to Barnard College: "Fight for a Seat at the Head of the Table"
Matt ComptonMay 14, 2012
05:37 PM EDT Share This Post

President Barack Obama sits with Barnard College President Debora Spar, left, and Chairwoman Jolyne Caruso-Fitzgerald before he delivers a commencement address for Barnard College graduates at Columbia University in New York, May 14, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

This afternoon, President Obama offered some advice to the 2012 graduates of Barnard College in New York:

After decades of slow, steady, extraordinary progress, you are now poised to make this the century where women shape not only their own destiny but the destiny of this nation and of this world.

But how far your leadership takes this country, how far it takes this world -- well, that will be up to you. You’ve got to want it. It will not be handed to you. And as someone who wants that future -- that better future -- for you, and for Malia and Sasha, as somebody who’s had the good fortune of being the husband and the father and the son of some strong, remarkable women, allow me to offer just a few pieces of advice. That's obligatory. Bear with me.

My first piece of advice is this:  Don’t just get involved.  Fight for your seat at the table.  Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table.

Barnard is one of the famous "Seven Sisters" -- private female liberal arts colleges founded to offer first class education to women before many elite institutions allowed their admittance. It counts Maya Soetoro-Ng, President Obama's sister, among its alumni.

This was President Obama's first commencement address of 2012. You can read his full remarks here.

Related Topics: Women PREVIOUS POST
First Lady Michelle Obama Tells North Carolina A&T University Class of 2012 "We Need You"NEXT POST
The President and Vice President's 2011 Financial Disclosure Forms #content #featured-content-block .title { font-size: 17px !important; font-weight: normal; text-indent:0;}.blog-featured-content-queue { float: left; margin-top:15px; margin-right:49px; width: 197px;}#featured-content-block .last {margin-right: 0;}#blog #content .blog-featured-content-queue-title {font-size: 12px;line-height: 14.4px;}#featured-content-block {margin-bottom:55px;margin-top:20px;}Featured ContentWe Can't WaitJob Resources for Returning HeroesEnd of the Iraq War Women WHITEHOUSE.GOV IN YOUR INBOXSign up for email updates from the Council on Women and Girls PHOTOS OF THE DAY VIEW PHOTO GALLERIES JUMP TO: Other White House Blogs The White House Blog Middle Class Task Force Council of Economic Advisers Council on Environmental Quality Council on Women and Girls Office of Management and Budget Office of Public Engagement Office of Science & Tech Policy Office of Urban Affairs Open Government Faith and Neighborhood Partnerships US Trade Representative Office National Drug Control Policy   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Fiscal Responsibility Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Rural Seniors & Social Security Service Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Subscribe to RSS Feeds Apply for a Job

View the original article here

It’s Deja Vu All Over Again With Debt Ceiling Fight

“ Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball. The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing.”

There is much hullabaloo in the media about John Boehner’s shot across the bow in the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling this fall.  Specifically, Boehner warned that he “will again insist” on the” simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase.”

The question is what Boehner means by insisting “again” on spending cuts greater than the debt ceiling increase.  Does he view the failed Budget Control Act (BCA), super committee, and sequester of defense spending as a success?  He has yet to denounce last year’s failure, so why should we look forward to a repeat performance?

The first step in remedying our debt ceiling strategy is to acknowledge the failures of the past.  When Republicans caved on raising the debt limit last year, we referred to the final Boehner proposal as a ground ball into a double play.  Not only did Boehner fail to secure any transformational downsizing of government in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he actually stymied our leverage in future budget battles.  As we’ve noted, Mitch McConnell and House appropriators have already signaled that they will never cut one cent below the discretionary budget caps established in the BCA.  Hence, the BCA served only to lock in the record spending levels of the Obama-era.  The only real cuts that originated from that deal were the sequester cuts to the military that Boehner agrees we should now vitiate.  So how would he do things differently this time?

In retrospect, it would have been better to pass a clean increase of the debt ceiling and live another day to fight in future spending battles than to pass the BCA.  The BCA ruined our leverage for the next ten years as Democrats and Republicans alike refuse to spend below those statist levels.  Moreover, it has engendered a gratuitous schism in the conservative coalition by pitting spending hawks against defense hawks and forcing Republicans to go through the embarrassment of undoing their own scheme.  Finally, the deal failed to achieve the primary objectives of averting a credit downgrade and slowing the national debt.  The debt has increased another $1.3 trillion in the 9 ½ months since the debt ceiling was raised.  That’s about $5 billion per day.  After the hyped dollar-for-dollar cuts, there is not a single major program or agency that has been eliminated.

The irony is that the debt has increased so rapidly following last summer’s deal that we are already talking about the next debt ceiling battle.  Do we really want a repeat performance?

Going forward, there are only two options: A) Republicans can telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never raise the debt ceiling without prior passage of something similar to Cut, Cap, and Balance – and that they would be willing to go to the brink.  B) They admit that they are too scared to take this to the brink, and as such, agree to let Obama raise the debt ceiling.  There is no option C, which would repeat the mistakes of last year.  In other words, it is insane to tell the Democrats that you would never let the deadline pass, yet demand concession for the debt ceiling increase.  Once the Democrats know that the debt ceiling will invariably be raised, they have no incentive to play ball.  The end result will be another raw deal that is worse than doing nothing.  This has occurred time and again throughout every budget battle and it’s time we end this insanity.  We don’t need to hear the tough talk and bravado if there is no intent to carry through with it.

Boehner noted at his speech before the Peter G. Peterson Foundation Fiscal Summit that “we shouldn’t dread the debt limit. We should welcome it.”  He punctuated that belief by calling the debt ceiling “an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction.”

Undoubtedly, the debt ceiling will provide us with yet another opportunity to expose the Democrats as the statist European-socialists who are apathetic to our debt crisis.  However, there are all sorts of actions; some are good and some are bad.  Grounding into a double play is worse than striking out.  Sadly, based on our painful experience from last year, inaction might be superior to the action that will evolve from the ranks of the consultant class of the Republican Party.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

View the original article here