My old boss, Sen. Tom Coburn (R‑OK), has a report out this morning that identifies 100 “questionable” projects funded by the federal “stimulus” package. I’m not going to mention particular examples here. I’ll simply say that I hope the theme that readers of the Coburn report come away with is that the federal government should not fund state and local activities. The numerous examples in the Coburn report provide concrete evidence of this truth, and I wish the report would have spent more time in the introduction fleshing it out. Fortunately, my colleague Chris Edwards wrote an excellent policy analysis on the problems with federal subsidies to state and local government. Thus, I would encourage those interested to read the Coburn and Edwards reports together.

If you’re Barack Obama, money is no object. The national debt exceeds $11 trillion. We’ve had about $13 trillion worth of bail-outs over the last year. The deficit this year will run nearly $2 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office warns of a cumulative deficit of some $10 trillion over the next decade.

Now Obama-style health care “reform” will add another $1 trillion in increased spending over the same period. And the ultimate cost likely would be higher, perhaps much higher. Reports the Congressional Budget Office:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010–2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

These new figures do not represent a formal or complete cost estimate for the draft legislation, for several reasons. The estimates provided do not address the entire bill—only the major provisions related to health insurance coverage. Some details have not been estimated yet, and the draft legislation has not been fully reviewed. Also, because expanded eligibility for the Medicaid program may be added at a later date, those figures are not likely to represent the impact that more comprehensive proposals—which might include a significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level—would have both on the federal budget and on the extent of insurance coverage.

Then there is the more than $100 trillion in unfunded Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Just who is going to pay all these bills?

Don’t worry, be happy.

The Obama Administration is proposing higher taxes on just about everyone and everything, but one common theme is that most of the tax increases are being portrayed as ways of fleecing the so-called rich. This new video, narrated by yours truly, provides five reasons why the economy will suffer if entrepreneurs and investors are hit with punitive taxes.

As always, any feedback on message and style would be appreciated.

As I note in my New York Post op-ed today, Republicans are fond of implying that President Obama is a big-spending socialist. But the House GOP recently offered a spending cut plan that was able to find savings worth less than one percent of Obama’s budget.

As Tad DeHaven and Brian Riedl have also pointed out, the GOP spending reform effort is rather pathetic. It proposed specific annual budget cuts of about $14 billion per year.

Consider that the center-left budget wonks at the Brookings Institution put their heads together a few years ago and came up with a “smaller government plan” that proposed about $342 billion in annual spending cuts (by 2014). The Brookings authors note: 

These cuts are achieved by reducing government subsidies to commercial activities ($138 billion); by returning responsibility for education, housing, training, environmental, and law enforcement programs to the states ($123 billion) … by cutting entitlements such as Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare ($74 billion); and by eliminating some wasteful spending in these entitlement programs ($7 billion).

Thus, the Brooking’s scholars found cuts more than twenty times larger than the House GOP leadership cuts, and Brookings proposed its plan back when the deficit was about one-fifth of the size it is today. (Note that both the Brookings and GOP plans would also put a cap on overall nondefense discretionary spending, in addition to these specific cuts).

My point in the New York Post piece is that the GOP needs to challenge Obama’s big spending agenda at a more fundamental level. They need to do some careful research, pick out some big spending targets, and go on the offense. Why not propose to eliminate the Departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development? Why not sell off federal assets, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, in order to help pay down the federal debt? Why not open up the U.S. Postal Service to competition?

Obama won’t agree to these reforms at this point, but they would hopefully open a serious national debate about reforming our massive and sprawling federal government. Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the congressional Republicans in 1994 didn’t win by splitting hairs with the Democrats over 1% of spending. They offered a more fundamental critique.

At least, GOP leaders need to offer up spending reforms as bold as those of the Brookings Institution.

The Baltic nation of Latvia is in the middle of a serious economic downturn resulting largely from a credit bubble and excessive government spending. This created an opening for those who have long wanted to undo the nation’s flat tax and impose a discriminatory system. Indeed, the economic Luddites at the Tax Research Network were already celebrating the expected demise of the single-rate tax. Unfortunately for them (but fortunately for Latvians), the government made a stunning announcement that the flat tax will be retained according to Reuters:

Latvia’s government is to reduce old age pensions and state sector salaries but not raise taxes, it said on Thursday as it tries to win more loans and avert crisis and possible currency devaluation. The five-party coalition government agreed with social partners such as unions and employers on ways to find savings of 500 million lats ($1.01 billion) to win further loans from the International Monetary Fund and European Union, which are seen as the only way to survive a deep economic slump. “It was a difficult decision and it will not be popular but it had to be done,” Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis told reporters after a marathon and sometimes chaotic government session of almost 12 hours. “Our decision is sending a signal to the EU that we are serious,” he added. Against expectations, the government decided against introducing a progressive income tax for the first time to replace the current flat tax of 23 percent. The moves will include a cut in old age pensions of 10 percent, a whopping 70 percent cut in the pensions of those who still work, and a 20 percent cut in state sector salaries.

To be sure, this may not be the last word on this issue. Latvian politicians eventually may decide to undo the flat tax. Or perhaps Iceland’s new left-wing government may be the first nation to backslide to a so-called progressive tax system. Regular readers of the blog may recall that we have a theme song that we include every time there is an announcement of a new flat tax nation. In preparation for bad news, we have selected a theme song for when a nation decides to go in the wrong direction.

Europe just held elections for the European parliament. The British National Party — an essentially fascist, all-white grouping — won two seats. And access to potentially a lot of money.

It isn’t literally public campaign financing, but once elected, parties in the European parliament often can get their hands on a lot of public funding. Reports the Independent:

Both men will be entitled to about £310,000 in annual funding, including an £80,443 salary, a staff budget of up to £182,000 and £40,000 for office expenses. But the British National Party (BNP) could also unlock a share of the £22.8m allowance that is given to parliamentary groups if it can find at least 25 fellow MEPs from seven member states willing to form a bloc within the European Parliament.

Being part of a group is crucial in terms of power as it entitles members to EU funding, a party office, administrative staff and, crucially, the right to vote in committees which are the nerve centre of the Parliament.

A parliamentary group is also entitled to up to £5m of extra funding over the next five-year term.

A number of far-right groups have secured seats in the European Parliament, many of whom hold outwardly racist or neo-fascist policies. Prior to the European elections, high-ranking members of the BNP had attended rallies held by neo-Nazis in both Italy and Hungary.

It’s bad enough for Europeans to have to tolerate such folks in the European Parliament. But subsidizing their activities seems ridiculous. So it is with the public funding of elections and government restrictions on private fundraising and advertising in elections in the U.S. The thought of jackboots at the trough, as some in Britain put it, is as good an argument as I can imagine against the public financing of elections here.

As Dan Mitchell noted below, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has launched a “Campaign for Free Enterprise” to stop the “rapidly growing influence of government over private-sector activity.” Chamber president Thomas Donohue told the Wall Street Journal that an “avalanche of new rules, restrictions, mandates and taxes” could “seriously undermine the wealth- and job-creating capacity of the nation.”

Indeed. Given the scope and extent of the Obama administration’s assaults on private enterprise — national health insurance, energy central planning, pay czars, abrogation of contracts, skyrocketing spending, and so on — free enterprise can use all the help it can get. I welcome the Chamber to the fight.

But it would be nice if the Chamber had joined the fight for economic freedom a bit earlier, say back in February when many of us were trying to stop the administration’s massive “stimulus” spending bill. That bill’s official cost is $787 billion; with interest, it would be about $1.3 trillion; and if you assume that its temporary spending increases will be extended, it will cost taxpayers about $3.27 trillion over 10 years.

Back then, Donohue had a few criticisms of the bill, but

The bottom line is that at the end of the day, we’re going to support the legislation. Why? Because with the markets functioning so poorly, the government is the only game in town capable of jump-starting the economy.

Or they might even have started defending free enterprise last fall, instead of going all-out to push the TARP bailout through Congress.

Converts to the cause of limited government are always welcome. But we might not need a $100 million Campaign for Free Enterprise if American business had opposed big government when the votes were going down in Congress. Still, better late than never.