Blog

Cassidy: Big Government Getting in the Way of Strong Economy

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 04:46:00 GMT

The Baton Rouge Advocate reports on Cassidy's meeting with the West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce, where he discussed how federal deficits, taxes, and regulation are preventing economic growth and job creation. At the meeting, Cassidy was presented with the Chamber's "Spirit of Enterprise Award," which is given to lawmakers who have a record of standing up for free enterprise and advancing pro-growth economic policies.

Cassidy: Big Government Getting in the Way of Strong Economy
Baton Rouge Advocate
By Koran Addo
August 26, 2010

PORT ALLEN — U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy praised business leaders Thursday for fostering economic development, but blasted President Barack Obama’s administration for failing to curb the nation’s high unemployment rate.

While speaking at a West Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, said this region’s support of the oil and gas industry, and the jobs the industry creates, should serve as an example to the rest of the nation.

“If I could take the wisdom of this district and channel it to D.C., this country would be much better off,” he said.

The Obama administration’s plan to fight the national recession through deficit spending, he said, has failed.

That failure is apparent in West Baton Rouge Parish, Cassidy said, where, for the first time, the parish unemployment rate is higher than the state average. The parish’s unemployment rate is also, for the first time, higher than the year before, he said.

The Louisiana Workforce Commission reports that West Baton Rouge has an 8.8 percent unemployment rate as of July.

That figure is up from the parish’s 7.9 percent unemployment rate at this time last year, and more than 1 percentage point higher than the state’s 7.6 percent unemployment rate posted in July.

Cassidy said the jobless are primarily unskilled and semi-skilled men, many of whom could be working in the petrochemical industries.

But national legislators can’t believe oil and gas can be produced efficiently and safely domestically, he said.

“In D.C., the idea of developing the oil and gas industry is met with disbelief,” Cassidy said. “This district and this state has a heck of a lot to teach the rest of the country … the answers to our problems are to develop our own resources.”

During his 20-minute talk, Cassidy also addressed proposed cap-and-trade legislation so far stalled in the U.S. Senate.

The legislation seeks to reduce air pollution by using a market-driven approach that creates a commodity out of the right to emit carbon and allows that commodity to be traded on the free market.

Citing the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit research think tank, Cassidy said cap-and-trade legislation would lead to a 40 percent decline in employment in the petrochemical industry during the next 15 years.

“That is a huge threat,” Cassidy said.

A better proposal to create jobs and keep them from going overseas, he said, is to support safe drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. The new challenge for a new Congress, he said, is to come up with better solutions than have been offered in the last two years.

“Spend money on the Gulf Coast,” he said.

At the end of his speech, Cassidy was presented with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Spirit of Enterprise Award. The award is given to people who support and defend the nation’s free enterprise system.

Cassidy Named ‘Taxpayer Hero’ By Citizens Against Government Waste

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 04:26:00 GMT

Citizens Against Government Waste, one of the nation’s premier government spending watchdogs, named Louisiana Congressman Bill Cassidy a ‘Taxpayer Hero’ for his record of “standing shoulder-to-shoulder with taxpayers and working to cut wasteful federal spending and taxes.”

“Rep. Cassidy put the interests of taxpayers ahead of politics by consistently voting to cut wasteful spending, reduce the tax burden, and make government more accountable to taxpayers,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz. “The rating is even more impressive given the record number of votes rated by CCAGW and the record number of representatives who could not vote even once to cut wasteful spending or taxes. While far too many members of Congress demonstrated little regard for the consequences of failing to reduce the record $1.4 trillion deficit and $13 trillion debt, Rep. Cassidy’s votes give taxpayers hope for the future.”

Said Cassidy, “Government should be about economic prosperity for individuals and businesses. More taxes and more government means less prosperity. If we cut spending and allow private businesses to create jobs we can prevent the coming debt crisis.”

In addition to fighting wasteful spending and tax hikes, Cassidy and Citizens Against Government Waste worked together on Cassidy’s signature earmark reform initiative, the Earmark Transparency Act.

Cassidy OpEd: What Happened To The Bipartisan Oil Spill Commission?

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:15:00 GMT

In an OpEd published in the Washington Examiner, Rep. Bill Cassidy asks why his amendment to create a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the BP oil spill, which passed unanimously in the Natural Resources Committee, was stripped from the bill by Speaker Pelosi.

In his May 22 weekly address, President Obama announced the creation of a National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, “tasked with providing recommendations on how we can prevent – and mitigate the impact of – any future spills that result from offshore drilling.”

He added that the commission’s membership “will include broad and diverse representation of individuals with relevant expertise.”

At the time, those were encouraging words. In order to prevent another spill, we need to know what went wrong at the Deepwater Horizon rig and how to fix it. To do so, we need people with “relevant expertise” investigating.

However, Obama appointed a seven member commission “loaded up on politicians and environmental activists,” as the Wall Street Journal reports. The Associated Press expressed similar suspicion of the president’s commission, noting that the panel is “short on technical experts.” And that’s being generous.

The president’s commission isn’t just “short” on technical expertise; it has none. There are no petroleum engineers on the panel and no one with experience in offshore drilling.

This is not to malign the panelists Obama appointed. Despite their technical inexperience, they have demonstrated considerably more wisdom regarding domestic energy production than the president and other administration officials.

For example, the co-chairs of the president’s commission have both recognized “the economic dislocation and the hardship caused by the moratorium” and asked why, after three months, the administration insists on keeping it, despite the objections of independent experts from the National Academy of Engineering.

Nonetheless, a complete understanding of the root causes of the Deepwater Horizon incident requires technical expertise. Too much is at stake for politics or ideology to interfere with the critical task of investigating this tragedy and making American energy production the safest in the world.

Our economy and national security depend on an affordable, reliable energy supply. And hundreds of thousands of middle class families count on deepwater rigs for jobs.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Congress established a credible, bipartisan commission to review systemic failures precipitating the attacks and to make recommendations for fixing them.

The 9/11 Commission was a thoroughly nonpartisan and professional venture, and the United States benefitted greatly from its work.

A commission of similar construction should be empanelled to investigate the Deepwater Horizon incident. On July 14, the Natural Resources Committee agreed unanimously, passing an amendment I offered to the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) to create the National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention.

Unlike the president’s, this commission emphasizes the appointment of members with technical expertise in petroleum engineering. The 10-member commission would be appointed jointly by both parties, with the president appointing its chairman and congressional leadership appointing the remaining members.

An identical amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Barrasso, R-WY, passed in the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee June 30, with the support of Democratic senators from New Hampshire, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Colorado.

Despite strong bipartisan passage in the Senate and unanimous passage in the House Natural Resources Committee, where even liberal stalwarts like Reps. Ed Markey, D-MA, and George Miller, D-CA, supported it, the amendment was stripped from the underlying bill in the Speaker’s office before it got to the House floor.

Why?

Cassidy Oped: Gulf Coast Can't Afford CLEAR Disaster

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:16:00 GMT

In an OpEd published in The Hill, Rep. Bill Cassidy explains that the CLEAR Act, which is billed as a response to the oil spill, "has much less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production and destroying jobs."

Two man-made disasters have hit the Gulf Coast: the BP oil spill and the president’s moratorium on energy production. A third disaster is scheduled for a vote in the House today.

Two hundred twenty-six days before the Deepwater Horizon rig collapsed, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act was introduced in the House. A repackaged version is now being sold as a response to the BP oil spill.

This bill has much less to do with preventing another spill than it does preventing domestic energy production and destroying jobs.

It is legislate first, ask questions later. For example, the CLEAR Act gives the presidential oil spill commission subpoena power to investigate the Deepwater Horizon spill, while simultaneously issuing new regulations in response to the event the commission is to investigate. In order to prevent another spill, we first need to know what went wrong. Doing otherwise is a recipe for arbitrary and ineffective regulations.

While the Deepwater Horizon rig’s blowout preventer lies on the ocean floor, the CLEAR Act prescribes new rules governing blowout preventers. Of course we need to improve oversight of critical safety equipment, but shouldn’t we first look at the one that broke?

One of the CLEAR Act’s most dangerous provisions sounds the most innocuous: Buy American. It represents the cynical abuse of patriotism in order to kill an entire industry. Under current rules, rigs in American waters are built to U.S. standards, staffed by American crews, and inspected by U.S. agencies. The CLEAR Act will require them to be constructed in America as well. This new requirement is nearly impossible to meet. Mobile offshore drilling units (MODU) are extremely sophisticated devices. A MODU hasn’t been built in the United States in over a decade. The United States currently lacks the capacity to construct them. This provision will only serve to send American jobs overseas and decimate domestic energy production.

Assuming any producers can survive the Buy American provision, perhaps as few as four major multinationals would be able to bid for offshore leases. By increasing the oil spill liability cap from $75 million to “unlimited,” the CLEAR Act will make it impossible for independent producers to operate in the Gulf. Independent producers employ over half of offshore energy workers, hold roughly 90 percent of offshore leases, produce nearly one-third of the oil and two-thirds of the natural gas coming from the Gulf, and have a sterling safety record. Eliminating independent producers’ ability to operate in the Gulf is expected to eliminate over 300,000 well-paying jobs.

Existing law states that if a company causes an oil spill and is found to be grossly negligent or in violation of federal regulations, the $75 million cap does not apply and the company is liable for ALL damages. For example, BP has spent nearly $4 billion on response efforts and allocated $20 billion to compensate spill victims. If a company goes bankrupt, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is funded by oil companies, not taxpayers, compensates spill victims. In light of the Deepwater Horizon accident, it would be appropriate to strengthen the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. But it is irresponsible to impose punitive liability requirements on small businesses that have not demonstrated a safety risk.

The CLEAR Act also contains several harmful provisions completely unrelated to the BP oil spill. It imposes $22 billion in higher taxes on American energy, which will reduce energy sector employment, increase energy prices and give foreign companies a competitive advantage over domestic producers. Revenue from this tax increase is not dedicated to anything related to cleaning or restoring the Gulf or protecting against another spill.

It usurps states’ rights by imposing federal regulation of oil and gas on state waters. States have a history of effectively balancing safety, environmental and economic concerns, while poor federal oversight contributed to the BP oil spill. This federal power grab is equivalent to replacing what works with what’s broken.

The CLEAR Act cynically exploits those most affected by the BP oil spill to further an agenda that is hostile to American workers and energy security. The people of the Gulf deserve better.

Cassidy Seeks Vote On Drilling Ban

Mon, 02 Aug 2010 03:50:00 GMT

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) signaled Wednesday that he will seek a House vote to overturn the Obama administration’s six-month ban on deepwater oil-and-gas drilling that began in late May.

Cassidy Seeks Vote On Drilling Ban
The Hill

By Ben Geman
July 28, 2010

Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) signaled Wednesday that he will seek a House vote to overturn the Obama administration’s six-month ban on deepwater oil-and-gas drilling that began in late May.

Democrats are unlikely to allow a vote on his amendment when their Gulf of Mexico oil spill response bill comes to the floor Friday.

But Cassidy’s effort nonetheless shows that opponents of the drilling freeze will use the House debate as a forum to attack what they call an economically harmful and unnecessary ban.

In addition to scuttling the existing ban, Cassidy’s amendment “would also guard against any future moratoria by stating that ‘No Federal official may establish any general moratorium on or suspension of offshore oil and gas operations that is substantially similar to the moratorium, the decision memorandum, or any suspension referred to in subsection,’ ” his office said.

The ban is under attack from many Republicans and Gulf Coast lawmakers from both parties. But administration officials say the pause is needed while new offshore safety requirements are implemented and investigations into the BP spill continue.

Advocate: Cassidy Proposes New Panel

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:37:00 GMT

In response to President Obama's appointment of a partisan oil spill commission that is ideologically opposed to domestic energy production, Cassidy introduced legislation to create a bipartisan, independent commission of experts to investigate the Deepwater Horizon spill. Cassidy's proposal passed unanimously in the House Natural Resources Committee.

Cassidy Proposes New Panel

Baton Rouge Advocate
By GERARD SHIELDS
July 19, 2010

The U.S. House Natural Resources Committee passed an amendment this past week by U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, that would create a new commission to investigate the Gulf oil leak.

The panel would fly in the face of a commission already appointed by President Barack Obama, which began holding its first hearings this past week. Cassidy and other opponents of the Obama commission say it is stacked with environmentalists and those opposed to oil drilling and that it lacks industry expertise.

The Cassidy commission would be called the National Commission on Outer Continental Shelf Oil Spill Prevention. A similar amendment has been passed by a Senate committee.

“Our response has to be guided by facts, and not by politics or ideology,” Cassidy said. “We have a commission appointed by the president to get root causes that doesn’t have anyone with experience as to the root causes.”

Cassidy OpEd in Roll Call: Gulf Spill Shouldn’t End Offshore Drilling

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:15:00 GMT

The Deepwater Horizon spill was not an act of God; it was the product of human and mechanical error. These errors are identifiable and preventable.

For example, BP centered the well pipe for cementing with six braces, rather than the 21 braces recommended by cement contractor Halliburton, and it used a method of constructing the well that has been criticized as inferior to the industry’s best practices.

When the blowout preventer was activated, it failed to properly deploy. There are questions as to whether the BOP was properly maintained and tested.

The day of the explosion, a decision was made to replace drilling mud with sea water, despite evidence that the well was beginning to “flow” three hours before the explosion. Immediately prior to the explosion, the flow meter indicated that the well was flowing. This evidence was ignored or misinterpreted.

This was also a failure of oversight. According to BP’s drilling permit, which was approved by the Minerals Management Service, the company’s plan in case of a major blowout was to drill a relief well. BP officials said that they were prepared to handle a major oil spill. Clearly, they were not.

Now, there are calls to end offshore production altogether, despite the fact that procedures and policies that led to the Deepwater Horizon spill can be fixed.

The consequences of this spill are excruciating, but demanding an end to offshore production is an emotional overreaction to a problem that demands serious, evidence-based solutions. The repercussions of such short-sighted policy are immediate and severe.

Ending offshore production is equivalent to unilateral disarmament. Doing so would not end America’s dependence on oil and gas; it would simply make America more dependent on other nations’ oil and gas. Every gallon not produced at home is a gallon imported from abroad, most often from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries nations.

Ironically, importation is worse for the environment than drilling. To begin, it is worth noting that 19,142 wells have been drilled offshore since 2000 and only 0.001 percent of petroleum produced offshore has spilled over the past 30 years, according to the MMS. And even accounting for the Deepwater Horizon spill, statistically, far more oil is spilled from oil tankers than from oil rigs. Not so distantly, there have been tanker spills in New Jersey, California and Alaska.

An offshore moratorium is also a job killer, not for executives at multinational energy corporations but for welders, pipefitters, roustabouts and the range of service and support industries connected to them. And these blue-collar workers won’t be able to make their mortgage payments or buy groceries for their families with unemployment checks and food stamps.

Job losses spurred by ending offshore production would extend far beyond the industry itself. The average multiplier effect for a job in energy production is 5.5. In other words, every job created in energy production leads to the creation of almost six more. The reverse is also true. Job losses would be most acute in areas most affected by the Deepwater Horizon spill, such as coastal Louisiana.

Even a temporary moratorium has significant economic consequences. The deep-water drilling rigs, upon which many of these jobs depend, can rent for $500,000 per day. During a moratorium, these rigs will be towed to Africa or Brazil to begin multiyear projects. Jobs directly and indirectly associated with these rigs will go to Africa and Brazil with them. This isn’t hypothetical; it’s already happening. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. already announced that it is moving rigs from the Gulf to other countries, and officials at Port Fourchon, La., have said that some of their tenants are weighing layoffs.

Instead of a knee-jerk overreaction, the president and Congress should pursue rational policy. There is a middle ground. Do a real-time analysis of what went wrong and implement corrective measures successively based on what we have learned.

We can prevent another spill without doing further damage to the economy. Stronger safety and environmental protection can be instituted while protecting American energy security, avoiding the risk of increased petroleum imports and preserving jobs.

Sunlight Foundation Touts Cassidy's Earmark Transparency Act

Thu, 13 May 2010 18:31:00 GMT

"The Sunlight Foundation lauds Senators Coburn (R-OK), Feingold (D-WI), Gillibrand (D-NY) and McCain (R-AZ) in the Senate and Representatives Cassidy (R-LA) and Speier (D-CA) in the House for introducing landmark legislation today that would require Congress to create an online, searchable database for all earmark requests."

New Earmark Transparency Legislation Introduced In House And Senate
Bipartisan Legislation Would Require Online Database of All Earmark Requests

Washington, DC - The Sunlight Foundation lauds Senators Coburn (R-OK), Feingold (D-WI), Gillibrand (D-NY) and McCain (R-AZ) in the Senate and Representatives Cassidy (R-LA) and Speier (D-CA) in the House for introducing landmark legislation today that would require Congress to create an online, searchable database for all earmark requests. Sunlight has long advocated for technological solutions to ensure that earmarks reflect the public interest, and formally proposed an online, searchable database of earmark request disclosures in March of 2008 in its Transparency in Government Act, posted to its PublicMarkup.org website.

"Currently, information on earmarks is scattered across more than 559 websites, making it virtually impossible for even the most seasoned earmark researcher to follow the money, let alone constituents," said Ellen Miller, executive director and co-founder of the Sunlight Foundation. "The Earmark Transparency Act introduced today in the House and Senate solves that problem by unifying all earmark requests in one single database, therefore giving constituents one place to look to learn what their elected representatives are funding. This will empower them to then determine for themselves whether lawmakers are using earmarks to meet pressing needs or reward political supporters."

More »

GOP Backs Earmark Ban

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:17:00 GMT

"U.S. House Republicans agreed Thursday to a one-year ban on members requesting special projects for their districts -- known as earmarks -- a move that could have a significant financial impact for Louisiana with its Republican-laden House delegation."

GOP Backs Earmark Ban
Gerard Shields
The Advocate

U.S. House Republicans agreed Thursday to a one-year ban on members requesting special projects for their districts -- known as earmarks -- a move that could have a significant financial impact for Louisiana with its Republican-laden House delegation.

Six of the seven Louisiana House members are Republicans.

Last year, they secured 62 earmarks worth $136.6 million.

On Thursday, they backed their leadership and supported the blanket ban.

"Everybody is complaining about Washington spending being out of control and earmarks have become a symbol of this," said U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-Lafayette, who received nine earmarks worth $21.3 million this year.

"It's a good start," he said.

Republicans followed a call earlier in the week by Democrats, who announced they would ban the criticized practice of using annual spending bills to give earmarks to companies that are often the source of campaign contributions, a process known as "pay to play."

The election-year maneuvering seems geared to calming an electorate seething over Washington's runaway spending and scandals.

"For millions of Americans, the earmark process in Congress has become a symbol of a broken Washington," House Minority Leader John Boehner, of Ohio, said.

The call was welcomed by Republican U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, of Baton Rouge. Cassidy, a freshman who did not apply for earmarks last year pointing to House scandals that he said showed the lack of transparency in the process.

Cassidy filed a bill that would require members to prominently display their earmark requests on their Web sites. Likewise, committees would have to provide a searchable database for earmarks and post them 72 hours before they are acted on, under his bill.

"It's a good day for us," Cassidy said. "This can have profound changes in Washington if there is some follow through."

More »

Sport-Fishing Group Inducts Four Into Hall Of Fame

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:09:00 GMT

"The [Coastal Conservation Association] also named U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, as its Conservationist of the Year."

Sport-Fishing Group Inducts Four Into Hall Of Fame
Keith Magill
Houma Today

The state's largest sport-fishing group has inducted four conservation leaders into its Hall of Fame.

Rusty Vincent of Lake Charles, along with Jeff Angers, Jimmy Jenkins and the late Albert Bankston, all of Baton Rouge, were inducted into the Coastal Conservation Association Hall of Fame at the organization's state convention Thursday and Friday.

The CCA also named U.S. Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, as its Conservationist of the Year. ...

Since his election to Congress, Cassidy has worked closely with the CCA to bring about conservation reforms in federal waters.

More »

Empower Patients, Lower Costs, Expand Access

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:35:00 GMT

"Americans have rejected health care proposals advanced in the House and Senate because they will not lower costs. It is my experience working in a public hospital that when costs are out of control, access to quality care suffers. This is also the experience of Britain's National Health Service and Health Canada. Unless costs are lowered, it is impossible to provide universal access to quality care without bankrupting the country. To lower costs, empower patients."

Cassidy: Legislation Is Missing Incentives To Control Costs
Congressman Bill Cassidy, MD
Roll Call

Pop quiz: What is the goal of health care reform?
(A) Expand access
(B) Lower costs

If you answered (A), odds are you're a Democrat. If you answered (B), you're probably a Republican. But if you reject that you have to choose, you're on the right track.

Supporters of the president's plan, which is essentially the bill that passed in the Senate, prize a Congressional Budget Office report showing that 31 million uninsured Americans gain access to coverage under his bill.

However, supporters of this proposal avoid discussing the CBO's projection that it increases the cost of health insurance. They also avoid the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimating "that total national health expenditures under this bill would increase by ... $234 billion" over 10 years.

Likewise, Republicans highlight a CBO report showing that the House GOP bill will reduce insurance premiums by 10 percent. In turn, Democrats criticize the GOP plan because it extends coverage to fewer Americans than their bill.

Returning to the quiz: Which sentence makes sense?

(A) Health care is inaccessible because it is unaffordable.
(B) Health care is unaffordable because it is inaccessible.

Clearly (A), health care is inaccessible because it is unaffordable. The reverse is nonsensical.

Therein lies the problem with the president's plan. It attempts to provide access without addressing cost.

When campaigning, Barack Obama pledged that his health care plan would "save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year on medical expenditures" and provide "quality, affordable and portable health coverage for all."

As a physician who has treated uninsured patients at a public hospital for 20 years, I applaud the president's goals. Unfortunately, as economists at the CBO and the CMS explain, his plan fails to achieve them.

The key to expanding access is lowering costs. The key to lowering costs is empowering patients.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith explains that the central problem with our health care system is, "The health-care provider, A, is in the position of recommending to the patient, B, what B should buy from A. A third party -- the insurance company or the government -- is paying A for it. This structure defines an incentive nightmare."

Costs are spiraling out of control because the consumer has no power or incentive to control them. The closest most patients come to price is the $15 or $20 copay. When we leave the doctor's office, we don't know if we received $5 worth of health care or $500. This bargain is Smith's "nightmare." It hides and contributes to higher insurance premiums and medical inflation.

To correct this, health care reform must realign incentives to encourage value-conscious decisions. Congress can do this by expanding the use of health savings accounts and making health care pricing transparent.

An HSA is essentially a checking account filled with dedicated health care dollars, accessed via debit card or reimbursement. Instead of contributing to a traditional insurance plan, patients and employers contribute to the HSA, which is coupled with a high-deductible catastrophic policy. To ensure universal access, advanceable tax credits could be used to fund HSAs for those who cannot afford them.

HSAs belong to the patient, who rolls over unspent funds year after year. This incentivizes wise decisions. Because the patient pays her physician directly from the HSA, this model corrects the incentive nightmare.

Since their inception in 2003, HSAs have demonstrated remarkable success at lowering costs and expanding access to quality care. The Kaiser Family Foundation found that HSAs are 30 percent cheaper than traditional insurance policies with similar benefits, that 27 percent of those currently covered by HSAs were previously uninsured and that those with HSAs use preventive services as frequently as those with traditional insurance policies.

Thirty percent cheaper. Twenty-seven percent previously uninsured. Access to preventive services. Lowering costs expands access to quality care.

Additionally, to unleash the full cost-controlling power of HSAs, Congress should eliminate barriers to transparency in health care pricing. This would spur competition by subjecting the health care industry to the market forces that decrease costs and increase quality in every other sector of the economy.

Patients, armed with HSAs and empowered by medical transparency, will drive down costs by demanding higher quality care for less. As costs fall, health care becomes more accessible.

Americans have rejected health care proposals advanced in the House and Senate because they will not lower costs. It is my experience working in a public hospital that when costs are out of control, access to quality care suffers. This is also the experience of Britain's National Health Service and Health Canada.

Unless costs are lowered, it is impossible to provide universal access to quality care without bankrupting the country. To lower costs, empower patients.

Link »

Cassidy Requests Hearings On Costs Of Continued OCS Delays

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:13:00 GMT

"US Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urged House Natural Resources Committee leaders to schedule hearings on the economic costs of continued delays in offshore oil and gas development a week after the first major report on the subject was released."

Cassidy Requests Hearings On Costs Of Continued OCS Delays
Nick Snow
Oil & Gas Journal

US Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) urged House Natural Resources Committee leaders to schedule hearings on the economic costs of continued delays in offshore oil and gas development a week after the first major report on the subject was released.

Referring to a study by Science Applications International Corp. that was commissioned by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Cassidy, who serves on the committee, noted that not allowing more energy activity on the US Outer Continental Shelf would cost 13 million jobs, reduce gross domestic product by $2.36 trillion, and increase US energy costs $2.35 trillion by 2030.

Cassidy said the report also indicated that such delays could raise natural gas prices by an average 17%/year, electricity prices 5%/year, and gasoline prices 3%/year. Domestic production of crude oil, meanwhile, could drop by 9.9 billion bbl, or an average 15%/year; and of gas by 46 tcf, or 9%/year, while US imports from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries members could increase 4.1 billion bbl at a cost of $607 billion, according to the report, he said in a Feb. 23 letter to the committee's chairman, Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.), and its ranking minority member, Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).

"Despite these projections and similar previous warnings, the [Obama] administration has continued to impose a moratorium on new energy development on federal lands," said Cassidy. "The Department of Interior has repeatedly delayed new energy leasing activities, halted the 2010-15 offshore leasing plan, and withdrawn areas that had been planned for new oil and gas production. The administration's 2010 and 2011 budgets have each contained tens of billions of dollars in tax increases on domestic energy production."

More »

GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy: 'Cost Containment' Key To Health Care Reform

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:18:00 GMT

"On 'Washington Unplugged' Thursday, Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La ., told Bob Shieffer that 'Republicans were more sensitive to interest of cost' concerning health care reform than Democrats, and that the American people want 'cost containment.'"

GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy: "Cost Containment" Key To Health Care Reform
CBS News

On "Washington Unplugged" Thursday, Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La ., told Bob Shieffer that "Republicans were more sensitive to interest of cost" concerning health care reform than Democrats, and that the American people want "cost containment."

More »

10 Steps To Health Reform

Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:24:00 GMT

"Congress could pass these ten reforms by a wide margin tomorrow. They won't achieve the left's statist ambitions, but they would provide meaningful reform."

10 Steps To Health Reform
Rep. Bill Cassidy, MD
Politico

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

A golden opportunity to pass serious health care reform that lowers costs for families and protects the government from bankruptcy has been wasted by a year of squabbling within the Democratic Caucus. In the words of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), health reform "is on life support."

Make no mistake: Republicans did not kill health reform. Republicans couldn't. With a super-majority in the Senate and a nearly 80-seat majority in the House, Democrats could have passed anything, anytime they wanted.

But with the town halls of August, the American people began a sentence that ended with an exclamation point named Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass). Americans want Congress to fix health care, but they know raising taxes, cutting Medicare, and putting patients at the mercy of bureaucrats isn't the answer.

Since losing their stranglehold on Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have floated various legislative tactics to pass a bill that has been roundly rejected by the American people. Doing so would be a blessing for Republicans in the midterm elections, but a disaster for the American people.

Instead, the White House should seize this opportunity born of crisis and claim victory on the top line of its domestic agenda. All it takes is a willingness to move from the fringe and towards the middle, where votes in Congress (and November) are plentiful.

Congress could pass these ten reforms by a wide margin tomorrow. They won't achieve the left's statist ambitions, but they would provide meaningful reform.

1. End Rescission. Under current law insurers can drop a patient undergoing breast cancer treatment in her forties if she failed to report on her insurance application a bout of acne from her twenties. This dishonest trick to save money should not be allowed.

2. Extend dependent coverage. For generation Y, 25 is the new 18. Insurance policies should account for evolving demographic trends and allow parents to maintain coverage for their children into their twenties. This would provide coverage to many currently uninsured.

3. Interstate competition. If we can buy car insurance across state lines, why not health insurance? This would give patients more choice and lower costs by spurring competition between insurers.

4. Transparency in pricing. Plain and simple, patients should be able to know the cost of medical services before they get the bill.

5. State information portals. To make the insurance market more transparent, Congress could provide seed money to states for health information portals, where patients could access easily understandable information about what an insurance plan covers and at what cost.

6. Tort reform. Democrats must decide which is more important: the millions of dollars tort lawyers give to their campaigns or the $54 billion the Congressional Budget Office estimates will be saved through meaningful tort reform.

7. Confront obesity. Obesity is a leading driver of health care inflation. A combination of grants to states for anti-obesity programs and incentives for patients to lead healthier lives will help bend the cost curve down.

8. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Since their inception in 2004, HSAs have demonstrated a remarkable ability to lower costs. Congress should change the tax code to encourage their use, eliminate minimum deductible requirements, and allow patients to use HSA funds to pay insurance premiums.

9. Direct primary care. Pioneered by Seattle-based Qliance, the direct primary care model gives patients access to comprehensive primary care for a monthly payment of $39 - $79. Physicians are rewarded for quality, not quantity, and patients are firmly in control.

10. State-based high-risk pools. To mitigate discrimination against those with preexisting conditions, Congress can help states strengthen insurance pools for patients whose health status otherwise blocks access to coverage.

With ObamaCare in crisis, the White House faces a choice: accept failure or seize the opportunity to move to the middle and move forward with sensible health reforms. The latter would strengthen health care, advance the president's agenda, and be embraced by Republicans -- and the American people.

Link »

President Boosts Cassidy Earmark Reform Bill

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 20:24:00 GMT

"In his first State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress 'to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.' An effort to do so last year faltered, but the strong endorsement has lifted the spirits of the two lawmakers most associated with the idea, Reps. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.)."

Lawmakers Pushing For Earmark Reform Think Obama Boosted Their Chances
Jared Allen
The Hill
January 30, 2010

Lawmakers backing a modest earmark reform believe their hopes were boosted significantly by President Barack Obama on Wednesday night.

In his first State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress "to publish all earmark requests on a single website before there's a vote so that the American people can see how their money is being spent."

An effort to do so last year faltered, but the strong endorsement has lifted the spirits of the two lawmakers most associated with the idea, Reps. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jackie Speier (D-Calif.).

"The president has mentioned it now twice in as many days," Cassidy said Friday from the House GOP retreat in Baltimore, adding that a number of his colleagues have since approached him asking to sign on to his bill.

"I know Jackie's working her side. We're hoping for the president's continued leadership, because it's going to be tremendously helpful."

Mike Larsen, a spokesman for Speier, said she feels like Obama has placed the wind at their backs since Wednesday.

Cassidy's office also pointed to a State of the Union focus group -- put together by Republican pollster Frank Luntz -- that registered its highest levels of approval when Obama mentioned earmark reform.

"The one segment that did the best, among Republicans and Democrats alike, was the segment on earmarks," Luntz explained on Fox News Wednesday night. "There's a message in there [to] Republicans and Democrats alike; the American people are fed up with earmarks."

More »