The Heritage Foundation’s David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D. and James Sherk explain TAA is an ineffective and wasteful program funded by gimmicks:
Every organization should respect the intrinsic dignity of every individual who seeks help from them, but Leahy’s language is vague and overly broad. Absent clear definitions of what conduct can and cannot be penalized, it will empower the federal government — specifically the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) — to discriminate against faith-based organizations that currently form the backbone of the nation’s social services.
At issue is the amendment’s prohibition on “discriminating” on the basis of “actual or perceived” gender identity or sexual orientation. These kinds of broad non-discrimination policies violate our nation’s commitment to reasonable pluralism and reasonable diversity. The Heritage Foundation’s Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D. explains:
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 2 would add $141 billion to the federal debt within the traditional ten-year budget window, while some estimates place the 20-year cost to taxpayers at roughly $500 billion. The Lee Amendment would not kill the bill or its underlying changes, it would simply guarantee Congress another bite at the apple to enact further entitlement reforms.
Medicare’s SGR is far from a budget gimmick. Past doc fixes have contained small, but important structural reforms to Medicare as well as reductions in other areas of federal spending. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), roughly 98% of the doc fix-related spending has been offset. As Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) 78%, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce’s Subcommittee on Health said in January: “[N]ot paying for SGR reform would ignore past precedent from Congress – whether it was controlled by Democrats or Republicans.”
Is the latest plan paid for? According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the plan would add $141 billion to the federal debt within the traditional ten-year budget window.
Don’t structural changes to Medicare more than offset SGR in the long run? While certain changes to Medicare have major long-term savings, H.R. 2 does not contain reforms of this magnitude. Instead, it appears that the gap between the costs of SGR repeal and the savings from the accompanying offsets only grows in the out years. A new estimate from CRFB found H.R. 2 would add $500 billion to our national debt over the next two decades based on a current law baseline, which doesn’t “assume away” the costs of the SGR repeal itself in the out years.
CBO confirmed “Enacting H.R. 2 would raise federal costs relative to current law during the decade after 2025.” Even under the misleading assumption that there is no cost associated with repealing SGR in the second decade, CBO cautioned “budgetary effects of the legislation could represent net savings or net costs in the second decade after enactment.”
Lynch’s testimony raises serious questions about her ability to represent the nation in legal matters, as well as give advice and opinions to the rest of the administration. Unsurprisingly, Lynch defended the President’s executive amnesty, saying the “legal opinion was reasonable” and it was a “reasonable way to marshal limited resources to deal with the problem.”
The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm argues the President’s executive amnesty moves well beyond his limited, constitutional authority: