Malkin describes health care reform, cap-and-trade as “debt-deepening”

From Malkin's February 10 column:

“What I won't consider is doing nothing in the face of a lot of hardship across the country,” Obama said this week. “Doing nothing”? How about leaving well enough alone, aborting the rest of the original stimulus, retreating from debt-deepening, tax-increasing, economy-stifling initiatives from the government health care takeover to cap-and-trade, and refusing to redistribute tax dollars toward private job destruction and government job inflation?

But CBO has said that health care reform, cap-and-trade bills would reduce deficits

CBO: Senate bill yields “a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion” over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO also estimated on December 20, 2009, that the bill would continue to reduce the deficit beyond the 10-year budget window that ends in 2019 “with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.”

CBO estimated the House bill will result in $138 billion in deficit reduction through 2019. On November 20, 2009, CBO reported of the House health care reform legislation, “CBO and JCT now estimate that the legislation would yield a net reduction in deficits of $138 billion over the 10-year period.” CBO also stated in its November 6, 2009, estimate that "[i]n the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."

CBO: House cap-and-trade bill would slightly reduce deficits. CBO stated on June 26, 2009, of the House American Clean Energy and Security Act as reported by the House Rules Committee, “CBO and JCT estimate that enacting the legislation would reduce future budget deficits by about $4 billion over the 2010-2014 period and by about $9 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”

Malkin advanced misleading claim that “card check” would strip “workers' rights” to NLRB secret-ballot election

From Malkin's February 10 column: [emphasis added]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that the Senate “jobs” plan -- reportedly with an $85 billion price tag -- was a “really nice piece of legislation.” But you'll have to take his word for it. Despite anticipated votes on the bill before Presidents Day weekend, no one outside the Democratic leadership and K Street had seen an actual bill as of Tuesday afternoon. Few will read the whole thing before casting their hasty votes.

And once again, we'll only be informed of the last-minute sweeteners, Cash for Cloture handouts and backroom deals after the ink of the president's signature is dry.

According to various reports:

* Public-sector unions are pushing hard to include their precious card-check plan, which would allow Big Labor bosses to sabotage workers' rights to a federally supervised private-ballot election. Reportedly, Democrats plan to stuff a reauthorization of the Patriot Act into the bill to make it harder for Republicans to oppose it.

In fact, EFCA would strip employers, not workers, of the right to demand a secret ballot

NY Times: Bill “would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election.” As The Christian Science Monitor has noted, “The proposed law gives workers a choice of forming a union through majority sign-up ('card check') or an election by secret ballot.” Indeed, as The New York Times reported, “Business groups have attacked the legislation because it would take away employers' right to insist on holding a secret-ballot election to determine whether workers favored unionization” [emphasis added]. Employee Free Choice Act supporters say employers often use the election process to delay, obstruct, and intimidate workers in an effort to resist organizing efforts.

Rep. Miller: “The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process.” Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor and a leading proponent of the Employee Free Choice Act, has addressed the “myth” that the bill eliminates the secret ballot:

MYTH: The Employee Free Choice Act abolishes the National Labor Relations Board's “secret ballot” election process.

FACT: The Employee Free Choice Act does not abolish the National Labor Relations Board election process. That process would still be available under the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation simply enables workers to also form a union through majority sign-up if a majority prefers that method to the NLRB election process. Under current law, workers may only use the majority sign-up process if their employer agrees. The Employee Free Choice Act would make that choice -- whether to use the NLRB election process or majority sign-up -- a majority choice of the employees, not the employer.