<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NewsTrust - U.S. Budget - Most Recent Stories: Opinion</title>
    <copyright>Copyright (c) 2008 NewsTrust</copyright>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:49:53 -0800</lastBuildDate>
    
    <link>http://newstrust.net/topics/us_budget/top_stories/opinion?timespan=30</link>
    <description>NewsTrust helps people find good journalism online. We rate the news based on quality, not just popularity. Our social news network features top-rated stories from hundreds of mainstream and independent sources. Find out more at http://newstrust.net/</description>
    <item>
      <title>How Stimulating</title>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/437284</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/437284</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/washington_monthly&quot;&gt;Washington Monthly&lt;/a&gt; - By Steve Benen - Nov. 21 (Comment) - Republican critics of the economic recovery efforts, when they're not taking credit for the money that's benefiting their state/district, take it as a given that the stimulus &quot;failed.&quot; For the right, it's a foregone conclusion, hardly worth discussing anymore.

The New York Times reminds us today that &quot;dispassionate analysts&quot; agree that a fair look at the stimulus package shows that it may be &quot;messy&quot; but it's also &quot;working.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/437284&quot;&gt;4.3 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/437284&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Reviews&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/437284&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Economy</category>
      <category>Money</category>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
      <category>Jobs</category>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Deficit hawks attacking the wrong prey</title>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/421068</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/421068</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/seattle_times&quot;&gt;Seattle Times&lt;/a&gt; - By David Sirota - Nov. 16 (Opinion) - When the House considered a health care expansion proposal that the CBO says will reduce the deficit by $11 billion a year, tea-party protesters and Congress' self-described &quot;fiscal conservatives&quot; opposed it on cost grounds. At the same time, almost none of them objected when Congress passed a White House-backed bill to spend $636 billion on defense in 2010.

The hypocrisy is stunning&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/421068&quot;&gt;4.1 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/421068&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/421068&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Media and Politics</category>
      <category>War</category>
      <category>Health Care</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Too Big to Fail - Too Big to Exist -</title>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/385591</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/385591</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;senate.gov - By Senator Bernie Sanders - Nov. 06 (Statement) - Senator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation that would break up financial institutions that are too big to fail. &quot;If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist,&quot; Sanders said. &quot;We should break them up so they are no longer in a position to bring down the entire economy. We should end the concentration of ownership that has resulted in just four huge financial institutions holding half the mortgages in America, controlling two-thirds of the credit cards, and amassing 40 percent of all deposits.&quot;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/385591&quot;&gt;4.7 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/385591&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/385591&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
      <category>U.S. Economy</category>
      <category>Global Economy</category>
      <category>U.S. Senate</category>
      <category>Money and Politics</category>
      <category>Congressional Oversight</category>
      <category>Finance</category>
      <category>Corporate Governance</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Ezra Klein on the House health care reform bill</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/353986</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/353986</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/washington_post&quot;&gt;Washington Post&lt;/a&gt; - By Ezra Klein - Oct. 29 (Interview) - So what exactly did the House put out this morning? Is it the Robust opt-out Public Option that Sen. Reid talked about?

Ezra Klein: No. So to do a bit on defining terms here:

Robust refers to a public option that can use Medicare's payment rates. That would let the public option save 20-30 percent against private insurance. Neither the House nor the Senate includes such an option.

The House bill has a national public option that will set rates in the same way private insurers do (negotiating with providers). The Senate bill has a national public option that works the same way as the House's, save that it has an opt-out feature starting in 2014.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/353986&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/353986&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/353986&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Health Care Budgeting 101: Congress&#8217; Fiscal Scolds Earn an &#8220;F-&#8221;</title>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://newstrust.net/stories/353847</guid>
      <link>http://newstrust.net/stories/353847</link>
      <description>&lt;span&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/sources/firedoglake&quot;&gt;Firedoglake&lt;/a&gt; - Oct. 29 (Opinion) - the market carve-out for Medicaid saves money, which means that if Blue Dogs really wanted to save money, they would enlarge the Medicaid carve out &#8212; say, up to 250 or 350 percent of FPL. In other words, if the fiscal-deficit scolds were genuinely serious about reducing the cost of the reform bill, they would expand eligibility to public health care to a lot more people and forget about shielding private insurers from competition.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;NewsTrust Rating: &lt;/b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;/stories/353847&quot;&gt;3.5 average&lt;/a&gt; (not enough reviews) - &lt;a href=&quot;/stories/353847&quot;&gt;See&amp;nbsp;Review&amp;nbsp;&amp;raquo;&lt;/a&gt; - &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/stories/353847&quot;&gt;Review It&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/&quot;&gt;Visit NewsTrust&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about&quot;&gt;About&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/partners/feeds/rss&quot;&gt;Sign Up&lt;/a&gt; | &lt;a href=&quot;http://newstrust.net/about/disclaimer&quot;&gt;Disclaimer&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <category>Health Care</category>
      <category>U.S. Budget</category>
      <category>U.S. Congress</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
