How Bad is the National Debt?

We have known for years that our debts and deficits have been out of hand, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is painting a picture that is almost sci-fi in its proportions. It is the kind of picture that we would assume would come from the Third World or, at least, from Greece or Spain in the EU.

The founders of this republic designed a uniquely American political model that promised fiscal integrity. Simply put, the federal government was limited to 17 specific powers, none of which would cause the kind of financial strain our country faces today. Meanwhile, all other powers were left to the states, but the inability of those governments to print money made them fiscally healthy and naturally small. Because of this, it took almost 200 years for the federal debt to reach $1 trillion. Many found that alarming at the time, but since then we have arrived to the point that we add a $1 trillion to the debt every year.

The CBO is now arguing that the US is facing a crushing debt and this nation is being forced into the position of having to dramatically cut social spending in order to stay afloat. Other findings include that:

• Federal spending will grow to 26 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) within the next ten years and reach highs of up to 35 percent by 2035.
• Take growing health care costs and add an aging population and you have a significant increase in federal spending and the national debt that will grow worse unless there are serious policy changes.
• The national debt is projected to grow as high as 87 percent of GDP in the next decade. To make matters worse, it will reach 109 percent by 2025 and could peak at 185 percent by 2035.
• The CBO politely calls the long-term outlook of the budget as "daunting," and argues that growing costs will limit the choices policy makers have and force draconian cuts in spending.

There are huge debates on all sides of the political spectrum on how spending has grown out of control The political left argues that "expansionary" military policies have led to a costly "military-industrial complex" that has put us in this dire situation. The political right argues that it is the outrageous growth in domestic spending (which is more than 3 to 1 to defense spending) that has caused our financial crisis. Bottom line, our financial crisis is linked to the simple fact that our government seems to no longer be bound by the rule of law. Without Constitutional restraint, there is no fiscal restraint. Until the former is addressed, we can expect our financial situation to only get worse.

Prosperity in Texas makes a Case for Federalism

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution makes it clear -- the federal government is limited to 17 specific powers and nothing more. To make sure the people understood such, the founders gave us the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The founders wanted a weak federal government and strong states for several reasons, among them:

• The delegates to the Constitution Convention were sent there to represent the interests of the states. There was no national government and it had no representation at that event. It was entirely about the interests of state governments.
• The states knew it was better to have problems solved in specific states, instead of making any issue a national problem. The concept is simple, "divide and conquer."
• Competition among the states were designed to maximize liberties. Regulations would be modest, as would taxes, in all the states in order to prevent the exodus of unhappy citizens.
• When problems are solved on a state level, other states get the next idea on how to tackle the issues they face.

Today, states could learn from Texas, which has led other states in job creation. The Texas office ofAmericans for Prosperity, notes the Workforce Commission found the state added "43,600 nonagricultural jobs in May. This marks the largest over-the-month increase in employment in the nation and is the largest monthly gain in more than three years."

"Individuals and businesses are flocking to Texas during these tough economic times," said AFPF State Director Peggy Venable. "The reason for this is clear - our business environment is competitive, taxes are low, and we have no income tax. All of the right elements are in place to ensure prosperity and opportunity in our state."

States are competing for businesses. Some states, like Michigan and Ohio, are not even contenders because their tax, labor, and regulatory environment are hostile to job creation. Those that are still "players," like Texas, recognize that taxes and regulations are simply a fixed cost of doing business. These things are very similar in the eyes of decision makers as the cost of office space, labor cost, and other factors. Just like companies have a choice on these factors, they also have a choice as to where they do business. They will look for the most cost effective pricing in order to be more competitive.

Since Texas has among the lowest costs for labor in the country, among the most friendly regulatory environments, and among the lowest in business taxes, Texas is very hot for business. The federal government, on the other hand, is providing a huge weight on all businesses to such an extent that other countries -- regardless of the virtues of Texas -- are looking more attractive daily. The current economy and the example of Texas makes a great case to restore the founders' idea of federalism.

The Truth about Taxes

Recently I have been chronicling the development of a specific and even systematic economic policy in the Obama Administration. It is a program that is based on the simple idea that a bad economy is a good thing, because of the long term "reforms" such can produce.

This policy was articulated early in the Obama administration as seen in an interview White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had with the Wall Street Journal, stating that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." Emanuel was noting that it is difficult to make major public policy changes when the economy is strong and healthy. In other words, if everything is well, why do you need “change?” When things are bad, however, you have some justification.

This view was further reiterated recently by Attorney General Eric Holder, who told graduates at Boston University that "Positive change is the consequence of unfavorable and not favorable circumstance. Progress is the product of darkness, not light. Whenever you look into our past, this is true... It was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the New Deal." In other words, the Great Depression led to 25 percent unemployment, but look at the amazing Leviathan called big government we received from it. In the end, "the Great Depression was a good thing." This is a hard concept for most Americans to buy.

The theme continued with one of the President’s key allies in the Senate, Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) who, upon passage of a very controversial and far reaching banking bill, is quoted by the Washington Post (with tears in his eyes) as saying that "It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here. No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done” (emphasis added). This bill could damage the lending abilities of banks, could take away the ability of the middle and lower income groups to even be able to get a checking account, and have even greater implications on individuals and businesses. With a crisis though, you can do things you cannot do under normal circumstances. In fact, you can even make sweeping policies, without knowing their implications, as seen in this far reaching banking legislation.

I have never been comfortable with conspiracy theories. After all, a conspiracy theory looks at the types of choices that are made and (particularly if the results are negative) the theorist makes conclusions on the intent of the policy. We are naturally uncomfortable with such, because no one wishes to judge the motives of others. The Obama Domestic Doctrine is neither a conspiracy nor a theory, but a stated policy intention reinforced by senior officials in the administration and its allies in other areas of government. The administration has made its view clear: economic hardships and the bad policies necessary to achieve such, are a "good thing" for the economy in the long term, because of the "positive" long term effects. Furthermore, policies that would actually relieve economic hardship may be "harmful," since such could undermine the need for government expansion. I wonder how many American had such in mind when they voted for this President and this Congress.

The Continued Development of the Obama Domestic Doctrine

Recently I have been chronicling the development of a specific and even systematic economic policy in the Obama Administration. It is a program that is based on the simple idea that a bad economy is a good thing, because of the long term "reforms" such can produce.

This policy was articulated early in the Obama administration as seen in an interview White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had with the Wall Street Journal, stating that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." Emanuel was noting that it is difficult to make major public policy changes when the economy is strong and healthy. In other words, if everything is well, why do you need “change?” When things are bad, however, you have some justification.

This view was further reiterated recently by Attorney General Eric Holder, who told graduates at Boston University that "Positive change is the consequence of unfavorable and not favorable circumstance. Progress is the product of darkness, not light. Whenever you look into our past, this is true... It was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the New Deal." In other words, the Great Depression led to 25 percent unemployment, but look at the amazing Leviathan called big government we received from it. In the end, "the Great Depression was a good thing." This is a hard concept for most Americans to buy.

The theme continued with one of the President’s key allies in the Senate, Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) who, upon passage of a very controversial and far reaching banking bill, is quoted by the Washington Post (with tears in his eyes) as saying that "It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here. No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done” (emphasis added). This bill could damage the lending abilities of banks, could take away the ability of the middle and lower income groups to even be able to get a checking account, and have even greater implications on individuals and businesses. With a crisis though, you can do things you cannot do under normal circumstances. In fact, you can even make sweeping policies, without knowing their implications, as seen in this far reaching banking legislation.

I have never been comfortable with conspiracy theories. After all, a conspiracy theory looks at the types of choices that are made and (particularly if the results are negative) the theorist makes conclusions on the intent of the policy. We are naturally uncomfortable with such, because no one wishes to judge the motives of others. The Obama Domestic Doctrine is neither a conspiracy nor a theory, but a stated policy intention reinforced by senior officials in the administration and its allies in other areas of government. The administration has made its view clear: economic hardships and the bad policies necessary to achieve such, are a "good thing" for the economy in the long term, because of the "positive" long term effects. Furthermore, policies that would actually relieve economic hardship may be "harmful," since such could undermine the need for government expansion. I wonder how many American had such in mind when they voted for this President and this Congress.

The "Macro" Could Learn from the "Micro"

The headlines that dominated the news from Congress this week could be summarized by one seen at Bloomberg.com: "Republicans Thwart Bill With Unemployment Aid." That dastardly GOP, always hurting America's poor! The fact the national debt is now growing at a rate of $1 trillion annually, has finally become an issue to Republican members. Bloomberg notes: "The latest version would have added $33 billion to the budget shortfall...Republicans said the cost-cutting didn't go far enough." The Obama administration initially sought $50 billion in aid.

But the cost was not the only concern. The truth is, Republicans are worried that, after months of financial assistance, those on these benefits may be getting too used to getting 'something for nothing" and are concerned about what affect such plans are having on job searches. It is not much different from the forty something sons in the movie "Step Brothers," you have to give these guys an incentive to take care of themselves. Sure, in the long term, subsidy of adults makes for a funny movie, but also for a disastrous domestic policy. Such policies foster long term dependence and poverty, when people are needing economic freedom and the prosperity that comes with it.

I have spoken before of my father-in-law from Minnesota, whom I consider a friend and really enjoy his company. We both love golf, classic rock, and my family, but when it comes to politics, we tend to have to keep our conversations short. One time when, he and I were both golfing we began discussing his future retirement, at that time he noted that he planned on moving to South Dakota. I knew he was from there originally, but I also knew he loved his adopted home. So I asked him why he was leaving and he said, "that's easy, South Dakota has a much better tax situation for retirees than virtually any state in the country." I cannot begin to state the many times he had told me how unpatriotic businesses were to leave the country because of tax and other laws.

Obviously I couldn't resist, "so here you are, the average American, who is smart enough to change where you live to protect your wife and you from higher taxes, but you don't expect businesses to do the same thing with often large numbers of employees and even greater tax implications?" It is very rare to get him to get quiet once we get started (and he would say the same about me), but he had that knowing look on his face that this conversation was now done.

The United States has the second highest corporate tax rates of any industrialized country in the world and could be number one in this dubious area as early as next year. Businesses are about efficiency, profit, and looking out for the interest of its stockholders. Taxes, like regulations and licensure laws, are just a fixed cost of doing business. If the costs get too high, businesses have no choice but to move to better places for commerce. It isn't personal, it is just business and now it is easier than ever to do such.

Most of the things that work or don't work on a micro level, translate the same on the macro level, because in both cases they include human nature and humans tend to respond to incentives (and disincentives) the same way. If the government could eliminate their fantasy and replace it with reality, all of our lives would be so much better. If you work more, you make more in business, but we want a tax system that equalizes the rewards of our activities? If companies do that, they go out of business. As we look at economies all over the world, so do countries. We need to elect public officials who will ask the question, "would the approach of this policy work in my home, my work, or any other part of my life?" If the answer is no, it will not work for the nation. That is economics in the real world and that is exactly what this country needs, a little dose of reality.

G20 Considers Europe's Economic Nightmare

It is that time of the year again where riots break out in the city that has the misfortune of being the host of the G-20 meeting. The unfortunate city this year is Huntsville, Ontario (Near Toronto, Canada). Most of the protests are in opposition to the blatant capitalism that the participating countries are "guilty of," according to organizers. What "capitalism" they are talking about these days, it is hard to say as these countries reconsider the austerity measures that are the only means many of these nations have to save themselves, according to Ann Mettler of the Lisbon Council.

It is obviously best to make reforms when economies are stronger and are more able to better sustain cuts to services in programs. Unfortunately, European countries cannot afford such a luxury, according to Mettler. For example, France has not enjoyed a balanced budget in almost 4 decades and this includes many years of economic growth, which could have made cutting spending less painful. Meanwhile, members of the European Union have been accumulating debts at a break neck pace and governments are saddling themselves with increased obligations, particularly for pensions, and without any plan for paying for them in the future. Furthermore, these governments have long taken a chapter out of America's book of pursuing social welfare at the expect of what is in the best interest of the economy as a whole. They simply pass the burden on to future generation and future elected officials.

The "writing has been on the wall" for these countries for quite some time. Standard & Poor's predicted back in 2006 that by 2050, the debt burdens in Italy and France would be well above 200 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and about twice as high in Portugal and Greece. It was also predicted four years ago that the aging European demographic would create serious problems for the "next decade." Well the next decade has arrived and there is no plan or strategy poised to address the problem.

So the people of Europe -- particularly the hard hit country of Greece -- are complaining about the severe "austerity measures" designed to get spending under control. For most of these countries, such is the only serious attempt to look at the financial numbers in decades and is well over due. Mettler argues that the Union has faced a three headed dragon for years: excessive pressure on public spending, an aging population, and a shrinking share in the world economy. These realities require these countries to make decisions that, just a few years ago, seemed unimaginable. Unfortunately, the US is right around the corner from having to make similar choices.

Obama's Controversial Domestic Doctrine

It seems every President is remembered for something. In recent decades, we recall Ronald Reagan ending the Cold War without a single shot and for making it possible for individuals to control more of their incomes (through tax cuts), and calling that (wisely) patriotic. With George H.W. Bush we saw a dramatic increase in regulations that benefited very large companies and the breaking of a "no new tax" pledge. There are few that wonder why he was only a one term president. Then there was Bill Clinton who, at first, attempted a massive take over by the federal government in health care and other industries, but was savvy enough to read the political "tea leaves" when the Republicans took over the Congress in 1994 to govern as a moderate. In fact, his biggest policy achievement may have been the ending of "welfare as we know it," which led to a dramatic decrease in the number of people below poverty level.

If you fast forward a little you find George W. Bush, who created a controversial foreign policy that became simply known as the "Bush Doctrine." The Bush Doctrine argued that the US could act unilaterally and without regard to other international organizations in protecting its interests from potential terrorists. This approach was used to pull the US out of some relationships (the ABM Treaty and Kyoto Protocol). Some have argued that the Doctrine was used as grounds for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Everyone on both the left and right debate its merits to this day. Bush was also known for setting the stage (with TARP) for a massive take over of the US economy.

So what will be Obama's policy legacy? I believe many will look back at what will be called as the "Obama Domestic Doctrine." Very early in the Obama administration, the President's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the Wall Street Journal that "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste, and what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you didn't think you could do before." What "things" was Emanuel talking about? Obviously the massive take over of the health care system is something they would argue because things "are not working" in that area today. More government bailouts would be a part of the Administration's solution to problems the country is facing. How about the restoration of the power of unions at the expense of the individual worker? The list goes on. As long as things are "bad," the case can be made for doing anything. It is when the economy is working well and prosperity is increasing that it becomes difficult to make the case for more government intervention.

This view by the Obama Administration is not isolated to Emanuel. Recently the Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a speech to Boston University in which he sang the praises of the difficult times we have had in history because of the policy changes that came as the result of them. He said that "Positive change is the consequence of unfavorable and not favorable circumstance. Progress is the product of darkness, not light. Whenever you look into our past, this is true... It was economic turmoil that brought us the progressive era and the New Deal." Interestingly, on the micro level, when something goes wrong in the lives of friends or family, we want to help out temporarily so those people can get on their feet (AKA independent) again. The Obama Administration sees policies that create permanent dependence on the state as good. Those type of policies, according to Emanuel and Holder, are the result of weak economies and not ones that are prosperous. Simply put, "strong economies mean strong individuals, and that is bad." "Weak economies mean weak individuals, and that is good." I did not state it, I'm only reporting it.

With such a view that the expansion of government into areas it never had a role in historically as "good," is it safe to assume the Administration will continue to pursue policies (moratoriums on drilling, increases of minimum wage, higher taxes on businesses, etc.) that will add to our historically high unemployment and economic instability? Obama's senior advisers seem to be making just such a case.

America's Road to Serfdom

It seems as though millions of Americans have woken up to the reality that the United States is on the fast track towards socialism. The individual is shrinking in importance as we give homage to the collective mob. This is not a new problem. Barack Obama has simply made the situation so bad that Americans have finally begun to wake up and take notice. It is too bad it has taken so long, we have needed awareness for generations.

It is interesting that many of the Founding Fathers found themselves testifying to legislative bodies about what they meant when they wrote the Constitution. Some members of Congress in the early 19th century, who heard James Madison's eloquent testimony that the federal government actually owed its existence to the states, argued that is not what the founders meant. Madison stated in Federalist Paper 45 that: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." It is clear what Madison meant.

However, Madison's own colleague and one of the co-authors of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, had a consolidated view of government that stood in contrast to Madison. These two views -- the dispersion of power and its collection, have become the two biggest themes and tensions in US history.

From the founding era until the mid 19th century, those who supported the dispersion of power to the states largely ruled the day. Certainly, there were movements away from the Founder's original intentions, but the states remained largely strong and the federal government was mostly very limited. The following are some of the major benchmarks that got the US to the point it is today:

• The Civil War. This was the first major paradigm shift from state power to its consolidation by the federal government. Before the war, it was believed that since the states created the federal government, they could succeed if they deemed it necessary. Our history books argue this war was about slavery, but the US is the only major country that required a civil war to end that institution. This war had far more to do with the consolidation of power than liberating slaves. Before the Civil War, Americans would say, in talking about their country, "The United Statesare..." Following the Civil War, they would say, "The United States is..." This reflected a significant change in US politics.
• The progressive policies of Woodrow Wilson. Wilson greatly weakened states' rights when US Senators were no longer chosen by state legislatures (through the Seventeenth Amendment) but through direct vote. This may have made the majority stronger, but it weakened the power of the states to protect individuals. Furthermore, Wilson brought us an income tax in the Sixteenth Amendment, which was explicitly opposed by our founders in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution because of the fact it would harm wealth creation and the government had no business knowing how incomes were earned. Finally, the federal government created the Federal Reserve, which started us down the road to political, rather than sound, money.
• The New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt created an entire shift in the role of government from protector to provider. His many "New Deal" programs changed the expression "general welfare" (which is beneficial to all) into specific welfare that harmed the economy and created entitlements. Many of his policies were reversed by the courts, many more changed the role of government forever.
• Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." Johnson's "War on Poverty" ended up becoming a war on the poor as the number of people below poverty level grew. Johnson chilled personal ambition with welfare programs that gave people every incentive to stay poor and, for the first time in US history, the percentage who were below poverty level found themselves growing every decade.

This leads us to where we are today. Barack Obama has utilized "Czars" as a way to have an unaccountable government when it comes to the Legislative branch. He is passing laws that are clearly unconstitutional and against the will of the voters (e.g., socialized medicine). He is developing a foreign policy that rewards our enemies and threatens our friends. He is waging a war on wealth creation that has lead to the highest unemployment in over 25 years and has developed a domestic doctrine that pursues a bigger crisis as a case for more government. Obama is not our first "mover" towards socialism, but he may be one of the most effective. We need to understand where we came from and how we got here, if we are ever going to get this republic on the road to liberty.

BP Disaster makes Contrarian case for more US Offshore Drilling

British Petroleum's (BP) environmental disaster off the Gulf Coast has dominated the news headlines for several weeks. Unfortunately, the media seems to have limited its focus on the oil spill and not on the ways it could have been prevented.

Since the disaster I have spoken to several energy industry leaders who have told me, on the basis of anonymity, that BP has a reputations of being slack in the way they drill oil and its safety standards do not compare to what US companies enjoy. In fact, a similar accident on the part of a company from the US would have led to an immediate shut off because of the technological and safety standards. I have been told that BP is "impatient" with US companies because in its view the latter "are" slow in their processes and are "obsessed" with safety.

The economic case for increased domestic drilling is simple and with our current economic crisis, it is more important than ever. It will quickly lower gas prices by increasing future supplies. What most opponents of domestic drilling fail to realize is that the mere threat of increased production can lower prices. A simple debate on the subject has had the power to lower the price per barrel by over $30. This is without a vote and without new exploration. This is merely due to rhetoric. Imagine the impact once we increased drilling.

The national security argument makes perfect sense too. In 1970 we imported 24 percent of our oil. Today it is nearly 70 percent, and that number continues to grow. If foreign countries decided to stop supplying us, we would be in a true crisis. Security, as well as prosperity, are wrapped up in our energy future. The shrinking US oil supply is not because of scarcity, but because of poor policies on the part of the US government.

The disaster off the coast provides the moral and environmental case for domestic drilling. Increased US drilling is the "green" thing to do. For years we have been told by environmentalists that this planet is little more than a "big blue marble." Simply put, environmental disasters on any part of the planet has an adverse impact on the entire planet. If that is the case, who better than the United States to increase drilling? Right now, Cuba and Venezuela are eying off shore drilling opportunities near the United States. Some of these are very close to where BP's disaster took place. Regardless of how backward BP is, it is generations ahead of Cuba in technology. Do we prefer their technology, safety standards, and labor over that of the US? Any time the United States can take the lead on drilling; people, animals, and pristine environments are better protected compared to the means of any other country.

International waters -- in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coast -- are very close to the shores of the United States. Do we want the pursuit of energy that can be found there to be done by the leader in technology and safety or by countries like Cuba, Venezuela, or even Great Britain? Drilling will happen, but by which countries? The BP disaster makes an eloquent case for the US to take the lead.

The Constitution vs. Health Care "Reform"

One of the few "funny" stories to come out of the sweeping health care legislation to go through Congress was that the majority who wanted reform -- but did not want it applied to them -- woke up finding themselves subject to those laws. They, too, will eventually find themselves burdened by the same burden of taxes, regulation, and rationed care that the rest of us will suffer. This was not the only thing they failed to notice, but also the fact that this bill is an easy target for attack in the courts.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) notes that several parts of the law should simply not survive a constitutional challenge. Nancy Pelosi was the subject of many jokes when she essentially said, "we will not know what is in the bill until we vote on it." Many now wish they had looked a little closer at the fine print.

The first and most obvious place for the courts to focus on according to the IBD piece is "the individual mandate that requires those who aren't previously covered by insurance to buy a plan." The federal government has never had the power to require individuals to purchase something from a private or publicly owned company. Politicians lack a fundamental understanding of this principle. Recently I moderated a forum that featured the Democrat's nominee for Governor of Texas, Bill White and I asked him about his view of the President's health care reform and, in particular, the appearantly unconstitutional mandate that indivudals would have to buy something from a company. He, quipped, "like auto insurance?" Auto insurance has been a requirement for decades, but always on a state level. Even then the anology is only true if someone wants to own and drive a car. The federal government's powers are different from the states as seen clearly in Article I of the Constitution. White is a graduate of Harvard and did his law degree at the University of Texas at Austin, he should know better, but like most in public policy today he is clueless when it comes to federalism. In spite of changes in the courts, I do not see this bill holding up.

Another area that is attracting attention on a constitutional level is the expansion of Medicaid, which forces states to increase spending on that program. Add the troubling facts that some states (such as Louisianna and Nebraska) received "sweetheart deals" that benefit their states at the expense of the rest of the nation.

The problem is, even if these provisions were struck down, the bulk of the law would remain intact, as will the burden that accompanies it. But that may not be the case, IBD notes, it quotes Greg Scandlen, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute. Scandlen notes that "due to a little-known legal concept the entire law would unravel if a single part was found to be outside the Constitution." He goes on to state that "Apparently there was no 'severability' clause written into this law, which shows how amateurish the process was," he wrote. "Virtually every bill I've ever read includes a provision that if any part of the law is ruled unconstitutional the rest of the law will remain intact. Not this one. That will likely mean that the entire law will be thrown out if a part of it is found to violate the Constitution."

Although the legal community seems to be dismissing much hope that this bill will be overturned, it is clear that this legislation is walking on thin ice. With almost 3,000 pages and huge mistakes like those covered above, this bill is begging to have major changes or to be disregarded entirely. The case for "reform of the reform" is stronger now than ever.