Image via Wikipedia

Related articles

• Nintendo Wii: Wal-Mart Lost Money On Every Wii They Sold On Black Friday (mynintendonews.com)

Fast-forward slowly to spring 2011. Need a crisis (for a host of reasons).

Complain of the lack of the current Congress taking care of business on the budget for the balance of 2011. Ignore the fact that the year is half gone and your own party had control of the entire legislative process — veto proof — until recently. Declare loudly, and with great conviction that “this is no way to run a government!” Gotta agree with that. Hasn’t been since last October and before.

Then, just to make sure the perception of a crisis continues, suggest a dollar amount of reduction for the rest of this year’s non-budget without specifying where to cut and criticize the specifics that the other party suggests. That ensures a continued deadlock, and therefore, a continued perception of crisis.

And have “someone” in the Senate decry the process of funding the government by one week extensions. After all, it’s no way to run a government. Hasn’t been since last October.

What a crock! Both political parties have been on a spending binge for decades. The “people” (remember us?) have said “no more.” Now the hard work must begin and only due to the backbone given the Republican party by the “Tea Partiers” is there a somewhat serious push to deal with our huge national debt and current deficit spending. The Democrats don’t want to talk in real terms and even a huge portion of the Republicans are not totally serious, except to the extent being motivated by the thought of being buried under tons of tea when the next ship comes into the electoral harbor.

Here is the real crisis:  Democrats want to run an additional $9 trillion in deficits over the next decade while the Republicans want to REDUCE the debt by $6 trillion — they’re $15 trillion apart! That’s $15,000,000,000,000.

There certainly will be pain in many quarters if the deficit spending is to be curtailed, and the debt begin to be reduced — as it must. Let’s talk about an area of possible change that evokes a lot of emotion: medicare.  What if medicare were to change requiring recipients to have to pay more of their cost? Since that and social security comprise the biggest areas of expenditure, those are areas of potential savings.

The question then becomes whether to reduce the benefits under those “sacred cows” or continue them as is and virtually assure that our grandchildren are thrown under the tax bus. Which is worse?

That catch-22 is the most graphic and understandable, but the question will have to be repeated many times over within the maze that is our government spending melange. Two very difficult things seem to me to be essential of consideration.

First, federal, state and local governments must re-examine priorities and severely cut in every area that is not an essential governmental function. Let’s face it, there are not very many essential governmental functions.

Second, the sacred cows must also be examined. This includes (gulp) national defense, social security, medicare, and all forms of welfare.

Simple principles. Focus, and get to work.

Related articles

• The Super Committee: Super Heroes or Super Villains? (ohioken.wordpress.com)
• Debt crisis must be solved in the open (money.cnn.com)
• Keynesian Policies Have Failed (usnews.com)
• Dean Baker: President Obama Doesn’t Understand the Origins of the Deficit (huffingtonpost.com)
• Weekly Basket: Attention Do Nothing Congress! Do Something!-cnbnews.net (gloucestercitynews.net)

Let’s compare it to something we can visualize. First, what is the debt figure?

Click on the thumbnail and get a good look at what $14 trillion looks like written out.  A “14″ with TWELVE places after that! And 15 cents. Check the clock for updates.

OK, $14 trillion. Now let’s think of something really, really huge and complicated that we might want to spend some money on. The object is to try to think of a monstrously expensive project.

How about rebuilding Japan after the quake/tsunami? We have all seen the horrifying pictures and videos. Towns gone. Nuclear plants in danger. The whole island shifted 13 feet closer to our Pacific coast. Wreckage of lives and property as far as the eye can see, and beyond.

What could be more expensive than that — in our mind’s eye today — to have to write a check for? Well, as expensive as the current estimate is, it pales in comparison:

LONDON — Quake-hit Japan faces a recovery and reconstruction bill of at least $180 billion, or 3 percent of its annual economic output, or more than 50 percent higher than the total cost of 1995′s earthquake in Kobe.

Reuters, via Damage estimate for Japan quake is at $180B – Business – World business – msnbc.com.

So, compare the cost of rebuilding after this horrible disaster, to our debt disaster:

14,000,000,000,000 compared to 181,000,000,000  which is 1.29% of our debt. That is, for LESS THAN 2 PERCENT OF OUR DEBT BALANCE, we can rebuild Japan. THAT is how big that number — the amount of our national debt — is.

Do you hear anyone in Washington talking seriously about reducing it?

Related Articles

• Japan boosts holdings of US debt in January (seattletimes.nwsource.com)

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• AMERICAN FREEDOM by BARBARA
• Spending More has Never Worked! | The Federal Observer
• Education News » Obama's Proposal Will Destroy Jobs

(To the tune of Bob Hope‘s “Thanks for the Memories” and apologies to him.)  By the way, you can subscribe to this blog in the box to your right.

What are the consequences of federal policies, and what is the message of the 2010 election?

There is plenty of oil and gasoline on hand, and pump prices usually fall this time of year. So what’s causing the run-up? Most analysts point to the Federal Reserve’s $600 billion economic stimulus effort.

via Not-so-happy holidays ahead at the pump as gas prices jump – USATODAY.com.

Welcome to the tip of the iceberg. The Fed, which in theory is independent of Congress, just laid a whopping tax on you in the form of inflation.  This perceived need for a “money flood” stems from a long series of ongoing mistakes.  At the root of the monetary problem we put two nails in our national coffin long ago:  (1) getting off of the gold standard, and (2) opening trade with China.

Between Congress’ bad fiscal and regulatory policy (and I’m not speaking just of the last two years) and unions driving jobs overseas to a now-open and ever-willing China (and others), America is broke and our foreign-state bankers are about ready to cut off our credit.  We’ve borrowed about all we can and printing money is the last ditch effort to prop up our economy.  To a degree, that used to work when the dollar was perceived as having an intrinsic value.  It doesn’t, it’s just paper.  Any intrinsic value ever attributed to it was due to the strength of America — and now we have a president who is apologetic for who we are as a nation!

The effect of the Fed’s printing more money that is nothing but paper now, is to to devalue the dollar against all of the world’s major currencies.  Since we buy most of at least our discretionary goods from overseas, the prices go up. Add to that the fact that there are many emerging countries beginning to consume a LOT more in goods, you then have higher demand for the same goods we are buying and that also drives up the price.  See the inflationary pressures?

Now put that in the context of  the now not-so-secret push for a “new world order” with people like George Soros pushing for a “gradual decline” in the value of the dollar.  As an aside, he is also a huge proponent of legalizing marijuana.  But back to the point.  Take a look at this YouTube clip, especially at about the 3:20 mark to 3:35:  “… an orderly decline to the dollar is desirable ….”  Really?  Only if you have the goal of dragging the economy of the U.S. down to the lowest common denominator.

This is part of the thinking that is apologetic for what America is, and which denies American exceptionalism. This thinking decries success and — unless you’re George Soros — repudiates the notion that you should be able to build wealth if you are creative and successful.

In that YouTube clip above, Soros openly discusses the “new world order” notion and his goal is clear:  redistribution of wealth on a global scale, justified because he (and I suggest Obama and the hard-core left part of Congress) believes that we — Americans — are “too rich” and too powerful globally and the world must become a level playing field.

Balderdash, I say!  That notion is heresy to every hard-working American who has pulled himself up by the bootstraps.  It ignores the positive contribution that America has made — and continues to make — in every corner of the world.  It ignores the many ways that as a people we seek to give people a hand-up rather than a hand-out.  People at home and globally have benefited from the largesse of the American people.

Thomas Jefferson (in a quotation attributed to him, but not necessarily well-documented) is said to have stated

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Accurately attributed or not, the concept is obvious. Yet we have national policies that continue to drive us directly to that result by taking away from the producers, by making it more difficult for them to produce, by marginalizing entrepreneurship and success — and Soros would accomplish that on a global scale if he has his way.  George Soros is a very scary guy!

We are reaching — or perhaps have already reached — the point where the takers outnumber the makers.  I found a great discussion about that concept

In that year of 1967, for instance, the United States had a population of 198 million, a GDP of $825 billion, a federal budget of $157 billion and federal “social welfare” expenses of $26 billion. This placed “social welfare” spending at $131.30 per capita, 3.1 percent of GDP and 16.6 percent of federal outlays.

In 2010, the United States has a population of 308 million, a GDP of $13.3 trillion, a federal budget of $3.6 trillion and federal “social welfare” expenses of $2.1 trillion. This places “social welfare” spending at $6,818.18 per capita, 16.1 percent of GDP and 59 percent of federal outlays.

Bradley Harrington, via The Coming Civil War: Producers Vs. Parasites – The Philadelphia Bulletin.

I commend to you the reading of not only the article but the comments thereunder.

Read that again:  Social welfare spending in 1967 was 3.1% of GDP, and in 2010 is 16.1%. Now maybe some of that increase was needed in order to doing a better job of caring for those truly in need. OK, but 5-1/4 times increase attributable to that?  If you live in the real world and look around you, you know that’s not the case.

A fundamental problem is that the feds keep trying to “fix things” by social engineering through taxes and regulation when all they really need to do is in the few categories that only a federal government can do (a military, interstate highways, air safety, etc) and get out of the way of the makers of goods and services.  Harrington, writing in the article quoted above was quoting an oh-so-true statement from Ayn Rand:

“The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians and is not accomplished at election time: elections are merely consequences. The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever.”

- Ayn Rand, “The Wreckage of the Consensus,” 1967 -

via The Coming Civil War: Producers Vs. Parasites – The Philadelphia Bulletin.

Politicians need to get out of the way of the producers not only of the goods and services, but of the ideas and goals.  It seems to me that this was the message of the 2010 elections.

Related Articles

• George Soros on the ‘Blah’ Economy and China’s ‘Phenomenal’ Rise (dailyfinance.com)
• Will U.S. federal debt swell and protectionism mount? (theglobeandmail.com)
• Exposed! George Soros Agrees With Founding Fathers! [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)

Regardless of how you view the Nov. 2, 2010 election results, we still have the future to worry about; and one of the most worrisome features of Congress is the concept of “earmarks” a/k/a “pork barrel projects.”  I suggest that earmarks constitute the most divisive, dishonest and dangerous of procedures threatening the republic. Why do I say that?

First, what are “earmarks?”  They are the local project riders added to legislation to authorize and fund pork barrel projects.  You vote for my earmark and I’ll vote for yours and both constituencies will be happy — and we’ll get re-elected.  Often the projects are not only unneeded but downright wasteful, e.g. the Alaska road-to-nowhere. It’s bad enough that if my project costs $1 million, then yours costs $1 million resulting in a $2 million hicky.

That’s bad enough — wasteful spending — but I’ll never be convinced other than that often the dialogue is “if you’ve vote for this legislation that you really don’t like, I’ll vote for a huge earmark for you.”  What is the difference between that and buying a vote at the polls — which is quite illegal?  The give and take of the legislative process — which is necessary — is bad enough in seeking compromise to pass legislation, but swapping earmarks for votes compromises principles.  That is intolerable.

There is reason to hope that earmarks may be targeted by some in Congress, witness:

With their sweeping electoral victory in hand, Republicans are committed to ending earmarks – the local-project riders to legislation – and focusing on the big national issues, a top Senate Republican said Wednesday.

“We can’t have 500 congressmen and senators who think it’s their job to bring home the bacon – and that’s what’s going to change,” South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint told CBS’ “The Early Show. “One of the first thing we’ll do in the House and Senate is ban earmarks as Republicans – that’ll get our eyes back on fixing our tax code, fixing social security and Medicare, getting America back to work.”

DeMint called earmarks “that parochial interest I think gets that the focus of interest off national interests onto paving local parking lots.” He said in an editorial Tuesday that the dozens of GOP congressional newcomers “can’t be bribed if they’re not for sale.”

via DeMint: We’ll Ban Earmarks Right Away – The Early Show – CBS News.

Not only do earmarks have the potential to compromise a legislator’s principles, but they violate the separation of powers demanded by the Constitution. The separation of powers — the principle that powers of government are shared among the three, co-equal branches of government — requires that certain powers have checks and balances to control the functions of government and the spending and administration of funds (those would be OUR tax dollars, for you in Loma Linda) is one of those important areas.

Seal of the Office of Management and Budget

Earmarks circumvent the executive branch part of that control according to this Wikipedia article:

The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.

via Earmark (politics) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

If you doubt that earmarks are a problem, check out the earmarks database at the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB estimate of 2010 earmarks is a file 2.6MB in size in a compressed zip file (containing an Excel spreadsheet).  There are 53,409 line items in that file.  One analysis of the FY2010 earmarks states

Earmark totals appear to have decreased from fiscal year (FY) 2009 to FY2010, but an apples‐to‐apples comparison tells a different story. In FY10, appropriations bills contained 9,499 congressional earmarks worth $15.9 billion. This compares with 11,286 congressional earmarks worth $19.9 billion in FY09.

However, to do a true year‐to‐year comparison requires taking away certain Army Corps of Engineers earmarks that were included in FY09 but not in FY10.1 In addition, the FY09 total includes earmarks from a supplemental spending bill passed after the regular spending bills that year.2 After adjusting for both of these factors, FY10’s $15.9 billion in earmarks represents a slight increase from $15.6 billion in FY09.

TCS FY2010 EARMARK ANALYSIS: APPLES-TO-APPLES INCREASE IN EARMARK …

What to do now?  We citizen/taxpayers need to be just as vocal about earmarks as we were in this election about the size and scope of government.  No, in the scope of our current federal budgets and deficits $15 billion is not significant money, but the probability of bastardizing the legislative process is simply too great.  “We” (and I mean that in a non-partisan way) have “their” (and I mean both sides of the aisle) attention:  carpe diem.

Related Articles

• DeMint Fights Earmark for Port of Charleston (blogs.wsj.com)
• Incumbents challenged over pet projects in earmarks (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Taxpayers are Against Earmarks – Will Elites Listen? (redstate.com)
• Congress hopefuls vow to be pork-free (washingtontimes.com)

Recent Possibly Related External Links

• Discussion: George Allen's Record Examined in Detail | Virginia Right!
• Congress still passes earmarks to build bridges to nowhere …
• We Are All Missing the Point in the Current Political Debate – Big …

Sen. Everett Dirksen, in the 1950′s on the floor of the U.S. Senate during budget debates, is said to have quipped “a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon it adds up to real money.” It is now well-accepted that he did not actually make that statement so often attributed to him, but he was well capable of saying such, and likely should have. So what would he think about the current spending spree? Who is at fault? It’s Congress (led by the nose by Pres. Obama) and while the following article (which appears to have the facts) faults more the currently Democrat-led Congress, neither party can claim to have been fiscally responsible in recent decades.

A little-known fact is that federal spending rose by only 2.8% during fiscal 2007 under the final budget passed by a Republican Congress. I know, zero percent would have been preferable, and it was way too little and too late for a bunch that had let spending grow way too quickly during the previous five years.

Then came the Democrats. Spending during the fiscal year that ended in September 2008, the first full budget year under the control of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, increased by 9.1% to almost $3 trillion. That percentage increase was greater than any Republican Congress under George W. Bush.

They were just warming up. Fiscal 2009 brought the beginning of the $787 billion (before interest) “economic stimulus plan.” All but those in serious denial acknowledge that it has failed to revive the economy, which economist David Rosenberg described on August 25 as already being in a depression. Despite representations to the contrary, the stimulus plan had 9,000 earmarks, including that $2 billion Illinois energy debacle. More generally, entitlement and other spending went into overdrive. Fiscal 2009 ended with a reported deficit of $1.416 trillion.

via Pajamas Media » It’s the Spending, Stupid.  (The above links are mine)

Where does it end? When? What does it take for us (you) to get mad enough to make your voice heard? If the general idea of spending doesn’t get your dander up, focus on the following comment from the above article:

If that title doesn’t catch your eye, how about a $1.25 BILLION payout by the federal government about which you’ve probably never heard? I’m not expressing any opinion about this matter but feel it deserves to be further promulgated.

I’m confused. If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from? Now, if you’re confused over what the heck I’m even talking about, let’s go back to the beginning of the story:

Pigford v. Glickman. In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997. The farmers won the case, known as Pigford v. Glickman, and in 1999 the government agreed to pay $50,000 each to any farmer who had been wrongly denied an agricultural loan. By then it had grown into a class action case, and any black farmer who had filed a complaint between 1983 and 1997 would be given at least $50,000 — not limited to the original 400 plaintiffs. It was estimated at that time that there might be as many as 2,000 beneficiaries granted $50,000 each.

via Pigford v. Glickman: 86,000 claims from 39,697 total farmers?.

Note, the figure of 39,697 black farmers is as of 2007.  In 1992, the relevant period, there were only 18,816 black farmers. It seems that should have been the claimant pool in the Pigford suit.  No-one is claiming that the suit and the original settlement (which was done in 1999) were not appropriate, but how does this get resurrected in 2010?  And this:

Don’t Cry for me Argentina America … you have to watch this if you care about the fiscal disaster which America is rapidly becoming. Besides, the music alone is worth it. Argentina was once a thriving country and was driven into the economic ground by soaring debt resulting from its government’s (remember Peron? Evita?) pandering to those with their hands out for the “entitlements.” Can it happen here? After you view this you’ll be convinced … yes.  Just today, the U.S. Dept. of the Treasury estimated the national debt to be $19Trillion in five years, up from the $13Trillion it hit in May of 2010. About a 50% increase in only five years. Here’s a nice summary:

According to the Debt Clock:

• Total national debt: $13 trillion
• Debt per citizen: $42,026
• Debt per taxpayer: $117,982
• Total interest due: $1.9 trillion
• Interest per citizen: $2,211

Click here to see the Debt Clock, which is updated every second.

(Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/26/national-debt-clock-tracking-red/ (accessed 6/9/2010))

Click here to view the powerpoint show. (be patient, it can be slow to load)

Source: http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/soundmanjay-344588-dont-cry-america-obamacare-socialism-argentina-ppspap-business-finance-ppt-powerpoint/ (accessed 6/9/2010).

There is a copyright notice on the website, but no name or attribution.

You’ll love this. Be sure to read the rest of the article (link below). Then thank your Congresspersons for the additional debt ceiling authorized today which amounts to $45,000 for every man, woman and child in the country!

Federal agencies are spending stimulus money at the rate of $196 million an hour. And they will do so every hour for the next eight months until a September 30, 2010, deadline.”When you put that kind of money out the door that fast, there’s a possibility of $55 billion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse connected with it,” Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday before a Senate Finance Committee hearing examining the lack of oversight in the $878 billion dollar economic stimulus bill passed a year ago.Grassley said he fears much of the money is going to some individuals and businesses that don’t qualify for it and projects that do not serve taxpayers best interests. Judge for yourself:

– $233,000 to the University of California at San Diego to study why Africans vote. Jobs created: 12, but seven of those are Africans in Africa.

– In Nevada, $2 million in stimulus money built a new fire station, but because of budget cuts, the county can’t afford to hire firefighters to work there.

via FOXNews.com – Millions in Stimulus Spending Being Doled Out for Questionable Jobs.

Healthcare “reform” is not your job.  Raising an army and protecting the country — and its inherent sovereignty — IS your job.

In none of the enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) do we find anything about regulating not only the healthcare industry but, as you are attempting, the individual healthcare choices of the people.  We are not your subjects to be dictated to — we got rid of the king a long time ago!

On the other hand, providing for the defense of the country is clearly required, not merely permitted. What do we hear now? That “. . . Americans will feel “a certain shock” when a report is released today detailing the intelligence failures that could have prevented the Christmas Day attack.” (Foxnews.com http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/07/national-security-adviser-airline-bomber-report-shock/(accessed Jan 7, 2010). That report from retired 4-star General James Jones goes on to detail the utter and devastating failure of our national security system.

There is no sense in pointing fingers at any one administration or session of Congress, Washington did it — i.e. failed. And I suggest that this failure is due to the intense partisan politics, and the headlong rush toward (senseless) change for the sake merely of change, that has so distracted Washington from the priorities with which they should be attending.  Washington has become so obsessed with managing — and I suggest micro-managing our lives that they are on the brink of forfeiting our lives and our liberty on the altar of “change.”

I prefer hope, individual liberty, and preservation of what made America great. Wholesale change is not only meaningless but counter-productive.  Stop it, and get back to your constitutionally mandated duties!