While unions continue to dominate the news, I figured I would give you a few little facts I found from the Heritage Foundation. Take these facts, absorb them and continue to ask yourself .... are unions making a positive impact on our economy? I'll bet you can already answer that question. But here are some specifics to fill in the blanks.
Unions function as labor cartels. A labor cartel restricts the number of workers in a company or industry to drive up the remaining workers' wages, just as the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) attempts to cut the supply of oil to raise its price. Companies pass on those higher wages to consumers through higher prices, and often they also earn lower profits. Economic research finds that unions benefit their members but hurt consumers generally, and especially workers who are denied job opportunities.
Economists consistently find that unions decrease the number of jobs available in the economy. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs lost over the past three decades have been among union members--non-union manufacturing employment has risen. Research also shows that widespread unionization delays recovery from economic downturns.
Some unions win higher wages for their members, though many do not. But with these higher wages, unions bring less investment, fewer jobs, higher prices, and smaller 401(k) plans for everyone else. On balance, labor cartels harm the economy, and enacting policies designed to force workers into unions will only prolong the recession.
Studies typically find that unionized companies earn profits between 10 percent and 15 percent lower than those of comparable non-union firms. Unlike the findings with respect to wage effects, the research shows unambiguously that unions directly cause lower profits. Profits drop at companies whose unions win certification elections but remain at normal levels for non-union firms. One recent study found that shareholder returns fall by 10 percent over two years at companies where unions win certification.
In essence, unions "tax" investments that corporations make, redistributing part of the return from these investments to their members. This makes undertaking a new investment less worthwhile. Companies respond to the union tax in the same way they respond to government taxes on investment--by investing less. By cutting profits, unions also reduce the money that firms have available for new investments, so they also indirectly reduce investment.
Research shows that unions directly cause firms to reduce their investments. In fact, investment drops sharply after unions organize a company. One study found that unionizing reduces capital investment by 30 percent--the same effect as a 33 percentage point increase in the corporate tax rate.
Economists have found that unions delay economic recoveries. States with more union members took considerably longer than those with fewer union members to recover from the 1982 and 1991 recessions.
Now imagine if our government - state and federal - were forced to run like a business, without its unique ability to levy and collect taxes ...... me thinks our country would have gone Tango Uniform (T-U-or Tits Up for you non-military folks) ages ago.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
They Ran Away--Democrats STOP the democratic process.
You did hear what the Democrats in the state legislature did yesterday, didn't you? They bailed. They didn't phone in sick, like the teachers unions did. They just left town. In the Wisconsin Senate at least 20 out of 33 senators have to be present in order to do any business and vote on any bills. The Republicans have the majority of seats in the Wisconsin Senate, but that majority is only 19 seats. This means they need to have at least one Democrat Senator in chambers before they can do business. So what if the Democrats do? They didn't show up! They left town! In fact, they left the state! They went to the Best Western Clock Tower Resort in Rockford, Illinois. They left the state because the governor has the authority to call out to the police and force lawmakers into session in order to reach a quorum. So how's that for the legislative process in Wisconsin? Don't you love it when Democrats lose an election and control of the legislature? One Democrat senator told the media that the Democrats were going simply to prevent the Republicans from engaging in any business. Another Democrat senator said that they were staying away in order to give the union demonstrators more time to change the minds of Republican legislators. In other words, the Democrats were abandoning their legislative function so that the mob could wield influence in their place. Now, since the Democrats are completely owned by labor unions, this should not surprise you, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't disgust you.
Make no mistake, my friends, this is a war. This is a war between the taxpayers of this country and the government sector unions that have been plundering the taxpayers for years. From California to New York we have state governments who were in dire financial straits principally because of the benefits that had been negotiated through collective bargaining by public sector unions. In a union negotiation with a private business owner, the business owner has some skin in the game. The business owner knows that if he gives too much to the union, it may jeopardize his very business. When a government employee union negotiates with the city, county or a state government, the government officials who are engaged in the negotiation have NO skin in the game. They know that whatever benefits they negotiate with the union they will just be able to pass off on the poor suffering taxpayers. They also know that negotiations involving grandiose fringe benefits for government union workers will seldom reach the awareness of the taxpayer, but will always earn the gratitude of the union member. This means votes. This means union contributions. This means reelection. This means the continuation of the politician's life of power, prestige and perks.
You might have detected that I don't like unions. That's because I don't like mobs. I'm an individualist. I believe in the sanctity of the individual. Mob action is almost always irrational and self-defeating. Having said that, I can understand and can verbalize a positive role to be played by unions in our country. Let's say, for instance, that a worker refuses to handle a piece of machinery because he believes it to be inherently dangerous. His supervisor becomes so irate with the workers' obstinance that he fires them. A new worker is hired and subsequently is gravely injured by the malfunctioning piece of equipment. In a union environment, there would have been protection for the whistle blowing worker. Those same protections can be afforded through law without the need for mob action however. I would not support any law that outlaws private sector unions. Nor would I support any law that requires a worker to be a member of a private sector union. But it is well past time that we outlaw government sector unions. These union workers in Wisconsin seem to be fond of comparing Gov. Scott Walker with Adolf Hitler. That's rather ironic when you consider the fact that the man who did actually fight Adolf Hitler, FDR, was a steadfast opponent of government sector unions. I guess that little nuance is lost on the Madison mob.
So, today in America far more taxpaying citizens have had their eyes opened to the power and the threat of government employee unions. They see the mobs descending on Madison, Wisconsin, and they asked themselves if this is what they really want to pay for with their taxes. Unions are massively overplaying their hand in Wisconsin. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Make no mistake, my friends, this is a war. This is a war between the taxpayers of this country and the government sector unions that have been plundering the taxpayers for years. From California to New York we have state governments who were in dire financial straits principally because of the benefits that had been negotiated through collective bargaining by public sector unions. In a union negotiation with a private business owner, the business owner has some skin in the game. The business owner knows that if he gives too much to the union, it may jeopardize his very business. When a government employee union negotiates with the city, county or a state government, the government officials who are engaged in the negotiation have NO skin in the game. They know that whatever benefits they negotiate with the union they will just be able to pass off on the poor suffering taxpayers. They also know that negotiations involving grandiose fringe benefits for government union workers will seldom reach the awareness of the taxpayer, but will always earn the gratitude of the union member. This means votes. This means union contributions. This means reelection. This means the continuation of the politician's life of power, prestige and perks.
You might have detected that I don't like unions. That's because I don't like mobs. I'm an individualist. I believe in the sanctity of the individual. Mob action is almost always irrational and self-defeating. Having said that, I can understand and can verbalize a positive role to be played by unions in our country. Let's say, for instance, that a worker refuses to handle a piece of machinery because he believes it to be inherently dangerous. His supervisor becomes so irate with the workers' obstinance that he fires them. A new worker is hired and subsequently is gravely injured by the malfunctioning piece of equipment. In a union environment, there would have been protection for the whistle blowing worker. Those same protections can be afforded through law without the need for mob action however. I would not support any law that outlaws private sector unions. Nor would I support any law that requires a worker to be a member of a private sector union. But it is well past time that we outlaw government sector unions. These union workers in Wisconsin seem to be fond of comparing Gov. Scott Walker with Adolf Hitler. That's rather ironic when you consider the fact that the man who did actually fight Adolf Hitler, FDR, was a steadfast opponent of government sector unions. I guess that little nuance is lost on the Madison mob.
So, today in America far more taxpaying citizens have had their eyes opened to the power and the threat of government employee unions. They see the mobs descending on Madison, Wisconsin, and they asked themselves if this is what they really want to pay for with their taxes. Unions are massively overplaying their hand in Wisconsin. It's a beautiful thing to see.
Public Sector Unions UNMASKED
Yesterday, I think, was a good day for America. It was a day when America saw the true face of government sector unions. Yesterday, Wisconsin became Greece, and Madison became Athens. Government union workers gathered by the thousands in Wisconsin's capital to protest Gov. Scott Walker's plans to rein in the constant abuse of the Wisconsin taxpayers by government employee unions. America - or at least that part of America that is paying attention - now understands that government employee unions have declared an all-out war on the taxpayers.
Unions are mobs, and it was a mob you saw descending on the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday. Mobs don't think. Mobs react. A thinking individual would not hold aloft a sign comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolf Hitler. An unthinking member of the mob would, as you could see yesterday by the union signs depicting Walker as Hitler. Mobs are easy to manipulate. That is the role of the union leaders. The leaders of the Wisconsin government sector unions are manipulating the mob for the purpose of preserving their own power and the fat incomes that come with being a labor leader. These union leaders have known for years that this day of reckoning over the state budget would come. They've also known that they would have to find a way to take this reckoning and turn it into a confrontation for their own benefit.
Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.
Why do I think yesterday was a good day for America? Once again, because Americans saw what these unions are really all about. Even though they recognize and accept the financial disaster facing their state government and other state governments around the country, the union workers see no need for them to be a part of the solution. Their message to the politicians is "Hey! You know how to raise taxes. Get out there and do it!"
Yesterday was a good day for America because the people of this country, already beginning to harbor strong suspicions about the negative role that government employee unions are playing in our economy, finally had those suspicions born out. Teachers unions, the most powerful of all -- and the most feared by Democrats -- called in sick. It was a lie. They weren't sick. They wanted to be paid to demonstrate instead of teach! Now they're union leaders will tell you that the state actually called a work holiday. Not true. The illegal strike came first, in the form of a sickout. Well over 1000 teachers called in the night before the big demonstration and said they would not be at work the next day because they were ill. Did they go to the doctor ? You know they didn't. They painted their signs, grabbed some students and headed for Madison. They lied, and they engaged in an illegal work stoppage. The people of Wisconsin saw it, and the people of America saw it. And today the people of this country have a clearer understanding of just how lawless and how dangerous government sector unions can be.
The people of Wisconsin voiced their concerns at the polls last November. They elected a Republican legislature and they put a Republican governor in office. They were tired of the spending, tired of the deficits, and tired of the debt that their children were going to have to pay off. They were also tired of government sector unions riding roughshod, not only over the legislative powers, but also over the voters. They voted for a change. But, as an editorial in the Madison newspaper put it, the unions are determined that they will have the last word, and they will have the loudest word. Mob rule is now in effect.
Do you get it now? Do you see what's coming? Government union workers are prepared to go to war against the taxpayers to protect their jobs and benefits. They make more than their private-sector counterparts? So what? They don't have to contribute to their own retirement plans or health care? So what? They enjoy retirement benefits that private-sector workers can only fantasize about? So what? Just get those rich people out there to pay more in taxes and everything is going to be fine. We're union, people, and we can shut this government down if we want to. Be careful who you pick a fight with. The rich will surrender to higher taxes. We won't surrender to fiscal responsibility.
Unions are mobs, and it was a mob you saw descending on the Wisconsin Capitol yesterday. Mobs don't think. Mobs react. A thinking individual would not hold aloft a sign comparing the governor of Wisconsin to Adolf Hitler. An unthinking member of the mob would, as you could see yesterday by the union signs depicting Walker as Hitler. Mobs are easy to manipulate. That is the role of the union leaders. The leaders of the Wisconsin government sector unions are manipulating the mob for the purpose of preserving their own power and the fat incomes that come with being a labor leader. These union leaders have known for years that this day of reckoning over the state budget would come. They've also known that they would have to find a way to take this reckoning and turn it into a confrontation for their own benefit.
Just what is it that Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state legislature want of these government sector unions? Well, they want them to put 5.8% of their wages toward their own retirement. Imagine that! Contributing to your own retirement! Oh, the humanity! They also want government employees to cover 12.6% of their health care premiums. This, of course, is an outrageous concept for Democrats. People just should not be responsible for their own health care. That's the employer's job ... or the government. This, to these pampered and overpaid union members, seems like the end of the world. The fact is that even with those payments into their own retirement plan and into their health care premiums they would still be paying $100 a month less than the average private sector employee pays in Wisconsin. The unions acknowledge that there's a budget problem, but they have a better way of dealing with it. Raise taxes! It's as simple as that. Just raise taxes on the rich and on the businesses. Just do what you have to do to keep the money flowing into the state so that they can continue to be paid more than their private-sector colleagues would be paid for the same work; and so that they don't have to contribute anything to their own retirement or to their own health care. That is the union way.
Why do I think yesterday was a good day for America? Once again, because Americans saw what these unions are really all about. Even though they recognize and accept the financial disaster facing their state government and other state governments around the country, the union workers see no need for them to be a part of the solution. Their message to the politicians is "Hey! You know how to raise taxes. Get out there and do it!"
Yesterday was a good day for America because the people of this country, already beginning to harbor strong suspicions about the negative role that government employee unions are playing in our economy, finally had those suspicions born out. Teachers unions, the most powerful of all -- and the most feared by Democrats -- called in sick. It was a lie. They weren't sick. They wanted to be paid to demonstrate instead of teach! Now they're union leaders will tell you that the state actually called a work holiday. Not true. The illegal strike came first, in the form of a sickout. Well over 1000 teachers called in the night before the big demonstration and said they would not be at work the next day because they were ill. Did they go to the doctor ? You know they didn't. They painted their signs, grabbed some students and headed for Madison. They lied, and they engaged in an illegal work stoppage. The people of Wisconsin saw it, and the people of America saw it. And today the people of this country have a clearer understanding of just how lawless and how dangerous government sector unions can be.
The people of Wisconsin voiced their concerns at the polls last November. They elected a Republican legislature and they put a Republican governor in office. They were tired of the spending, tired of the deficits, and tired of the debt that their children were going to have to pay off. They were also tired of government sector unions riding roughshod, not only over the legislative powers, but also over the voters. They voted for a change. But, as an editorial in the Madison newspaper put it, the unions are determined that they will have the last word, and they will have the loudest word. Mob rule is now in effect.
Do you get it now? Do you see what's coming? Government union workers are prepared to go to war against the taxpayers to protect their jobs and benefits. They make more than their private-sector counterparts? So what? They don't have to contribute to their own retirement plans or health care? So what? They enjoy retirement benefits that private-sector workers can only fantasize about? So what? Just get those rich people out there to pay more in taxes and everything is going to be fine. We're union, people, and we can shut this government down if we want to. Be careful who you pick a fight with. The rich will surrender to higher taxes. We won't surrender to fiscal responsibility.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Take the test--Then--bend over and assume the position...
Name one, just one, government program in history that actually cost we were told it would cost upon its inception.
Come on, I'm waiting! I don't have all day here. Oh! You give up? Yeah ... so did I. I've been asking that question for years, and no one can give me an adequate response.
Next question:
Tell me why do you think ObamaCare will be any different?
Here's the latest report that should scare the socks off of you ... from CNSNews:
The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.
In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.
One trillion dollars per year. Unbelievable. To put things in perspective, supposedly Obama's grand budget plan would cut projected deficits by $1.1 trillion ... over the next 10 years. That's his big plan - to cut $1 trillion from our deficit over ten years. It won't happen ... not with his budget, and he knows it. He's also very upset that the media is exposing his gimmicks. But back to the point ... on the one hand he talks about a vaporous $1 trillion reduction in the deficit, and on the other hand he's building the country's first $1 trillion agency. Just where to you think all this is going? A weakened America, that's where.
Come on, I'm waiting! I don't have all day here. Oh! You give up? Yeah ... so did I. I've been asking that question for years, and no one can give me an adequate response.
Next question:
Tell me why do you think ObamaCare will be any different?
Here's the latest report that should scare the socks off of you ... from CNSNews:
The Department of Health and Human Services will become the nation's first-ever $1-trillion-per-year Cabinet department in 2014, which is also the first year President Barack Obama's health-care law is scheduled to be fully implemented by that department, according to the budget projections President Obama released yesterday.
In fact, HHS already is costing American taxpayers more per year in inflation-adjusted dollars than the entire federal government cost back in 1965, the year President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Medicare into law.
One trillion dollars per year. Unbelievable. To put things in perspective, supposedly Obama's grand budget plan would cut projected deficits by $1.1 trillion ... over the next 10 years. That's his big plan - to cut $1 trillion from our deficit over ten years. It won't happen ... not with his budget, and he knows it. He's also very upset that the media is exposing his gimmicks. But back to the point ... on the one hand he talks about a vaporous $1 trillion reduction in the deficit, and on the other hand he's building the country's first $1 trillion agency. Just where to you think all this is going? A weakened America, that's where.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tax increase found so far from a president's budget that he says lowers taxes and cuts the deficit
· Raising the top marginal income tax rate (at which a majority of small business profits face taxation) from 35% to 39.6%. This is a $709 billion/10 year tax hike
· Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
· Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
· Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
· New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
· New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
· New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
· Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
· Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
· Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership ("carried interest") as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
· A giveaway to the trial lawyers--not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
· Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Is this the type of change you want to believe in? Or is it just more Bullshit? This president can only maintain power by consent of the governed. It's the same for your senators and Congresscritters. Better wake up people!
· Raising the capital gains and dividends rate from 15% to 20%
· Raising the death tax rate from 35% to 45% and lowering the death tax exemption amount from $5 million ($10 million for couples) to $3.5 million. This is a $98 billion/ten year tax hike
· Capping the value of itemized deductions at the 28% bracket rate. This will effectively cut tax deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, property taxes, state and local income or sales taxes, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and unreimbursed employee business expenses. A new means-tested phaseout of itemized deductions limits them even more. This is a $321 billion/ten year tax hike
· New bank taxes totaling $33 billion over ten years
· New international corporate tax hikes totaling $129 billion over ten years
· New life insurance company taxes totaling $14 billion over ten years
· Massive new taxes on energy, including LIFO repeal, Superfund, domestic energy manufacturing, and many others totaling $120 billion over ten years
· Increasing unemployment payroll taxes by $15 billion over ten years
· Taxing management capital gains in an investment partnership ("carried interest") as ordinary income. This is a tax hike of $15 billion over ten years
· A giveaway to the trial lawyers--not letting companies deduct the cost of punitive damages from a lawsuit settlement. This is a tax hike of $300 million over ten years
· Increasing tax penalties, information reporting, and IRS information sharing. This is a ten-year tax hike of $20 billion.
Is this the type of change you want to believe in? Or is it just more Bullshit? This president can only maintain power by consent of the governed. It's the same for your senators and Congresscritters. Better wake up people!
This president is killing us.
The more details we come to learn about the ObamaBudget, the less enthused I become. Not that I was all that impressed to begin with, but it truly seems like we have another Obamanation on our hands. Considering this moment in our history - considering the Tea Party movement's call for fiscal reform, considering the monumental election on 2010, and considering our unprecedented level of spending - you would think that Obama's budget would somehow reflect our urgent need for big change. Wasn't that his word, after all -- Change? Well it seems as though the change that Obama imagined is not the type of change that we need. We need to change the course of programs in this country that are running us dry and crippling our future. Instead, we get even more government, more regulations and more spending. This is not change .... this is simply the George Bush administration on steroids.
So what kind of goodies are we learning as we weed our way through Obama's budget? Let's start with this one from CNSNews: "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget."
Or, here's another way to look at it. This from the Washington Times: "President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equaling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time." Read that again, folks ... our federal debt will equal the size of our entire economy. How can we be expected to grow our way out of something as daunting as that? Or you can think about it like this: The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013 and will stabilize at about 105 percent in the middle of this decade. However ... and this is a big "however" ... this assumes economic growth levels significantly above those projected by the CBO. In other words, those are low-ball figures unless something seriously kick-starts in our economy.
Here's another goodie for you! From the Cato Institute ... Since 2001, spending has skyrocketed in almost every part of the budget. Even with the supposed "cuts" in Obama's budget, here's what the spending increases in some federal bureaucracies will look like:
· 112 percent more spending for the Department of Agriculture;
· 100 percent more spending for the Department of Education;
· 154 percent more spending for the Department of Energy;
· 110 percent more spending for the Department of Health and Human Services;
· 175 percent more spending for the Department of Labor; and
· 82 percent for the Department of Transportation.
Still not getting the picture? Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes a look at Obama's budget compared to 2008 ...
· Total federal spending jumped from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.82 trillion in 2011. Obama's budget has outlays at $3.73 trillion in 2012, but that's still up 25 percent from 2008. Spending in 2011 is the highest share of GDP since WWII at 25.3 percent.
· Non-defense discretionary spending jumped from $522 billion in 2008 to $655 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $611 billion in 2012, but that's still up 17 percent from 2008.
· Defense spending jumped from $612 billion in 2008 to $761 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $730 billion in 2012, but that's still up 19 percent from 2008.
· Entitlement spending jumped from $1.59 trillion in 2008 to $2.19 trillion in 2011. The budget has entitlement spending at $2.14 trillion in 2012, which is up a huge 35 percent from 2008.
You would think that considering the elections of 2010, PrezBo would have changed his budget to fall more in line with the demands of America ..... you would be wrong. Again, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute explains that Obama's 2011 budget is essentially exactly the same as the one proposed last year (that never passed).
· Last year, Obama proposed total spending for 2012 of $3.76 trillion. His new budget proposes 2012 spending of $3.73 trillion. So, in response to huge and growing concerns about overspending in Washington, the administration has essentially not changed next year's spending target at all.
· Last year, Obama projected spending in 2020 at $5.71 trillion. His new budget has spending in 2020 at $5.42 trillion. So the new focus on fiscal restraint in Washington has convinced the administration to trim just 5 percent off of its previous budget by the end of the decade. The new proposal for spending in 2020 is 42 percent higher than spending this year.
· Last year, Obama's budget showed public debt rising to 77 percent of GDP by 2020. Yet despite all the administration's expressed concern about rising debt, the new budget has exactly the same debt target in 2020 of 77 percent.
· Last year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.30 trillion. This year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.34 trillion.
Barack Obama must think that the ObamaMedia isn't going to call him out and the American people are too ignorant to know otherwise.
The bigger question are we that stupid and will the Obamamedia let him get away with it?
So what kind of goodies are we learning as we weed our way through Obama's budget? Let's start with this one from CNSNews: "If the federal budget released by President Barack Obama today is implemented, it will double the national debt over the next 10 years. The current national debt is $13.56 trillion (end of FY 2010). By the end of 2021, that debt would rise to $26.3 trillion under the White House budget."
Or, here's another way to look at it. This from the Washington Times: "President Obama projects that the gross federal debt will top $15 trillion this year, officially equaling the size of the entire U.S. economy, and will jump to nearly $21 trillion in five years' time." Read that again, folks ... our federal debt will equal the size of our entire economy. How can we be expected to grow our way out of something as daunting as that? Or you can think about it like this: The president's budget said debt as a percentage of GDP will top out at 106 percent in 2013 and will stabilize at about 105 percent in the middle of this decade. However ... and this is a big "however" ... this assumes economic growth levels significantly above those projected by the CBO. In other words, those are low-ball figures unless something seriously kick-starts in our economy.
Here's another goodie for you! From the Cato Institute ... Since 2001, spending has skyrocketed in almost every part of the budget. Even with the supposed "cuts" in Obama's budget, here's what the spending increases in some federal bureaucracies will look like:
· 112 percent more spending for the Department of Agriculture;
· 100 percent more spending for the Department of Education;
· 154 percent more spending for the Department of Energy;
· 110 percent more spending for the Department of Health and Human Services;
· 175 percent more spending for the Department of Labor; and
· 82 percent for the Department of Transportation.
Still not getting the picture? Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute takes a look at Obama's budget compared to 2008 ...
· Total federal spending jumped from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.82 trillion in 2011. Obama's budget has outlays at $3.73 trillion in 2012, but that's still up 25 percent from 2008. Spending in 2011 is the highest share of GDP since WWII at 25.3 percent.
· Non-defense discretionary spending jumped from $522 billion in 2008 to $655 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $611 billion in 2012, but that's still up 17 percent from 2008.
· Defense spending jumped from $612 billion in 2008 to $761 billion in 2011. Spending is supposed to fall to $730 billion in 2012, but that's still up 19 percent from 2008.
· Entitlement spending jumped from $1.59 trillion in 2008 to $2.19 trillion in 2011. The budget has entitlement spending at $2.14 trillion in 2012, which is up a huge 35 percent from 2008.
You would think that considering the elections of 2010, PrezBo would have changed his budget to fall more in line with the demands of America ..... you would be wrong. Again, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute explains that Obama's 2011 budget is essentially exactly the same as the one proposed last year (that never passed).
· Last year, Obama proposed total spending for 2012 of $3.76 trillion. His new budget proposes 2012 spending of $3.73 trillion. So, in response to huge and growing concerns about overspending in Washington, the administration has essentially not changed next year's spending target at all.
· Last year, Obama projected spending in 2020 at $5.71 trillion. His new budget has spending in 2020 at $5.42 trillion. So the new focus on fiscal restraint in Washington has convinced the administration to trim just 5 percent off of its previous budget by the end of the decade. The new proposal for spending in 2020 is 42 percent higher than spending this year.
· Last year, Obama's budget showed public debt rising to 77 percent of GDP by 2020. Yet despite all the administration's expressed concern about rising debt, the new budget has exactly the same debt target in 2020 of 77 percent.
· Last year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.30 trillion. This year, Obama proposed 2012 discretionary outlays of $1.34 trillion.
Barack Obama must think that the ObamaMedia isn't going to call him out and the American people are too ignorant to know otherwise.
The bigger question are we that stupid and will the Obamamedia let him get away with it?
Sunday, February 13, 2011
How does Toyota get its rep back?
So roughly a year ago, reporters went batshit crazy over possessed Toyotas that accelerate without your consent - smashing into other sedans, running into and over people, or worse: ruining floral mailboxes that look like miniature versions of stately homes.
Well, if you're like me, you knew this might be B.S.
And while I felt bad for the victims - I also felt for the car company - which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.
But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn't love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.
Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would "create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."
Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was... pedal misapplication."
That's a nice way of saying it's the asshat at the wheel's fault.
I'm sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.
Which leads me to one thought: why isn't there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?
As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power - and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age - and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.
But everyone forgets.
Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.
And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.
A yellow one.
Well, if you're like me, you knew this might be B.S.
And while I felt bad for the victims - I also felt for the car company - which would lose billions trying to remedy a mechanical problem that may not exist.
But reporters never met a hyped-up story they didn't love, and in this case, they grabbed it by the neck and dry humped it to the ground.
Well, now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, along with NASA, have found that there were no electronic flaws in the cars that would "create dangerous high-speed unintended acceleration incidents."
Their conclusions? The most likely cause of the acceleration was... pedal misapplication."
That's a nice way of saying it's the asshat at the wheel's fault.
I'm sure some people will disagree. But my gut tells me that cars are the safest thing about driving. Elderly drivers, pedestrians and girls frantically searching for breath mints frighten me more.
Which leads me to one thought: why isn't there some kind of punishment for reporters who fall for false, hyped up crap like this?
As far as I can tell, you can write about the dangers of DDT, and be wrong; you can scream about the dangers of nuclear power - and be wrong; you can babble about the coming ice age - and be wrong; and you can then clamor over climate change -and really be wrong.
But everyone forgets.
Which is why, as punishment, they should all be driving Pintos.
And if you disagree with me, you probably drive a Pacer.
A yellow one.
Thursday, February 03, 2011
Egypt
So like you, I've been watching Egypt the same way I watch the Pro Bowl. In my underwear, confused.
Because I think I don't have a dog in the hunt, I check out what people are wearing. Eyeing the men crowding the streets of Cairo, I realize what Goodwill did with Billy Crystal's old sweaters.
Look, I can't tell if these events are a good thing. And I'm inherently suspicious of any stateside protests that erupt so quickly with ready-made signs. I also don't embrace revolution for the sake of revolution. I assume Mubarak is far from a great guy, but I'm not sure his replacement will be any better. And I can't help getting spooked by the name, "Muslim Brotherhood." It sounds like a prison gang from Oz.
(I have a feeling they don't like Israel. Or us, either.)
And some of the commentary kills me. We have climate change alarmists linking unrest to global warming, which makes me want to throw up repeatedly, on climate change alarmists.
But they're half right. Rising food prices do make people angry. And food prices are going up - since we're turning corn into ethanol, instead of chowder. That's surely the fault of climate change, or more precisely, climate change alarmists.
But my guess is, this revolution arrived via four things: Mubarak fatigue, a crummy way of life, an ever present radicalism waiting in the wings, a timid west.
But like you I want a quick, peaceful resolution to this. I'm old enough to remember Iran in 1979, and I'm still ticked off by the Iran of two years ago. In the former, Carter watched a Shah get replaced by a psycho. And in 2009, Obama watched a golden moment for real change slip by. If we had done something about that uprising, maybe this one might be different.
Or at least better than the Pro Bowl.
Because I think I don't have a dog in the hunt, I check out what people are wearing. Eyeing the men crowding the streets of Cairo, I realize what Goodwill did with Billy Crystal's old sweaters.
Look, I can't tell if these events are a good thing. And I'm inherently suspicious of any stateside protests that erupt so quickly with ready-made signs. I also don't embrace revolution for the sake of revolution. I assume Mubarak is far from a great guy, but I'm not sure his replacement will be any better. And I can't help getting spooked by the name, "Muslim Brotherhood." It sounds like a prison gang from Oz.
(I have a feeling they don't like Israel. Or us, either.)
And some of the commentary kills me. We have climate change alarmists linking unrest to global warming, which makes me want to throw up repeatedly, on climate change alarmists.
But they're half right. Rising food prices do make people angry. And food prices are going up - since we're turning corn into ethanol, instead of chowder. That's surely the fault of climate change, or more precisely, climate change alarmists.
But my guess is, this revolution arrived via four things: Mubarak fatigue, a crummy way of life, an ever present radicalism waiting in the wings, a timid west.
But like you I want a quick, peaceful resolution to this. I'm old enough to remember Iran in 1979, and I'm still ticked off by the Iran of two years ago. In the former, Carter watched a Shah get replaced by a psycho. And in 2009, Obama watched a golden moment for real change slip by. If we had done something about that uprising, maybe this one might be different.
Or at least better than the Pro Bowl.
Government produces nothing. It's a zero sum game when the government is spending the money
In the last two years, federal government spending has increased by 27%. Remember that in just the last decade, federal spending has doubled.
Two directions we can go from here. First ... we have to ask just what we have for this massive increase in government spending. Think about it, folks. Isn't the idea to exchange money for something of value? What have we gained in the last decade or over the last two years as a nation? The ONLY answer is more government. And there we have another example of just what is valuable to ObamaZombies ... government. More government. Ever more government. The Democrats DID get something of value for this massive increase in spending .. they got more government.
Secondly .. what's this noise about not being able to cut spending? Are these government-loving Democrats trying to tell us that after they've increased spending by 27% over two years (The ObamaYears) the best they can do right now is to free some spending? Not all government spending ... but just some spending? Not a cut .. but a freeze? You know this is a crock .. and even I know it. There is plenty of room to cut spending ... huge cuts ... but Democrats have a constituency to bribe --- votes to buy --- and that takes money.
Let me remind you of one simple truth when it comes to government spending: "For every dollar injected into the economy by government spending, an equivalent dollar had to be taken out of the community in the form of higher taxes or through borrowing." Sometimes we tend to forget this fact ... we tend to forget that this money would otherwise exist, it would just be spent or invested by different people or entities. By allowing the government to spend it, it gains more power.
Now what if I told you that there is a way to increase federal revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade? What if I told you that you could do it without raising taxes? No, I'm not a magician. The answer is simple: grow the economy. Let the private sector do what it does best. This from a blog on Forbes:
Strong economic growth would be expected to increase Federal tax revenues to their long-term average of 18% of GDP -- an increase of 3 full percentage points from their current level. That alone would increase Federal receipts by $450 billion a year, or assuming 3% growth, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years with no increase in tax rates.
In addition, every one-percentage point increase in economic growth would generate an additional $150 billion in national income and incremental tax revenue of approximately $27 billion a year. Maintaining a 1% higher growth rate would add an additional $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years.
Just remember that the government does not make money, it collects money and spends it. If you want money in the hands of the producers, get government out of the way. Soon enough there will be more producers, with more money, and therefore the government will have more revenue. And the cycle continues ... but when Democrats says "job creation" they mean "jobs created by the government, funded by the tax payers." Got it?
Two directions we can go from here. First ... we have to ask just what we have for this massive increase in government spending. Think about it, folks. Isn't the idea to exchange money for something of value? What have we gained in the last decade or over the last two years as a nation? The ONLY answer is more government. And there we have another example of just what is valuable to ObamaZombies ... government. More government. Ever more government. The Democrats DID get something of value for this massive increase in spending .. they got more government.
Secondly .. what's this noise about not being able to cut spending? Are these government-loving Democrats trying to tell us that after they've increased spending by 27% over two years (The ObamaYears) the best they can do right now is to free some spending? Not all government spending ... but just some spending? Not a cut .. but a freeze? You know this is a crock .. and even I know it. There is plenty of room to cut spending ... huge cuts ... but Democrats have a constituency to bribe --- votes to buy --- and that takes money.
Let me remind you of one simple truth when it comes to government spending: "For every dollar injected into the economy by government spending, an equivalent dollar had to be taken out of the community in the form of higher taxes or through borrowing." Sometimes we tend to forget this fact ... we tend to forget that this money would otherwise exist, it would just be spent or invested by different people or entities. By allowing the government to spend it, it gains more power.
Now what if I told you that there is a way to increase federal revenues by more than $5 trillion over the next decade? What if I told you that you could do it without raising taxes? No, I'm not a magician. The answer is simple: grow the economy. Let the private sector do what it does best. This from a blog on Forbes:
Strong economic growth would be expected to increase Federal tax revenues to their long-term average of 18% of GDP -- an increase of 3 full percentage points from their current level. That alone would increase Federal receipts by $450 billion a year, or assuming 3% growth, more than $5 trillion over the next 10 years with no increase in tax rates.
In addition, every one-percentage point increase in economic growth would generate an additional $150 billion in national income and incremental tax revenue of approximately $27 billion a year. Maintaining a 1% higher growth rate would add an additional $1.5 trillion in Federal revenue over the next 10 years.
Just remember that the government does not make money, it collects money and spends it. If you want money in the hands of the producers, get government out of the way. Soon enough there will be more producers, with more money, and therefore the government will have more revenue. And the cycle continues ... but when Democrats says "job creation" they mean "jobs created by the government, funded by the tax payers." Got it?
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
We mock what we are to be.
I was in line at the local Publix yesterday. I just can't go through the day without my fat-free French vanilla ice cream. There was an old gentleman checking out in front of me. Certainly in his 80's. I thought that he handled the card reader and his debit card quite well, but the two women working the counter - one ringing up the purchases and the other bagging - evidently felt differently. As the old man walked away one looked at the other and made some joke about how slow the man was. In a completely calm and pleasant way (for which I am known) I said; "Yeah, and about 65 years ago that old man may well have been trying to climb a cliff at Normandy with thousands of Germans trying to kill him." I swiped my card, entered my PIN, punched the "no cash" button (I'm not allowed to carry cash) and then looked up. The cashier had a tear running down her cheek. She looked at me and said "thank you for reminding me." Hopefully after I left she gave a little history lesson to the much-younger bagger.
And to all of the old farts we will encounter today fumbling with debit cards and driving 20 mph below the flow of traffic in the left lane with your blinkers on ... Thank you and God bless you. Thank you every day ... not just on Veteran's Day.
And to all of the old farts we will encounter today fumbling with debit cards and driving 20 mph below the flow of traffic in the left lane with your blinkers on ... Thank you and God bless you. Thank you every day ... not just on Veteran's Day.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Canasta or just the race card?
We can't manage to go one week without some brain-dead politician in Washington playing the race card. This week's example comes from Virginia Democrat Jim Moran. Now you may remember that name but can't remember exactly why. The last time I talked about this rocket surgeon he had this to say ..
"... because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth."
Remember that little goodie? Yeah, I had some fun with that. But this time around, Moran resorts to none other than the race card. He says that Republicans made big gains in November in part because "a lot of people in this country ... don't want to be governed by an African-American."
There we go with this hyphenated Americanism thing. But let's keep going. He goes on to say that Americans object to Obama even more because he a is a black president "who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society -- that's a basic philosophical clash."
Playing the race card has been the last refuge of Democrats for two generations now. When the news goes against them, when the rhetoric goes against them, when the votes go against them, they start screaming race.
What Jim Moran can't seem to explain is why all these racist voted for Barack Obama in 2008? If they didn't want to be governed by an African-American, as he says it, why did they vote for him in the first place. Did the people of this country suddenly wake up on January 21, 2009 to discover to their horror that there was a black man living in the White House? Hardly.
But why am I wasting so much time trying to respond to an idiot who believes that the idea that people are entitled to the wealth that they produce is "simplistic"?
If this man didn't have a vote in the House of Representatives he wouldn't be worth the breath that it takes to utter his name.
And as for this "race" thing, let me be clear (pun intended), I don't like the white half either.
"... because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards means of redistributing wealth."
Remember that little goodie? Yeah, I had some fun with that. But this time around, Moran resorts to none other than the race card. He says that Republicans made big gains in November in part because "a lot of people in this country ... don't want to be governed by an African-American."
There we go with this hyphenated Americanism thing. But let's keep going. He goes on to say that Americans object to Obama even more because he a is a black president "who is inclusive, who is liberal, who wants to spend money on everyone and who wants to reach out to include everyone in our society -- that's a basic philosophical clash."
Playing the race card has been the last refuge of Democrats for two generations now. When the news goes against them, when the rhetoric goes against them, when the votes go against them, they start screaming race.
What Jim Moran can't seem to explain is why all these racist voted for Barack Obama in 2008? If they didn't want to be governed by an African-American, as he says it, why did they vote for him in the first place. Did the people of this country suddenly wake up on January 21, 2009 to discover to their horror that there was a black man living in the White House? Hardly.
But why am I wasting so much time trying to respond to an idiot who believes that the idea that people are entitled to the wealth that they produce is "simplistic"?
If this man didn't have a vote in the House of Representatives he wouldn't be worth the breath that it takes to utter his name.
And as for this "race" thing, let me be clear (pun intended), I don't like the white half either.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
SOTU
Because the State of the Union aired Tuesday night and I was unavailable to comment, I feel compelled to talk about it, if only because I noticed an odd evolution in our leader's voice.
He's transformed himself from a Commander in Chief, to a fretful parent trying to get you to finish those remaining peas on the plate.
As his voice strained higher - it reminded me of my favorite episode of the Brady Bunch, when Greg urged his family members to put on a show, to help pay for a gift for dad and mom's anniversary. I kept thinking Obama was gunna suggest we break up into small groups, and come up with collages that best express our drive to do better.
Now, this "come on, everyone! Let's put on a play!" may work well in a tree house, where you can fashion old blankets into stage curtains...but in front of the country - it's weird.
Maybe because I think he was trying to convince himself, not just us - that America was great.
Or perhaps he felt he had to prove to us that he really felt that way, even if he didn't.
Or maybe even he was simply exhausted - after years of banging on America's faults - and now it was time to come home and sleep in his own bed.
In the end, the speech wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was a fiery "Eh."
I think he should have kept it fast and simple, like "America rules, now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go to work. And Black Swan was overrated."
To me, confidence isn't built by sixty minutes of earnestness, but by relaxed optimism - made acceptable by an innate trust that you know what's really important in troubled times.
I'm not sure it's solar shingles, or anything to do with Sputnik.
So let me sum up PrezBo's entire speech with this paraphrase--America is a great nation and as Americans we can achieve anything and everything if we really, really want to. And OH--Look -- I found a shiny new quarter.
He's transformed himself from a Commander in Chief, to a fretful parent trying to get you to finish those remaining peas on the plate.
As his voice strained higher - it reminded me of my favorite episode of the Brady Bunch, when Greg urged his family members to put on a show, to help pay for a gift for dad and mom's anniversary. I kept thinking Obama was gunna suggest we break up into small groups, and come up with collages that best express our drive to do better.
Now, this "come on, everyone! Let's put on a play!" may work well in a tree house, where you can fashion old blankets into stage curtains...but in front of the country - it's weird.
Maybe because I think he was trying to convince himself, not just us - that America was great.
Or perhaps he felt he had to prove to us that he really felt that way, even if he didn't.
Or maybe even he was simply exhausted - after years of banging on America's faults - and now it was time to come home and sleep in his own bed.
In the end, the speech wasn't bad. It wasn't good. It was a fiery "Eh."
I think he should have kept it fast and simple, like "America rules, now if you'll excuse me, I gotta go to work. And Black Swan was overrated."
To me, confidence isn't built by sixty minutes of earnestness, but by relaxed optimism - made acceptable by an innate trust that you know what's really important in troubled times.
I'm not sure it's solar shingles, or anything to do with Sputnik.
So let me sum up PrezBo's entire speech with this paraphrase--America is a great nation and as Americans we can achieve anything and everything if we really, really want to. And OH--Look -- I found a shiny new quarter.
We be getting closer to the CLIFF
It's no coincidence that the day after PrezBo speech on Tuesday night, we get new astonishing figures from the Congressional Budget Office. Those figures are that the government's deficit spending will reach $1.5 trillion this year. That is money that we don't have ... money that we have to borrow ... and it is money that your grandchildren will have to pay back ... if we're still around to even pay it back. Remember folks .. that budget is JUST FOR THIS YEAR! The huge sum is blamed on the slow economy (duh) and the extension of the Bush tax cuts (here we go). If you put pen to paper you will see that blaming the tax cuts is absolute nonsense. There's scary news about there about the deficit ... and ObamaBots see a way to use that scary news to advance their class warfare wealth redistribution agenda.
Think about it this way: Our government will have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends in this fiscal year. The deficit will absolutely be the highest on record, although at the rate we are going, I'm sure that record will continue to be broken, and that is nothing to be proud of. In fact, the CBO currently estimates that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 - for the fourth year in a row. Our debt held by the public will soar to 70% by the end of the 2011 fiscal year.
It's hard to comprehend all of this, isn't it? But with figures as staggering as these, Obama's plans to merely freeze spending are looking diminutive. (That's tiny for those of you who were educated in public schools.)
Now before we move on to my next intemperate rant ... this must be said. The ultimate blame for what is looking like the eventual economic destruction of our country rests with us, not these politicians. America is a country chock full of people who think that the federal government exists for no real purpose other than to solve every problem they ever have. If they abuse their health, the government is supposed to pay to make them well again. If they fail to save for retirement, the government is supposed to step in with a guaranteed lifetime retirement income. If they spend like teenage girls in a mall, and can't pay their home mortgage, then the government is supposed to step in and bail them out and provide a place for them to live. It's always the government. Space the government is always there to solve your problems. Space and the government should always take money away from other people, who have lived their lives responsibly, to pay for the solutions. This country can be saved. But as long as we have a sizable portion of our population, the moocher class, begging for more and more benefits from the government, and voting accordingly, our future looks dim.
In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Nathaniel Macon. They actually wrote letters back then. How about an excerpt?
"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad ..."
But what the hell did Thomas Jefferson know? A lot, apparently. Here is another Jefferson quote:
"I placed the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts we must be taxed in our meat and drink in our necessities and in our comforts in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Now those are two quotes from one of the men responsible for this incredible nation, though Obama doesn't seem to think it's all that incredible. But it actually goes back further than that. Knowledge of the dangers of public debt were known even in 55 BC! Here is a quote from Cicero. No, Cicero wasn't a rapper. He was some Roman dude. A philosopher, actually, who's full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Come to think of it, that is sort of a rapper name. Anyway ... the quote:
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of official government should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Now think about it my friends; that was 55 BC! If you take the word "Rome" out of that quote it sounds for all the world like it was uttered by a Libertarian or Republican candidate somewhere. It certainly doesn't sound like it could have ever been uttered by Barack Obama except, possibly, in one of his bad dreams.
We have to stop whistling past the graveyard folks. Sometimes when you whistle past too many graveyards you end up being buried in one of them.
Think about it this way: Our government will have to borrow 40 cents for every dollar it spends in this fiscal year. The deficit will absolutely be the highest on record, although at the rate we are going, I'm sure that record will continue to be broken, and that is nothing to be proud of. In fact, the CBO currently estimates that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2012 - for the fourth year in a row. Our debt held by the public will soar to 70% by the end of the 2011 fiscal year.
It's hard to comprehend all of this, isn't it? But with figures as staggering as these, Obama's plans to merely freeze spending are looking diminutive. (That's tiny for those of you who were educated in public schools.)
Now before we move on to my next intemperate rant ... this must be said. The ultimate blame for what is looking like the eventual economic destruction of our country rests with us, not these politicians. America is a country chock full of people who think that the federal government exists for no real purpose other than to solve every problem they ever have. If they abuse their health, the government is supposed to pay to make them well again. If they fail to save for retirement, the government is supposed to step in with a guaranteed lifetime retirement income. If they spend like teenage girls in a mall, and can't pay their home mortgage, then the government is supposed to step in and bail them out and provide a place for them to live. It's always the government. Space the government is always there to solve your problems. Space and the government should always take money away from other people, who have lived their lives responsibly, to pay for the solutions. This country can be saved. But as long as we have a sizable portion of our population, the moocher class, begging for more and more benefits from the government, and voting accordingly, our future looks dim.
In 1821 Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Nathaniel Macon. They actually wrote letters back then. How about an excerpt?
"There does not exist an engine so corruptive of the government and so demoralizing of the nation as a public debt. It will bring on us more ruin at home than all the enemies from abroad ..."
But what the hell did Thomas Jefferson know? A lot, apparently. Here is another Jefferson quote:
"I placed the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts we must be taxed in our meat and drink in our necessities and in our comforts in our labor and in our amusements. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labor of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy."
Now those are two quotes from one of the men responsible for this incredible nation, though Obama doesn't seem to think it's all that incredible. But it actually goes back further than that. Knowledge of the dangers of public debt were known even in 55 BC! Here is a quote from Cicero. No, Cicero wasn't a rapper. He was some Roman dude. A philosopher, actually, who's full name was Marcus Tullius Cicero. Come to think of it, that is sort of a rapper name. Anyway ... the quote:
"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of official government should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."
Now think about it my friends; that was 55 BC! If you take the word "Rome" out of that quote it sounds for all the world like it was uttered by a Libertarian or Republican candidate somewhere. It certainly doesn't sound like it could have ever been uttered by Barack Obama except, possibly, in one of his bad dreams.
We have to stop whistling past the graveyard folks. Sometimes when you whistle past too many graveyards you end up being buried in one of them.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Never let a tragedy go to waste
By now, there's little I can say that would shed light or comfort on the ghastly events that took place last Saturday. As an average joe with a penchant for thinking the obvious, two words came to mind, regarding the shooter: "grudge," and "crazy." Nothing good comes from an equation in which those two variables are involved. And while these events are rare, it doesn't make them any less horrific.
So let me focus instead on the media's coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it's the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.
And this rush to judgment reveals the media's not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met - using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.
Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world's worst cocktail party, without the cocktails - featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted "to spit on" the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that's symptom one in the diagnosis, "God, You're Stupid."
It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet....
"This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications."
This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What "political ramifications" did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers - who was fired.
And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the FT Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.
As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.
There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.
So let me focus instead on the media's coverage, particularly the nonsense on the web, which seemed a stark contrast from the actual facts, as they unfolded. After all, it's the facts that matter, not the opinions of an editorialist with an axe to grind. What bothered me most – the drooling opinionating that sprinted from the gate, faster than the facts could keep up.
And this rush to judgment reveals the media's not-so-secret biases toward certain political personalities and movements. Among a few prominent leftist columnists, celebrities and talking heads, their responses barely concealed a morbid glee in getting their assumptions met - using incendiary rhetoric that they themselves pretend to condemn. The shooting was the best thing that ever happened to their own reservoir of anger. It was a leftwing Lalapalooza.
Actually, it was like watching an opening at Walmart, with sweaty hacks in a tug of war over a table of identical, knee jerk assumptions. All designed to control the narrative. To get there first, to fill a void. It was the world's worst cocktail party, without the cocktails - featuring Jane Fonda, KooKoo Krugman, Piers Morgan, the puppets at Daily Kos and Media Matters – and even WaPo columnist Courtland Milloy, who wanted "to spit on" the tea party, now blaming the right for the shootings. Capping it off, we have a Democrat who wants to ban symbols that may seem threatening to elected officials. I believe that's symptom one in the diagnosis, "God, You're Stupid."
It even reached the other side of the pond, as Morgan, the ruddy replacement for Larry King, leapt into the fray, with a tweet....
"This now deleted image from Sarah Palin website will be reason this terrible shooting has huge political ramifications."
This, from a man who ran- on the cover of his old newspaper- a faked image featuring a British soldier urinating on a prisoner. What "political ramifications" did that have for the British military? Thankfully, not much, compared to Piers - who was fired.
And so, on Saturday, Twitter was a feeding frenzy of amnesiacs, galloping to one singular conclusion, forgetting that doing so with the FT Hood shooter was mindless bigotry.
As a rightie, I wanted to go after the ghouls capitalizing on this tragedy to score political points. But you realize, as Congressman McCotter once said, quoting someone famous: wrestling with a skunk only leaves you smelly and the skunk happy.
There were a lot of skunks out there this weekend, and boy did they stink.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Fraud
So, the most famous and oft-quoted study linking vaccines to autism has been deemed a fraud. A new examination found that the paper, authored by Andrew Wakefield over 12 years ago, contained heavily doctored research to make the link appear real.
This is kind of a huge deal, since the paper was used by witless fools like Jennie McCarthy to scare parents into skipping vaccinations - which allowed childhood diseases to spike, and kill kids.
When Jennie was asked to comment on the fraudulent study, she said, "Really? I guess that makes me a stupid, untalented asshat."
Well, not really.
I didn't bother to contact McCarthy, mainly because I am lazy and it would be pointless. Because for self-involved attention-seeking celebrities like her, they don't let real medical research get in the way of making themselves feel good about themselves.
And that's all this autism-vaccine scare was: an exercise in self-importance for mindless cretins like McCarthy, her ex Jim Carrey, and the assorted chucklebutts at the Huffington Post. The superior feeling they get from telling the medical establishment they're evil more than outweighs the harm they unleashed on the public.
Let this be a lesson for everyone: anytime a celebrity comes out with an opinion on anything regarding health, medicine, the environment, cats, water polo, designer headwear, croutons - simply assume the opposite is true. And as punishment for the crimes committed, I believe we should boycott all of Jenny McCarthy's projects.
As soon as, you know, she has one.
This is kind of a huge deal, since the paper was used by witless fools like Jennie McCarthy to scare parents into skipping vaccinations - which allowed childhood diseases to spike, and kill kids.
When Jennie was asked to comment on the fraudulent study, she said, "Really? I guess that makes me a stupid, untalented asshat."
Well, not really.
I didn't bother to contact McCarthy, mainly because I am lazy and it would be pointless. Because for self-involved attention-seeking celebrities like her, they don't let real medical research get in the way of making themselves feel good about themselves.
And that's all this autism-vaccine scare was: an exercise in self-importance for mindless cretins like McCarthy, her ex Jim Carrey, and the assorted chucklebutts at the Huffington Post. The superior feeling they get from telling the medical establishment they're evil more than outweighs the harm they unleashed on the public.
Let this be a lesson for everyone: anytime a celebrity comes out with an opinion on anything regarding health, medicine, the environment, cats, water polo, designer headwear, croutons - simply assume the opposite is true. And as punishment for the crimes committed, I believe we should boycott all of Jenny McCarthy's projects.
As soon as, you know, she has one.
Choose NOW!
So on David Horowitz's great Newsreal blog, they pose the question: should gays be allowed in the conservative movement? The person who took the "no" side is a chap named Ryan.
Ryan believes that, homosexuality is a "sometime behavior," and he quotes a gay he agrees with, cut and pasting: "...human sexuality is fluid and flexible...The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct."
So I guess he believes the same: that sexuality is "flexible," and we choose our orientation.
Which makes me wonder, when did he first choose to be straight?
And did he choose to be straight, only because it's acceptable by conservatives?
I mean, it's got to be tough to think that, at any "fluid" or "flexible" moment, you can go the other way. The bad way. It must require constant vigilance to stick to ones heterosexual guns, and maintain a safe distance from hairless bodybuilders and tanning salons.
I don't know. For me, I'm certain I was born straight, so i don't know anything else. And I don't think too much about it.
So I assume it's the same for everyone.
But maybe life would be easier for millions if it was a choice. Then gays could all be straight, and wouldn't have to deal with people like Ryan.
Lastly, if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested - without saying "it's in the Ten Commandments."
After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We're better than that.
Ryan believes that, homosexuality is a "sometime behavior," and he quotes a gay he agrees with, cut and pasting: "...human sexuality is fluid and flexible...The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct."
So I guess he believes the same: that sexuality is "flexible," and we choose our orientation.
Which makes me wonder, when did he first choose to be straight?
And did he choose to be straight, only because it's acceptable by conservatives?
I mean, it's got to be tough to think that, at any "fluid" or "flexible" moment, you can go the other way. The bad way. It must require constant vigilance to stick to ones heterosexual guns, and maintain a safe distance from hairless bodybuilders and tanning salons.
I don't know. For me, I'm certain I was born straight, so i don't know anything else. And I don't think too much about it.
So I assume it's the same for everyone.
But maybe life would be easier for millions if it was a choice. Then gays could all be straight, and wouldn't have to deal with people like Ryan.
Lastly, if you want to argue against homosexuality, you need to move it beyond religion. Fact is, if I get mugged, I can explain to the police why the mugger must be arrested - without saying "it's in the Ten Commandments."
After all, pointing to God as the basis for your distaste is what our enemies do every time they try to blow us up. We're better than that.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Dream On
So, I'm relieved to say the Dream Act - the bill that would provide citizenship for illegal immigrant offspring if they go to college or join the military - failed.
My growing dislike for the act came from one place: I don't trust anything with a fluffy, positive acronym. The Dream Act? It sounds like something I saw in Tijuana involving Louie Anderson and a tub of pudding. So, of course, the actual bill would be a let down.
Anyway, the name stands for "The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act," and that was the problem. It was a lousy bill based on a bunch of unfortunate words, that together, don't mean squat.
They were picked to spell "dream." That's it.
Now, I was for the Act, until I read up on it. Here's what I noticed:
-the idiotic qualification "if they go to college or join the military" equates sacrifice with reward. I'm all for giving citizenship for immigrants who defend our country -because that's awesome. But getting citizenship because you go to school? Seriously. Snoring in class is easy. War is hell.
-the age range for eligibility, even after it was dialed back - is still too broad (up to age 30), with the potential for lying so wide - that the act seems as porous as our border. It's like we're replacing a sieve, with a sieve.
But look - I'm for some kind of Dream Act, but not this one. Let's revamp legal immigration: first let's act like every other country (including Mexico) and secure our borders, then fix this Act. But to do that, we need to be honest. Stop tying lousy bills to emotional heartstrings. Call it what it is. This is about jobs, not diplomas. My suggestion, ditch the school crap, make the military the primary avenue for citizenship.
Make it a sequel. The Dream Act 2: Killing For A Green Card.
My growing dislike for the act came from one place: I don't trust anything with a fluffy, positive acronym. The Dream Act? It sounds like something I saw in Tijuana involving Louie Anderson and a tub of pudding. So, of course, the actual bill would be a let down.
Anyway, the name stands for "The Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act," and that was the problem. It was a lousy bill based on a bunch of unfortunate words, that together, don't mean squat.
They were picked to spell "dream." That's it.
Now, I was for the Act, until I read up on it. Here's what I noticed:
-the idiotic qualification "if they go to college or join the military" equates sacrifice with reward. I'm all for giving citizenship for immigrants who defend our country -because that's awesome. But getting citizenship because you go to school? Seriously. Snoring in class is easy. War is hell.
-the age range for eligibility, even after it was dialed back - is still too broad (up to age 30), with the potential for lying so wide - that the act seems as porous as our border. It's like we're replacing a sieve, with a sieve.
But look - I'm for some kind of Dream Act, but not this one. Let's revamp legal immigration: first let's act like every other country (including Mexico) and secure our borders, then fix this Act. But to do that, we need to be honest. Stop tying lousy bills to emotional heartstrings. Call it what it is. This is about jobs, not diplomas. My suggestion, ditch the school crap, make the military the primary avenue for citizenship.
Make it a sequel. The Dream Act 2: Killing For A Green Card.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Up our ass one more time
Here we go again. We can call this the Democrats' last effort to tell us to perform a physical impossibility. This is one of the many reasons why we voted these suckers out of office ... we have a $1.27 trillion "omnibus" appropriations bill, packed to the gills with more spending and more earmarks. Oh and the darn thing is 2,000 pages long. Must be another one of those bills that we have to pass in order to find out what is in it. Unless you are chief doughboy Robert Gibbs, who believes that Congress is going to be pouring over all 2,000 pages, just like they did ObamaCare .. a remark which was met with laughter in the press gallery. So when reading the legislation, what might they find? This, for example, in one Senate version of the bill:
$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state
Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.
This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House. This is an outrage ... question is, are the voters paying attention? Will the Republicans fight back?
$80 million in grants to states and Indian tribes to preserve Pacific salmon
$13 million in clean water grants for rural and Alaskan native villages
$4 million for the Kentucky National Guard's marijuana eradication efforts
$8 million to help maintain the B-1 bomber fleet in his state
Now Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint are insisting that the bill be read in its entirety by the clerk on the Senate floor before a vote is held.
This is nothing short but a complete abuse of the taxpayers. This is politicians showing us who's really the boss. This is the Democrats getting in their last big kick in the voter's rear end before they lose control of the House. This is an outrage ... question is, are the voters paying attention? Will the Republicans fight back?
Monday, December 13, 2010
Not so fast Sanctuary City
So Tom Krattenmaker wrote a piece this week for USA Today, about Portland, Oregon being targeted by a Muslim terrorist. This gist: How could they bomb Portland! We're just a quirky place everyone loves!
Or at least, doesn't take seriously.
After the cliched warning to not rush to judgement, Tommy says, and I quote,
Why would Portland, of all places, be the site of a terror attack? The "People's Republic of Portland" - so dubbed for its liberal ways - seems so utterly different from New York, Mumbai, London, or the other places that one associates with terrorist attacks. Portland is so much smaller, light years from the figurative front lines.This is a laid-back city where the red-hot rhetoric around terrorism, Islam, the "ground zero mosque," and the like runs cooler.
So, because Portland's a leftwing haven with homemade fliers for guitar lessons stapled on every Peet's Coffee wall - terrorists should skip us, and focus only on the big, boring cities without all those great organic cafes. Heck, they probably don't use cloth bags or read Chomsky (stuff jihadists care about).
And since Portlanders find red meat topics like terrorism so unseemly - our enemies should totally dig us! We love Bill Moyers!
Damn, these folks are dumb. They think their behavior is at the root of other people's actions. And that, if you're nice, terrorists won't kill you.
These jacknuts don't get that no matter how liberal you are, you represent everything terrorists hate, and your touchy-feeliness only makes them hate your sogginess more. Your clogs don't help.
Trust me - terrorists have more respect for the "red-hot rhetoric" of Dick Cheney than a naval gazing goof like Tom. And closing your eyes to Islamic jihad, in favor of contemplating the dent in your consciousness is why the terrorists may come for you first.
Because you're annoying.
Or at least, doesn't take seriously.
After the cliched warning to not rush to judgement, Tommy says, and I quote,
Why would Portland, of all places, be the site of a terror attack? The "People's Republic of Portland" - so dubbed for its liberal ways - seems so utterly different from New York, Mumbai, London, or the other places that one associates with terrorist attacks. Portland is so much smaller, light years from the figurative front lines.This is a laid-back city where the red-hot rhetoric around terrorism, Islam, the "ground zero mosque," and the like runs cooler.
So, because Portland's a leftwing haven with homemade fliers for guitar lessons stapled on every Peet's Coffee wall - terrorists should skip us, and focus only on the big, boring cities without all those great organic cafes. Heck, they probably don't use cloth bags or read Chomsky (stuff jihadists care about).
And since Portlanders find red meat topics like terrorism so unseemly - our enemies should totally dig us! We love Bill Moyers!
Damn, these folks are dumb. They think their behavior is at the root of other people's actions. And that, if you're nice, terrorists won't kill you.
These jacknuts don't get that no matter how liberal you are, you represent everything terrorists hate, and your touchy-feeliness only makes them hate your sogginess more. Your clogs don't help.
Trust me - terrorists have more respect for the "red-hot rhetoric" of Dick Cheney than a naval gazing goof like Tom. And closing your eyes to Islamic jihad, in favor of contemplating the dent in your consciousness is why the terrorists may come for you first.
Because you're annoying.
Monday, December 06, 2010
The tax commission plan that failed was a FRAUD
On Friday, PrezBo's deficit commission voted on the proposal offered by co-chairmen Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. It didn't pass. It required 14 votes to force a vote in Congress. No cigar. Bowles and Simpson only managed to secure 11 votes. One of the "no" votes was labor union goon Andy Stern. He says that he voted against the proposal because he wants FEWER spending cuts and more tax increases. Sounds about right for a liberal, tax-and-spend union thug ... someone who really had no business serving on this commission in the first place. But ... when you're the number one White House visitor during the first year of Obama's presidency ... well, I guess you could see that one coming. However the most insulting thing is that they go through these Kabuki dances and get away with it because 98% of the American electorate is stupid about how they set the budget, base line accounting, automatic spending increases already legislated in and the fact that all of them are freaking weasels.
Now here's something you probably don't realize ... though you - we all - should have. The commission's deficit proposal doesn't even propose to cut spending! It only proposed to slow the rate of increasing spending . Nope ... not kidding. With the incredible increases we've seen in government spending over the past 10 years .. this grand commission of policy phoobahs couldn't come up with one single actual spending cut in one government agency. Now I ask you ... can you think of any private business that would have behaved this way if bankruptcy wasn't only in the cards, but perhaps inevitable?
Now ... before you star the emails pouring in ... let's talk about this spending cut thing. Our wonderful "leaders" in congress set up a nifty little scam years ago called the "baseline budget." Here's how it works. Virtually every government spending program has automatic built-in spending increases every single year. These spending increases may be based on inflation, the rate of population growth, or any number of economic or political considerations. The point is that these spending programs have scheduled spending increases built in every year.
How do politicians manipulate this? It's very easy. They vote to cut back the amount of a spending increase for any given year ... just the increase ... and then come to you and brag about how they are cutting spending. They're not cutting spending at all ... they're just slowing down the rate at which the spending is increasing. This is exactly what this seemingly worthless deficit commission did. The truth is Obama's deficit commission is actually proposing real spending increases over the next nine years that exceed the rate of inflation! Under the commission plan spending goes from $3.4 trillion today to $5.1 trillion in 2020.
Think about this! You now have the information you need to realize that this commission is a fraud. The commission was made up of the typical Washington politicians and parasites who have been sucking the taxpayers of this country dry for generations. OK ... I know the commission made some suggestions that some are calling bold ... like raising the Social Security retirement age. Yeah ... real bold. They raised the retirement age FOR TODDLERS. That's really sticking you neck out there.
This was NOT a serious effort at deficit reduction.
Look at some simple facts here on government spending:
How much do you think federal government spending increased during the George W. Bush administration? Let's try 83 percent. Now that comes pretty close to doubling federal spending during the Bush administration. Oh, you say, it was the TARP spending! Sorry ... take TARP out of it and you still have well over 70%.
And what about The Community Organizer? In just the first year under ObamaRule our federal sending increased by over 22 percent.
The point here is that the Imperial Federal Government has been growing spending year after year after year for most of our lives, and by huge amounts in the last ten years ... yet this august commission couldn't even manage to come up with a recommendation to cut the level --- the REAL level --- of federal spending by one single dollar. Come on now ... with these numbers in mind can any of you really suggest that this deficit commission was anything other than Obama window dressing? It was a fraud. A complete fraud. It was there to serve the ends of government, politicians and beltway lobbyists .. not for the purpose of serving the people of this country.
Allow me, dear readers, to share with you the thinking process here:
"Look. We know we're in trouble here .. and we know just how much trouble we're in. The thing is the people don't know how bad things are, and until they realize that we're facing a crisis that could completely rob their children and grandchildren of the American dream, we're pretty much free to give lip service to reform and continue with business as usual here."
Know what? They're right. If you really knew what today's politicians are doing to our future generations you would be hunting them down with pitchforks. But you don't, and they know you don't ... so it's pretty much going to be business as usual.
Not through yet ....
Here's something else you need to know about the deficit commission's proposal. This from the AP - and the liberals will hate this because it essentially validates Sarah Palin's warnings ..
For the first time, the government would set -- and enforce -- an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.
Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.
Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there's evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.
The Democrats are claiming this vote to be a success, because they've changed the dialogue in America. That made me true. But sooner or later you have to stop talking and start acting. They will be judged on their actions, not on their ability to talk.
Now here's something you probably don't realize ... though you - we all - should have. The commission's deficit proposal doesn't even propose to cut spending! It only proposed to slow the rate of increasing spending . Nope ... not kidding. With the incredible increases we've seen in government spending over the past 10 years .. this grand commission of policy phoobahs couldn't come up with one single actual spending cut in one government agency. Now I ask you ... can you think of any private business that would have behaved this way if bankruptcy wasn't only in the cards, but perhaps inevitable?
Now ... before you star the emails pouring in ... let's talk about this spending cut thing. Our wonderful "leaders" in congress set up a nifty little scam years ago called the "baseline budget." Here's how it works. Virtually every government spending program has automatic built-in spending increases every single year. These spending increases may be based on inflation, the rate of population growth, or any number of economic or political considerations. The point is that these spending programs have scheduled spending increases built in every year.
How do politicians manipulate this? It's very easy. They vote to cut back the amount of a spending increase for any given year ... just the increase ... and then come to you and brag about how they are cutting spending. They're not cutting spending at all ... they're just slowing down the rate at which the spending is increasing. This is exactly what this seemingly worthless deficit commission did. The truth is Obama's deficit commission is actually proposing real spending increases over the next nine years that exceed the rate of inflation! Under the commission plan spending goes from $3.4 trillion today to $5.1 trillion in 2020.
Think about this! You now have the information you need to realize that this commission is a fraud. The commission was made up of the typical Washington politicians and parasites who have been sucking the taxpayers of this country dry for generations. OK ... I know the commission made some suggestions that some are calling bold ... like raising the Social Security retirement age. Yeah ... real bold. They raised the retirement age FOR TODDLERS. That's really sticking you neck out there.
This was NOT a serious effort at deficit reduction.
Look at some simple facts here on government spending:
How much do you think federal government spending increased during the George W. Bush administration? Let's try 83 percent. Now that comes pretty close to doubling federal spending during the Bush administration. Oh, you say, it was the TARP spending! Sorry ... take TARP out of it and you still have well over 70%.
And what about The Community Organizer? In just the first year under ObamaRule our federal sending increased by over 22 percent.
The point here is that the Imperial Federal Government has been growing spending year after year after year for most of our lives, and by huge amounts in the last ten years ... yet this august commission couldn't even manage to come up with a recommendation to cut the level --- the REAL level --- of federal spending by one single dollar. Come on now ... with these numbers in mind can any of you really suggest that this deficit commission was anything other than Obama window dressing? It was a fraud. A complete fraud. It was there to serve the ends of government, politicians and beltway lobbyists .. not for the purpose of serving the people of this country.
Allow me, dear readers, to share with you the thinking process here:
"Look. We know we're in trouble here .. and we know just how much trouble we're in. The thing is the people don't know how bad things are, and until they realize that we're facing a crisis that could completely rob their children and grandchildren of the American dream, we're pretty much free to give lip service to reform and continue with business as usual here."
Know what? They're right. If you really knew what today's politicians are doing to our future generations you would be hunting them down with pitchforks. But you don't, and they know you don't ... so it's pretty much going to be business as usual.
Not through yet ....
Here's something else you need to know about the deficit commission's proposal. This from the AP - and the liberals will hate this because it essentially validates Sarah Palin's warnings ..
For the first time, the government would set -- and enforce -- an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.
Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.
Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there's evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.
The Democrats are claiming this vote to be a success, because they've changed the dialogue in America. That made me true. But sooner or later you have to stop talking and start acting. They will be judged on their actions, not on their ability to talk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)