Finding Savings. The Davis-Bacon Act.

You have probably heard the outrageous numbers before. The $600 hammer. The $400 toilet seat. Does the Federal Government really pay this much for everyday items? It is quite possible. Although, it's difficult to substantiate claims on items such as the mythical hammer, it is quite clear that the Government pays significantly more than private market rates for wages and services across numerous industries. In particular, the Fed's pay upwards of 22 percent above private market rates for construction wages. The Davis-Bacon Act dictates these rates. The Act protects unions from competition on government projects. It will also add a staggering $10.9 Billion to the deficit in 2011. Congress should work to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. Given the current state of unprecedented deficits and skyrocketing spending, Congress should not unnecessarily inflate construction costs at the expense of taxpayers. The government should efficiently and responsibly manage funds. Special Interest handouts are bringing this country down. Deep cuts must be enacted immediately. The continuation of nonessential programs and initiatives will only hasten the rate of economic disaster. Even if Congress is not willing to reduce overall spending, the dollars could go much farther if DBA were to be suspended. Maintaining spending without DBA would result in construction dollars going 9.9 percent further. This would equate to more buildings, more bridges, more roads, and more jobs. The American people cannot and should not be the puppets of special interest agendas. Davis-Bacon remains on the books due in large part to successful Washington lobbying. Repealing Davis-Bacon would be a needed step in the right direction and a positive strike at the notion of hundred-dollar federal hammers.

Corn Ethanol Mandates. The Worst Piece of Legislation Ever?

A clean energy America at the expense of a not so clean economy. Exhibit A: Corn Ethanol. The idea was simple and highly marketable. Find and promote a product that is clean, cheap, and renewable. And perhaps most importantly, ensure that this product lessens domestic dependency on foreign oil. Corn Ethanol was touted as the future - the flagship of an environmentally conscious energy movement. Capitol Hill got on board and soon mandates and sweeping legislation were enacted. The Federal Government would subsidize Ethanol and mandate its consumption. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 would, in part, require additives of Corn Ethanol to be mixed into general gasoline supplies. In 2009 the required figures were around 11 billion gallons with plans to boost levels to 36 billion by 2022. It all sounded like a great idea with only the best of intentions. But of course, these mandates would never have been needed if these eco-savvy alternatives were able to compete independently. What have been some of the negative consequences? Increased gas prices. Soil erosion. Widespread deforestation. Increased water requirements. Pollution from fertilizer and pesticides. Increased corn costs. Increased consumer food costs. And throughout the entire production process, Ethanol emits greater green house gases than does the production of regular gasoline. Making a single gallon of Corn Ethanol requires 1.29 gallons of gasoline. And the price tag for all of this? A whopping $7 Billion per year. And the pain may only worsen as mandated levels are cranked up in the years ahead. Ethanol as the magic cure? Not so fast. The only thing magical seems to be the miraculous disappearance of tax dollars. Corn Ethanol subsidies represent an egregiously expensive measure that has resulted in little more than a phony economic boost and the mirage of environmental sustainability. This costly flop serves as a beaming reminder of the ever present dangers of unintended consequences.

The Real Effect of Obamacare on American Physicians.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act coupled with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, will undoubtedly have profound, far reaching effects on America's medical workforce. Specially, Physicians are going to be impacted tremendously. This impact, however, is not good. Doctors will be subjected to increased government regulation and oversight. In addition, physicians will be force-fed an increasingly unreliable, anemic reimbursement system. Third-party payment mechanisms have wreaked havoc on the overall integrity and reliance of the medical profession. Obamacare is poised to highlight and bolster the worst of these facets. The new law will push to expand Medicaid coverage by 18 million individuals. Medicare and Medicaid already fail to supply rates equitable or close to private rates. On average, physicians working with Medicare are paid 81% of private payment value and those working with Medicaid are paid just 56%. This massive gap has resulted in difficulties in health care access. It has fueled hospital emergency room crowding and devastated low-income patients. Recent surveys suggest that as many as 70% of doctors would seriously consider dropping out of government health programs. Obamacare does nothing to effectively alter the system of government payment. Instead it expands already stretched entitlement programs and increases regulatory measures. More bureaucracy and red tape is simply not the answer. The long-term effects of Obamacare could be stiff and irreversible. Physicians will begin to completely opt out of Medicare and Medicaid. The prognosis for the profession's overall health and sustainability could be just as bleak. Medical students will stray away from primary care and desperately needed specialties - some may opt out of the medical profession all together. America is already facing a shortage of physicians. Obamacare may very well push those figures to the breaking point.

A Grim Outlook. Spending and The National Debt.

The country is buzzing over President Obama's recent budget proposals. In an address outside of a Baltimore County Middle School, Obama noted that “even as we cut out things that we can afford to do without, we have a responsibility to invest in those areas that will have the biggest impact in our future. And that’s especially true when it comes to education.” This certainly doesn't sound like the language of cuts amidst a heated political environment with towering deficits and exploding spending. In fact, Obama proposed an increase in spending for the Department of Education. Since President Obama took office, discretionary spending has skyrocketed by 16 percent and the national debt has ballooned by 43 percent. Yet over that same period nearly 3.5 million jobs have been lost. Certainly President Obama cannot be blamed for the recession he walked into. However, at this point he can and should be blamed for his dismal response. It seems we have taken a serious problem and compounded it ten fold. The American People spoke loud and clear with an overt repudiation of current policies in the 2010 mid-term elections. The message is simple. Reign in Washington runaway spending and manage the debt crisis. Is the current Administration offering anything in terms of serious cuts? Well, that depends on whom you ask. The White House claims its FY 2012 Budget will cut discretionary spending by 5%. In actuality, all they have really done is shift certain measures from discretionary spending to mandatory spending. When the curtain falls down on this budgetary gimmick, the proposal looks more like a spending increase than a cut. Entitlements are not even addressed. No one on Capital Hill seems prepared to deal with Entitlements. This type of bipartisan cowardly behavior, fueled by special interest and reelection worries, is sending the country on a fast track to economic disaster. The shocking truth is in the numbers. By the end of the next fiscal year, White House projections have our national debt topping the $15 Trillion mark, reaching 102.6% of our Gross Domestic Product. What's even scarier is that our tax revenues, which have hovered at a recent average of about 18% of GDP, will be met by Entitlements in early 2050. In other words, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will consume ALL of American tax revenues by 2052 or sooner.

The Shining Light. Unintended Consequences.

Politicians often draft policies with bold goals and grandiose promises. They constantly purport messages highlighting the universal good a particular measure will bring while exhaustively undermining or ignoring many of the negative consequences. Innovation is paramount to economic growth. With innovation comes new ideas and products in favor of yesterday's mainstream item. The next big thing is always around the corner. Economists refer to a theory called 'Creative Destruction' when analyzing innovation and its bearing on long-term economic growth. Essentially, the theory states that the short-term and long-term positive effects of a new product replacing an old product far outweigh the negative short-term ramifications. Principally, these consequences tend to reflect the likes of job figures and other business related interests. But the ramifications can also extend to environmental issues and health-related concerns, to name a few. The idea of new replacing old is immediately visible in the world of consumer electronics. Over the past few decades, Americans have seen an explosion of new products. The dominance of VHS wiped out by the release of the DVD format. And more recently with BluRay poised to oust DVD. We have seen traditional tube Television sets overrun by modern Plasma and LCD screens. And certainly generations of music lovers witnessed the transition of music storage from vinyl to tape, then to compact disc, and now on to the digital age. These transitions are good. They are good for economic growth when they are organic and natural. When creative processes and consumer freedom foster new products, everyone usually wins on some level. However, when the Government imposes change upon industries and buyers, it does far more bad than good. So what does this all have to do with the light bulb? Beginning in 2012 the Federal Government plans to completely phase out Incandescent Bulbs in favor of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs or CFL's. A somewhat distorted view of basic economic principle coupled with concerns over global warming and public sustainability are being used to drive this new regulation. On the surface, it seems pretty simple. Spend a little more upfront in order to enjoy long-term energy savings. The EPA claims this will create jobs, save consumer's money, provide security, and lessen green house emissions. But what are the unintended consequences? Politicians have overlooked the high levels of mercury vapor found in CFL bulbs and the associated hazard of mercury poisoning. CFL bulbs do not work well in the cold and do not operate well with household dimmers. As for jobs, General Electric has already shut down several major Incandescent factories with hundreds of jobs lost. The new jobs will likely arise overseas in China, the largest manufacturer of CFL bulbs. It seems Washington is poised to ban a perfectly good product on the notion that they know better than the American consumer. If consumers really wanted CFL bulbs over cheaper Incandescent bulbs they would purchase them irregardless of Federal bans. We are on the verge of unnecessarily killing American jobs through market manipulation and special interest agendas. We must preserve consumer freedom and support natural innovation.

Transparent or an Enigma? Understanding National Public Radio.

What is National Public Radio? And what is all the fuss about lately? NPR is a massive media conglomerate that operates on both public and private funding. Recently the GOP proposed sweeping budget cuts aimed to chip away at runaway Federal spending. On the chopping block is none other than NPR. The organization is slated to receive zero funding under outlined proposals for the remainder of FY 2011. The Head of National Public Radio has cried foul - citing the possibility that significant portions of its member services could be hindered or eliminated without public assistance. NPR representatives note that between 1-3% of their funding comes from taxpayer dollars. However, understanding NPR funding is not quite that simple. In fact, it is fairly convoluted. NPR goes out of its way to diminish the role of taxpayer assistance despite the recent outcries over budget cuts. We certainly don't see people eagerly volunteering to give up that 3%. That being said these aren't exactly bold numbers one might oppose so vehemently. So how accurate are they? According to the NPR website, the organization receives allocations from the following sources: 32.1% - Individual  Contributions, 21.1% - Business Contributions, 13.6% - University Funding, 10.1% - Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 9.6% - Foundation Money, 5.6% - Government Funds, 7.6% - Other. An initial glance seems to confirm NPR's stance that a relatively small amount of funding comes from direct taxpayer dollars. A deeper analysis tells a different tale. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is almost entirely supported by taxpayer dollars. We can assume a reasonable percentage of University funding comes from Public Institutions. Personal and business donations are tax-deductible and thus subsidized. Even a modest search suggests that funding for NPR comes from taxpayer dollars, either directly or indirectly, to the tune of closer to 20% or more - a far cry from the 1-3% figures. The bottom line is this: people can complain all day long about politically-biased organizations such as Fox News, The New York Times, or the Washington Post. But those entities generate private funding. The same does not apply to NPR. These are public dollars. Since the early 1980's steps have been taken to wean NPR off government support. The organization does not represent the general public and often serves politically motivated agendas. NPR must generate private funding to deliver its message. Period.

Big Spending. Poor Results. The Education Crisis Continues.

Take a moment and imagine a large company. This company is well known and has existed for over a half-century. During this time span the company has watched as others surpass it in both innovation and productivity - while continually raising its overhead costs and expanding waste. It's hard to fathom a company like this surviving in the real world. Yet, imagine if this same company came back year after year asking for additional funding from investors only to maintain operations under the same, tired business model. Sound crazy? This is the business of educating America's children. The United States has invested more than two trillion dollars in education over the past fifty years with sub-standard returns, at best. The Obama Administration plans to continue this tact and compound past failures with increased spending in the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. The Department of Education will dodge cuts in the proposed plans and garner a staggering $77 Billion in funding. This allocation will support K-12 Education and Higher Learning. These figures will represent an increase over spending in the year 2000 by more than $25 Billion. In fact, the DOE budget will have increased by nearly 60% in the last decade alone. Beyond this, the DOE has received even more funding through allocations outlined in the Stimulus packages. These allocations total some $100 Billion. Taking these record numbers into account, education has quickly become the third largest discretionary entity behind only the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services. Despite these historic increases, graduation rates have stagnated, achievement gaps persist, and overall achievement has faltered. Drastic changes must be made. Policies must be enacted to streamline this cumbersome system. Hefty spending cuts are a necessity. Make no mistake about it. The task of educating America's youth is of paramount importance. However, it must be handled in a responsible, efficient manner. Funding of this magnitude is simply not sustainable under the ever ballooning national debt umbrella. For decades American families have watched taxpayer dollars travel to Washington only to be poorly filtered back through bureaucracy networks. States can better serve their communities and must take steps to opt out of wasteful Federal initiatives. It's time to put local leaders at the helm and get this boat headed in the right direction.