Late-night comedian Conan O’Brien’s blog has a new post parodying Washington’s excessive spending. “Team Coco has found out why our government is so broke,” the blog explains, “They’ve been spending all our hard earned tax dollars on some pretty ridiculous programs.” The post contains a list of humorous fake programs and encourages readers submit their own.
Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 million annually.
Stimulus dollars have been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.
Washington will spend $615,175 on an archive honoring the Grateful Dead.
The Securities and Exchange Commission spent $3.9 million rearranging desks and offices at its Washington, D.C., headquarters.
Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.
Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
The Federal Communications Commission spent $350,000 to sponsor NASCAR driver David Gilliland.
Washington has spent $3 billion re-sanding beaches—even as this new sand washes back into the ocean.
Taxpayers are funding paintings of high-ranking government officials at a cost of up to $50,000 apiece.
The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.
And the list goes on and on. When it comes to government spending, the truth is often stranger than fiction.
A couple of weeks ago I suggested that the person responsible for Ford’s anti-bailout ads was deserving of a raise. Today, I wonder how that extra income will be spent…in Siberia. According to media accounts seemingly originating with the Detroit News, Ford has pulled that ad after learning the Putin Obama White House was none too pleased.
It is unclear from the Detroit News article whether overt threats, implied repercussions, or mild expressions of regret best characterize the communications from the White House to Ford. Regardless, something spooked Ford enough to prompt it to pull the popular ad (no longer available on YouTube), which sought to differentiate the Ford brand over the “bailout” characteristic, which is not insignificant to auto purchasing decisions.
Hopefully, some probing journalists will discover the true nature of what transpired. In the meantime, it’s important to reflect on the fact that—contrary to the views of E.J. Dionne and others who cannot contemplate what is not seen—the auto bailout was not a discreet event, which happened and now resides in our memories. It is an ongoing tipping of the scales of competition—intentionally and inadvertently. Ford’s mere perception that the administration might stir up trouble if it didn’t fall into line is a vestige of the bailout.
To the extent that the administration wants to tout the bailout as evidence of its “successful” economic stewardship, it should know that there are plenty of us willing and able to do the auditing on that claim.
Red Arkansas blog quoted one of my favorite movies. Take a look at the quote above and below is a portion of their recent post. It doesn’t look like Beebe’s future is looking too bright.
Can anyone recall a time when Governor Mike Beebe was so thoroughly rebuked by the state’s newspaper of record?
Sadly, we missed this bit of stuff by failing to take a look at the opinion section of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette yesterday.
Our bad.
The written smackdown finishes strong:
HERE’S THE question that has been fascinating us of late: What th’ heck has happened to the Mike Beebe we used to know and trust? How is it that a governor who did such a good job his first term now finds himself trying to explain away one embarrassment after another?
We’ve been pondering that mystery in light of the Guv’s indulgence of these double-dippers on the state payroll…Why can’t Mike Beebe see the innate contradiction (quite aside from the double expense to the taxpayers) of rehiring the supposedly retired? What’s happened to Mike Beebe? Whatever it is, it ain’t good. Not for him and not for Arkansas.
Governor (and former attorney general!) Beebe used to be so cautious, such a stickler for the law, and so sensitive to public opinion. What’s this new Mike Beebe lacking? The best answer we’ve been able to come up with as of now is: a sense of irony.
Ouch!
If this is not a case for Arkansas Republicans to take over the General Assembly and be a check and balance to Mr. Beebe, then we don’t know what is.
We believe this conversation may have happened in Mr. Beebe’s office:
Beebe Staffer 1: The reason they’s pullin’ our pants down. Beebe Staffer 2: Gonna paddle our little behind. Beebe Staffer 1: Ain’t gonna paddle it – gonna kick it, real hard. Beebe Staffer 2: No, I believe they’s gonna paddle it. Beebe Staffer 1: I don’t believe that’s a proper characterization. Beebe Staffer 2: Well, that’s how I’d characterize it. Beebe Staffer 1: I believe it’s more of a kickin’ sitcheyation.
PrintThe U.S. Postal Service just posted a $3.1 billion loss for the third quarter and the outlook for the rest of the year is bleak. The USPS wants to save money by closing post offices. I recently examined this issue in an op-ed for the Daily Caller:The United States Postal Service has lost over $20 billion since 2006 and is projected to lose another $8 billion this year. Government Mail is about to max out its $15 billion line of credit with the U.S. Treasury, and it faces $66 billion in unfunded obligations due to excessive labor costs. With more and more people using email, sending text messages and paying their bills online, the Postal Service’s long-term prospects are undeniably bleak.Although USPS management has been able to cut costs, the savings haven’t been nearly enough to stem the rising tide of red ink. If the USPS were a private business, it might be able adapt to the rapidly changing economic landscape and evolve into a viable commercial entity. But it’s not a private business — it’s a branch of the federal government. As a result, the USPS has been hopelessly hamstrung by constant meddling from politicians, as exemplified by the difficulty the USPS faces when trying to close post offices.
Postal management announced this week that it will weigh the closure of 3,700 of its 32,000 post offices, hoping to save $200 million a year. Those savings are miniscule compared to the $8 billion alone that the USPS will lose this year, but it’s a start.
Unfortunately, there’s a very good chance that those members of Congress whose districts will be affected by a post office closure will raise a stink. In 2009, for example, the USPS looked at closing 3,200 post offices. Following a congressional outcry, the number under consideration was reduced to a mere 140. Two years later, only 80 have actually been closed.
The USPS is required to provide services to all communities, including areas where post offices have low traffic and are not cost-effective. Before closing a post office, the USPS must provide customers with at least 60 days of notice before the proposed closure date, and any person served by the post office may appeal its closure to the Postal Regulatory Commission. The USPS cannot close a post office “solely for operating at a deficit.” That’s a problem because four out of five post offices are operating at a loss.
Can anyone seriously imagine any other business not being able to close a store or factory for “solely operating at a deficit”? That would be a recipe for bankruptcy. While the USPS is structured like a business — revenues from the sale of postal products are supposed to cover costs and it receives virtually no federal appropriations — Congress prevents it from actually operating like a private business by inhibiting its ability to reduce costs, improve efficiency or innovate.
Postal management is attempting to head off the inevitable congressional interference by creating “Village Post Offices” in the communities affected by the closings. Local businesses, such as pharmacies and grocery stores, would be allowed to offer postal products and services. This makes sense because whereas post offices used to generate almost all postal retail revenue, 35 percent is now generated through alternative channels like USPS.com, self-service kiosks and private stores.
Closing post offices is a small step towards cutting costs and “rationalizing” the retail network, which the USPS management recognizes as critical. However, that won’t be enough to overcome economic reality — let alone the control freaks in Congress. Ultimately, if the USPS is to continue operating like a business instead of becoming just another taxpayer-funded bureaucracy, Congress is going to have to hand the reins over to the private sector. That means privatizing the United States Postal Service.
This article appeared in the Daily Caller on July 28, 2011.
The ‘Rock and Roll All Nite’ hitmaker has previously made his views on marriage very clear, saying in 2007: “I don’t believe man is designed to be married. Marriage means nothing to me. Happiness means everything. All I see in marriage is a lot of desperately unhappy people.
_____________________-
“If happiness is our primary goal, we’ll get a divorce as soon as happiness seems to wane,” is a quote from the article below. It shows how people like Gene Simmons do not understand what marriage is all about.
Young people always start off calling each other sweetheart but when the newness wears off it is the commitment that makes the different. Notice how sweet it is in the short film below to see some singing to their girl (although at times things can go wrong.)
Lyrics~I am dreaming Dear of you, day by day
Dreaming when the skies are blue, When they’re gray;
When the silv’ry moonlight gleams, Still I wander on in dreams,
In a land of love, it seems, Just with you.
Let me call you “Sweetheart,” I’m in love with you.
Let me hear you whisper that you love me too.
Keep the love-light glowing in your eyes so true.
Let me call you “Sweetheart,” I’m in love with you.
Longing for you all the while, More and more;
Longing for the sunny smile, I adore;
Birds are singing far and near, Roses blooming ev’rywhere
You, alone, my heart can cheer; You, just you.
Let me call you “Sweetheart,” I’m in love with you.
Let me hear you whisper that you love me too.
Keep the love-light glowing in your eyes so true.
Let me call you “Sweetheart,” I’m in love with you.
Find the key to making your marriage flourish — just as God designed.
by Carol Heffernan
It’s easy to think that only “other people” get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court?
Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise “until death do us part,” can have it all fall apart.
As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage “Christian”?
According to author Gary Thomas, we’re not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn’t as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?
Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them.
In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical “how to have a happier relationship” book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy andholy?
Viewing Marriage Realistically
“We have to stop asking of marriage what God never designed it to give — perfect happiness, conflict-free living, and idolatrous obsession,” Thomas explains.
Instead, he says, we can appreciate what God designed marriage to provide: partnership, spiritual intimacy and the ability to pursue God — together. So, what does Thomas think is the most common misconception Christians have about marriage?
“Finding a ‘soul mate’ — someone who will complete us,” he says. “The problem with looking to another human to complete us is that, spiritually speaking, it’s idolatry. We are to find our fulfillment and purpose in God . . . and if we expect our spouse to be ‘God’ to us, he or she will fail every day. No person can live up to such expectations.”
Everyone has bad days, yells at his or her spouse, or is downright selfish. Despite these imperfections, God created the husband and wife to steer each other in His direction.
Thomas offers an example: “When my wife forgives me . . . and accepts me, I learn to receive God’s forgiveness and acceptance as well. In that moment, she is modeling God to me, revealing God’s mercy to me, and helping me to see with my own eyes a very real spiritual reality.”
While it’s easy to see why God designed an other-centered union for a me-centered world, living that way is a challenge. So when bills pile up, communication breaks down and you’re just plain irritated with your husband or wife, Thomas offers these reminders to help ease the tension:
God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
Marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family.
God designed sexual expression to help married couples build intimacy.
Marriage mirrors God’s covenant relationship with His people.
We see this last parallel throughout the Bible. For instance, Jesus refers to Himself as the “bridegroom” and to the kingdom of heaven as a “wedding banquet.”
These points demonstrate that God’s purposes for marriage extend far beyond personal happiness. Thomas is quick to clarify that God isn’t against happiness per se, but that marriage promotes even higher values.
“God did not create marriage just to give us a pleasant means of repopulating the world and providing a steady societal institution to raise children. He planted marriage among humans as yet another signpost pointing to His own eternal, spiritual existence.”
Serving Our Spouse
He spends the entire evening at the office — again. She spends money without entering it in the checkbook. He goes golfing instead of spending time with the kids. From irritating habits to weighty issues that seem impossible to resolve, loving one’s spouse through the tough times isn’t easy. But the same struggles that drive us apart also shed light on what we value in marriage.
“If happiness is our primary goal, we’ll get a divorce as soon as happiness seems to wane,” Thomas says. “If receiving love is our primary goal, we’ll dump our spouse as soon as they seem to be less attentive. But if we marry for the glory of God, to model His love and commitment to our children, and to reveal His witness to the world, divorce makes no sense.”
Couples who’ve survived a potentially marriage-ending situation, such as infidelity or a life-threatening disease, may continue to battle years of built-up resentment, anger or bitterness. So, what are some ways to strengthen a floundering relationship — or even encourage a healthy one? Thomas offers these practical tips:
Focus on your spouse’s strengths rather than their weaknesses.
Encourage rather than criticize.
Pray for your spouse instead of gossiping about them.
Learn and live what Christ teaches about relating to and loving others.
Young couples in particular can benefit from this advice. After all, many newlyweds aren’t adequately prepared to make the transition from seeing one another several times a week to suddenly sharing everything. Odds are, annoying habits and less-than-appealing behaviors will surface. Yet as Christians, we are called to respect everyone — including our spouse.
Thomas adds, “The image I use in Sacred Marriage is that we need to learn how to ‘fall forward.’ That is, when we are frustrated or angry, instead of pulling back, we must still pursue our partner under God’s mercy and grace.”
Lastly, Thomas suggests praying this helpful prayer: Lord, how can I love my spouse today like (s)he’s never been loved and never will be loved?
“I can’t tell you how many times God has given me very practical advice — from taking over some driving trips to doing a few loads of laundry,” Thomas says. “It’s one prayer that I find gets answered just about every time.”
While other marriage books may leave us feeling overwhelmed, spotlighting our shortcomings and providing pages of “relationship homework,” Sacred Marriage makes it clear that any couple can have a successful, happy and holy marriage.
With a Christ-centered relationship, an other-centered attitude and an unwavering commitment to making it work, your marriage can flourish — just as God designed.
“What good is a debt limit that is always increased?”
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 2)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
WASHINGTON—U.S. Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02), a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, made the following comments today regarding the House of Representative’s vote to increase the statutory limit on the national debt:
“I applaud the efforts of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, and Budget Chairman Ryan over the last month. Every dollar saved under the plan approved tonight is a result of their steadfast advocacy on behalf of the American People. While the final legislation is far from perfect and while many of us would prefer the more fundamental reforms found in the ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,’ this compromise cuts a dollar of spending for every new dollar of debt. That is a significant accomplishment given that Democrats—who wanted new taxes and no spending reductions—outnumbered Republicans two to one at the negotiating table.
“During this debate, I voted for two separate proposals that would significantly cut future spending, put our nation on firmer financial footing, and avoid a potentially catastrophic default. Each was killed by Senate Democrats.
“I am pleased that a default has been avoided as a result of the vote tonight. However, I was unable to support this legislation because, after a careful reading of the bill, I fear it could ultimately result in devastating and unjustified cuts to our national security. This bill, unlike previous proposals I supported, has a weak firewall against potentially destructive defense cuts. To be sure, there are savings to be found in the Pentagon’s budget, and I have already voted this year to trim wasteful and unnecessary defense spending. But this bill goes much too far. The legislation would use our defense budget as an insurance policy to guarantee savings in the event that the special joint committee, which this legislation creates, fails to achieve cuts in other areas of the government bureaucracy.
“Of course we lack a crystal ball to know how it will play out, but my best judgment is that the chances the special joint committee will fail are too high to risk our national defense, which is one of few legitimate government functions enumerated in the Constitution. If required, the cuts would be so deep as to affect the readiness of our troops around the world—a risk I am not willing to take. As important as deficit reduction is, what good is it for a country that is unable to adequately defend the freedom and liberty it cherishes? Certainly there are other places in the massive federal bureaucracy that are more deserving of deep cuts.
“I reject the idea that we need not worry about these cuts because Washington will never let them happen. To make that suggestion is to say that the legislation does not actually do what we have said it does.
“In the end, I hope that the special joint committee will find the spending cuts that it is charged to identify, and I look forward to reviewing the product of its work. Our prayer is that the special joint committee members will do their jobs, thereby ensuring that the damaging military cuts that could occur never see the light of day.
“On the broader question of restoring fiscal responsibility, our work has just begun. This has been a long and convoluted process, but the takeaway is simple: in a short period of time, House Republicans have successfully changed the conversation in Washington from ‘how do we spend more’ to ‘how do we spend less.’ Even so, much work remains, and only a sustained, dedicated effort will truly change the spending culture in Washington.”
# # #
NOTE: Congress debated how best to raise the debt limit for many months. Members considered numerous proposals, and the House of Representatives and the Senate each took several votes on the issue. On May 31, Rep. Martha Roby voted against President Obama’s original request for a clean debtincrease that would expand the government’s ability to borrow money without placing any restrictions on future spending. She saidthat any debt limit increase should be accompanied by “significant” spending cuts. On July 22, Roby voted in favor of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act,” referringto the “strong” measure as her “preference.” The Democratic Senaterejected the measure. With the debt deadline looming, Roby supported Speaker Boehner’sproposal on July 29, notingthat it was “far from perfect” but that it cut a dollar of spending for every dollar of additional debt and included no new taxes. Again, the Senaterejected that measure. On July 28, Roby opposed Sen. Reid’s proposal, which she pointed outincluded an unacceptable budget gimmick that would not result in real savings. (The Senatealso rejectedthe Reid proposal.) That vote was followed by the events described in the press release above.
In a joint effort by Israel‘s national museum and Google, the 2,000-year-old Dead Sea scrolls, previously only available to a small group of scholars, have been made available online.
(Photo: AP Photo / Sebastian Scheiner)
A worker of the IAA, Israel Antiquities Authority, points at a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls in a laboratory in Jerusalem, Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2010. Israel’s Antiquities Authority and Google announced Tuesday they are joining forces to bring the Dead Sea Scrolls online, allowing both scholars and the general public widespread access to the ancient manuscripts for the first time.
Five of the most important Dead Sea Scrolls will now be available to the digital public: the biblical Book of Isaiah, the manuscript known as the Temple Scroll, and three others. Visitors are also able to search the ancient texts at the Digital Dead Sea Scrolls website.
The scrolls offer critical insight into customs and religion of ancient Israelis, including information on the birth of Christianity. The sacred texts include the oldest written record of the Old Testament ever found.
Written between the third and first centuries BCE, the Dead Sea Scrolls include the oldest known biblical manuscripts in existence, according to Google’s press release. They were hidden in 11 caves in the Judean desert on the shores of the Dead Sea, around 68 BCE. The owners of the texts apparently wanted to protect the scrolls from approaching Roman armies.
The originals are kept in a secured vault in a Jerusalem building constructed specifically for that purpose. Access requires at least three different keys, a magnetic card and a secret code, according to the Associated Press.
“This partnership with The Israel Museum, Jerusalem is part of our larger effort to bring important cultural and historical collections online,” Google’s spokesperson wrote in the press release. “We are thrilled to have been able to help this project through hosting on Google Storage and App Engine, helping design the web experience and making it searchable and accessible to the world.”
High-resolution images of the scrolls are available and viewers can zoom in and out and translate verses into English.
Photography work on the project began earlier this month in conjunction with a former NASA scientist, according to AP.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were reclaimed in 1947, when they were found on the West Bank in Qumran. A Bedouin tribesman fell into a cave where they had remained hidden for 2,000 years.
There are more than 15,000 Dead Sea Scrolls, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek between 150 BC and 70 AD. They are between 800-1,000 years older than previously known manuscripts.
The texts have resulted in hundreds of books and theories about early Christianity, as well as the life of Jesus. The parchment and papyrus writings are among the most famous in the world.
Google has been involved in similar projects in the past, including the Google Art Project, Yad Vashem Holocaust photo collection and the Prado Museum in Madrid.
The Book of Mormon vs The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study of Latter Day Saints Archeology The Book of Mormon verses The Bible, Part 6 of an indepth study With the great vast amounts of evidence we find in the Bible through archeology, why is there no evidence for anything writte in the Book […]
The Bible and Archaeology (4/5) The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One of those is the fact that the Bible is accurate in every one of its details. The field of archaeology brings to light this amazing accuracy. The Bible maintains several characteristics that prove it is from God. One […]
Critics – Part 1 By Dr In my ongoing debate with other bloggers on the Arkansas Times Blog, I had an interesting response from Dobert: You can’t have it both ways. If the Gospel writers were allowed to adapt their message to a particular audience then it can’t be claimed that God literally took their […]
This is a quick summary of the Bible’s reliability by a famous and well-respected former atheist. Please check out his website (http://www.leestrobel.com) for hundreds of FREE high quality videos investigating the critical aspects of our faith. Todd Tyszka http://www.toddtyszka.com On April 19, 2011 on the Arkansas Blog an entry of mine got this response from […]
Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 6 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]
My sons Wilson and Hunter went to California and visited Yosemite National Park with our friend Sherwood Haisty Jr. (Sherwood on left) March 21-27. Here you can see all the snow they had to deal with. Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the […]
Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some 2,000 years ago, expertly guides you through the latest archaeological finds that have changed the way we understand the world of the bible. (Part 4 of 6 in the film series The Stones […]
My sons got to go to Grace Community Church yesterday and hear John MacArthur speak on the tribulation. Here is a clip from “Larry King Live” with John MacArthur as a guest. Dr Price, who directs excavations at the Qumran plateau in Israel, the site of the community that produced the dead sea scrolls some […]
Today I was sad to hear Elizabeth Taylor died. My sons are in Los Angeles today and they said they will get copies of the LA Times tomorrow to bring home to give my wife. We both love Taylor’s performance in her movie “Giant” from 1956 with Rock Hudson. I also love the performance in […]
ANCIENT EVIDENCE FOR THE TRUTH OF THE BIBLE! The Stones Cry Out takes you on an exciting journey into the world of archaeology to witness firsthand the incredible discoveries in the lands of the Middle East that provide evidence for the historical accuracy of the bible. For over 20 years archaeologist Dr.Randall Price, has been […]
What is the true cost of public education? According to a new study by the Cato Institute, some of the nation’s largest public school districts are underreporting the true cost of government-run education programs.
Cato Education Analyst Adam B. Schaeffer explains that the nations five largest metro areas and the District of Columbia are blurring the numbers on education costs. On average, per-pupil spending in these areas is 44 percent higher than officially reported. Districts on average spent nearly $18,000 per student and yet claimed to spend just $12,500 last year.
It is impossible to have a public debate about education policy if public schools can’t be straight forward about their spending.
___________________
Public schools need more money? Is that the problem?
Neal P. McCluskey is the associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute and the author of Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples and Compromises American Education.
Soon after his boss introduced the American Jobs Act, Vice President Joe Biden held a conference call to get teachers’ unions behind it.
It was an easy task, with American Federation of Teachers honcho Randi Weingarten promising to “do whatever we can” to get the legislation passed. And why not? It’s teachers and other politically potent interests, not kids or the economy, that the Act is really about.
That teachers’ unions are gung-ho about the proposal — which would furnish $30 billion for education jobs and another $25 billion for school buildings — doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad thing. Kids need teachers and classrooms, right?
Many public schools are in terrible shape, but not for lack of funds…
Sure. But we all need food, too, yet we can eat too much, or scarf down the wrong things, and end up sick as dogs. And for the last several decades public schools have been throwin’ down Twinkies like they’re going out of style.
Look at staffing. According to the federal Digest of Education Statistics, between 1969 and 2008 (the latest year with available data) public schools went from 22.6 students per teacher to 15.3. District administrative staff went from 697.7 students per employee to just 363.3. In total, students per employee dropped from 13.6 to 7.8.
And what happened to achievement? Scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the “nation’s report card” — flatlined for 17-year-olds, our schools’ “final products.”
But those employment figures are just through 2008. Haven’t the last few years truly devastated education employment? We don’t have perfect numbers, but what we do have says no.
The 2009 “stimulus,” recall, included $100 billion for education, most of which went to elementary and secondary schooling. A year later, the Feds allocated another $10 billion to keep education employment intact. Oodles of education jobs probably were created or preserved.
Unemployment rates support that. Bureau of Labor Statistics data for April — a month when most schools are in session — show that the rates in “education services” (which includes K-12, colleges and other training) were 4.8% in 2009, 4.2% in 2010 and 3.8% in 2011.
Education unemployment has been falling, and has been below not just overall unemployment, but unemployment for people with college degrees. In April 2011, the unemployment rate for the latter was 4.5%.
Assuming that staffing has been roughly constant since 2008, what would the magnitude of the cut be if the Obama administration’s worst-case scenario — 280,000 lost positions — came true?
Small, especially since the administration is talking not just about teachers, but also “guidance counselors, classroom assistants, after-school personnel, tutors, and literacy and math coaches.” Most of those positions are considered “instructional” and “support” staff, and in 2008 there were 6,182,785 such employees. Losing 280,000 would be just a 4.5% trimming. And that’s the worst-case scenario.
So much for employment. How about crumbling schools?
Many public schools are in terrible shape, but not for lack of funds: Public school spending rose from $5,671 per student in 1970-71 to $12,922 in 2007-08. Much of that went to pay for all the new employees, but facilities spending ballooned as well.
It’s hard to know for sure, but too often not dull maintenance. Instead, it went to glory projects such as the $578 million Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools complex in Los Angeles, which boasts such educationally essential features as talking benches that explain the site’s history (Robert Kennedy was shot at the hotel that once stood there), and an auditorium that mimics the Cocoanut Grove nightclub.
Politicians simply don’t star in golden-shovel groundbreakings when bathroom stalls are replaced. They do get such free publicity when opulent buildings are erected. And while the Jobs Act wouldn’t fund new buildings, it would bail out districts that long traded function for flash, and would pay for spiffy new science labs and other glitzy additions. And naturally, all the work would have to be done at union rates.
This makes no educational sense. It also makes no economic sense: Taxpayers would ultimately have to pay for the Jobs Act, meaning money would be taken from the people who earned it and given to infamous squanderers. That almost certainly means a net loss of jobs.
But this isn’t really about education or job growth. It’s about politics. At least, that’s all that the evidence allows you to conclude.
Unfortunately, logically this argument fails because although we all benefit from roads, police, fire departments and education, it is not clear that the rich benefit from all the social welfare programs that Warren wants to keep running. Also how does the rich benefit from Social Security?
Elizabeth Warren’s recent remarks on class warfare, made during a campaign stop in her quest for a Massachusetts U.S. Senate seat, provide a nice microcosm of the broader philosophical views behind much contemporary political debate.
The relevant bit that has her supporters so fired up goes like this:
I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there–good for you.
But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.
Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea–God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.
Fully exploring the thinking behind Warren’s remarks would demand a book at least. We might point out that most of the rich got that way by creating value for others, meaning they gave back in the process of getting rich. Or we might wonder if her thinking implies that, because the state is responsible in part for the environment in which all of us earned what we have, the state is the actual owner of what we have.
To spare you having to read that book, however, I’m going to instead address just two points I find particularly interesting. First, we can tease out the theory of political obligation Warren advances and see if it holds up to scrutiny. Second, we can ask whether her argument, even if we accept it on its own terms, supports a tax increase on high income earners.
In a 1955 essay, H. L. A. Hart articulated what’s come to be known as the “fair play” principle of political obligation.
When a number of persons conduct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to those restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefited by their submission.
Framed in Warren’s language, “the rest of us” restricted our liberty by paying taxes for the creation of roads, the formation of police forces, the funding of fire departments, and so on. And the rich benefited from our submission to taxes by getting rich (in part) because of the existence of roads, police, and fire departments. Therefore, we have a right to a similar submission from the rich in the form of them paying an increased amount in taxes to fund roads, police, and fire departments, too.
So by her account, this can’t be class warfare because it’s a simple matter of obligation. But is that true? Does the so-called “fair play” account of political obligation work?
Not really. Robert Nozick famously knocked it down in Anarchy, State, and Utopia with a thought experiment about a neighborhood public address system. And A. John Simmons went even further—and did so more persuasively—in his 1979 classic, Moral Principles and Political Obligations.
But the basic response to “fair play” is pretty simple: It seems awfully weird to demand that we repay benefits we never had a choice about accepting in the first place.
Nobody approached the rich before they were rich and said, “Hey, we’re all pitching in to pay for roads and police, which we all think are pretty valuable. If you’d like to benefit from those things like we would, we ask that you pay for them. Are you up for that?” A (pre-)rich person might very well say, “Yes, I’m game.” In that case the principle of fair play would apply. But it would only apply if he had a meaningful choice about the matter. On the other hand, he might say, “Yes, I think we do need roads and police, but I also think they’d be better provided by an alternative cooperative scheme (the market, a different government, a different voluntary group, etc.) to the one you’re offering.”
Simmons calls this the distinction between “receiving” benefits and “accepting” them. The fair play principle creates obligations when benefits are accepted, but not when merely received.
With that in mind, Warren would have a difficult time arguing that any of us genuinely accepted the particular roads and police provided by the particular scheme she supports. We’ve received them, yes, and may rather like what we received—but we were never presented with an actual choice.
There may, of course, be plenty of other good reasons to feel obligated to pay our taxes—or to even pay more taxes than our neighbors—but fair play, at least in the form Warren presents it, doesn’t quite get us there.
Still, let’s set such concerns aside and grant to Warren that, if the rich did benefit from the particular services paid for by the rest of us, they have a duty to pay (more) for them. Would that allow us to justify asking the rich to pay more taxes today?
Again, probably not. Just look at the beneficial services Warren draws our attention to.
Roads
Police
Fire departments
Education
She tacks an “and so on” to the list, but there’s something striking about the concrete examples she does give. Namely, they’re all the kinds of things you’d expect even from a much smaller state than the one we have today.
In other words, the need to raise taxes at the present moment (if such a need exists) is precisely not to pay for roads, police, fire departments, and education. We had those—and they were functioning quite nicely—for a good while before the explosion of federal spending under the last two administrations.
If Warren’s claim is that the rich got rich because of certain benefits they received from government and so should pay more to provide those benefits to others, then the overwhelming bulk of government spending is completely outside the scope of her argument.
It’s not obvious that many rich people got to be rich because of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or military expenses. (Those who got rich because of subsidies are another matter, but she doesn’t draw that distinction, nor is she calling for an end to government handouts to the wealthy and politically connected.) But those are where we’ve seen so much of the spending increases that now demand, according to Warren and her peers, that all of us pony up more cash to the federal government.
This means that an easy response to Warren is to grant her general philosophical point but then add that what it leads to is not increased taxes but cutting government back to those programs that do make people rich and only then worry about how much of what remains the rich should pay for.
Of course we might also point out that, even with the bloated leviathan we have in Washington—one that does far more than provide roads, police, fire departments, and schools (which are, after all, chiefly state and local matters)—the rich still pay for most of it. Certainly more than “the rest of us” pay. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out back in May, “the highest-earning 10% of the U.S. population paid the largest share among 24 countries examined, even after adjusting for their relatively higher incomes.” The top 20% of American income earners pay over half the federal taxes. Which means that “the next kid who comes along” already is getting his federal benefits from the rich. To Warren and her supporters, I ask, “How much is enough?”
If Warren’s moral case for increasing the tax burden of the rich doesn’t hold up, can she still maintain her claim that this isn’t class warfare? Probably not. By her arguments, the rich are not obligated to pay more than they already are. Nor will their paying more do much of anything to ameliorate America’s fiscal woes. That means it’s rather difficult to see her speech as anything but a ploy to fire up her base by attacking a disfavored minority.
If that’s not class warfare, I don’t know what is.
Update: I just finished a podcast on the subject of this post with Caleb Brown.
The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)
This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.
Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”
“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011. Rep. Brooks on Fox Business: BBA and the Debt Ceiling Vote
Washington, D.C. – Today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) made the following statement concerning his vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:
Summary
The Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill is bad for America, bad political process, bad for national defense, does not prevent unsustainable budget deficits, kicks the debt ceiling crises down the road to 2013 (when America will have more debt and less financial strength with which to fix the problem), and fails to satisfactorily decrease the risk of an American credit rating downgrade.
Overview
America must, and will, raise the debt ceiling. The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how. Regardless of when the debt ceiling is raised, every bill and obligation of America to its citizens and creditors will be paid in full (albeit, with the exception of creditors, some payments may be delayed).
I have voted to raise the debt ceiling provided the debt ceiling bill makes America’s financial condition better, not worse.
I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 22, 2011, when I voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan (cutting FY 2012 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit; capping federal government expenditures within historically justifiable 18-20% ranges; and passing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that protect future generations of Americans from revisiting the financial mess we face).
I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 29, 2011, when I voted for the Boehner Plan (which included a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment requirement).
I will not vote for the Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Bill (herein the “Debt Bill”) because it is not up to the financial challenges America faces.
Background: The Problem
Years of spending binges by the federal government have come home to roost. America’s debt exceeds $14 trillion. America has suffered three consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits (and faces trillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future).
Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.
In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis. Over the longer term, America faces a debt crisis.
If trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, America’s insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, thereby risking America’s national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else the federal government does.
Debt Bill Deficiencies That Compel a “No” Vote
The accumulative deficiencies in the Debt Bill compel me to vote “No.” The deficiencies are:
1. Minimal Time for Consideration and Deliberation.
The Debt Bill is 74 pages of interwoven, complicated legal and budgetary terms. I have read and studied the Debt Bill in the limited time available. The Debt Bill forces onto our children and grandchildren another $2.4 trillion in debt burden, yet we are expected to vote on it with less than 24 hours notice.
This is insufficient time to thoroughly understand the Debt Bill’s nuances, for budget experts to digest the Debt Bill and offer their insights, for the public to analyze the legislation and share their insight, and for Congress to make a wise and deliberative decision.
While some argue the Debt Bill must pass by the White House’s August 2 deadline; I believe it is better to act wisely than in haste. The economy will be much worse if Congress, in haste, makes a $2.4 trillion error.
2. Significant Defense Cuts in FY 2012 & 2013.
In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts national defense by $2 to $17 billion (the variance is due to different Debt Bill interpretations by the House Armed Services Committee).
The Debt Bill creates a 12-member Joint Select Committee (six Senators and six Congressmen; six Republicans and six Democrats). By November 23, the Committee must recommend $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures (spending cuts and/or tax increases). If the Committee makes a recommendation, Congress must vote on the recommendation on or before January 15.
If the Committee splits 6-6 and makes no recommendation, or if either House of Congress rejects the Committee’s recommendation, then the Debt Bill mandates that the Defense budget be cut $60 Billion in FY 2013 (i.e. – in the fiscal year beginning 14 months from now, on October 1, 2013).
National defense is the top priority of the federal government. If the Debt Bill passes, there is an unnecessary and substantial risk that it will trigger risky defense cuts in just 14 months that undermine the defense capabilities of America.
3. The Bill Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem.
The Bill makes America’s financial challenges worse by inadequately addressing unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and force debt ceiling increases.
The Debt Bill’s “cuts” bind no future Congresses. Hence, the only “cuts” that count are those for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.
In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts discretionary federal government spending by only $7 billion (versus FY 2011 levels), while overall federal government spending actually increases (“discretionary spending” is less than 30% of total federal government spending).
In FY 2013, the Debt Bill increases discretionary federal government spending by $4 billion (over FY 2012 levels). Overall federal government spending again increases significantly.
Hence, in both FY 2012 and 2013, the federal government deficit is estimated to exceed $1 trillion/year if the Debt Bill passes and, under the best of scenarios, the Debt Bill’s “solution” increases America’s debt by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, which makes America’s debt problem much worse, not better.
4. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment.
The Debt Bill requires a vote of Congress on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment but does not require that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
The July 29 Boehner Bill required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before the Phase II debt ceiling increase would occur. The Debt Bill eliminates the requirement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, thereby eliminating the only long-term fix to America’s unsustainable deficits.
5. Punting the Debt Ceiling Crisis to 2013.
Because of 2012 election considerations, the Debt Bill “kicks the can down the road” to 2013, when a financially weaker America will be less capable of facing yet another debt ceiling crisis.
America will be weaker because debt service burdens will be $2.4 trillion more and the total debt of $16.7 trillion will likely be subject to higher interest rates and more onerous payment obligations.
America must face its unsustainable deficit issue while it is stronger, not weaker. The longer America waits, the worse the economic outcome will be.
6. Credit Rating Cuts.
In my judgment, the Debt Bill substantially increases the long-term risk of a cut in America’s credit rating.
Standard & Poor stated on July 14, 2011, that America’s credit rating is at risk if Washington has “not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and [is] not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.” Standard & Poor president Deven Sharma reiterated this concern on July 27, 2011 when he testified before the House Financial Services Committee that, “The more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the debt… that is the more important issue at hand.”
Similarly, Moody’s stated on July 13, 2011 that, if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating outlook “would very likely be changed to negative… unless [there is a] substantial and credible agreement [on] long-term deficit reduction.”
The Debt Bill does not cut America’s short or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America’s credit rating… a downgrade that will, in turn, drive up America’s debt service cost and reduce funding for all other federal government programs. To make matters worse, if America’s interest rates go up; state, local and private interest rates are likely to also go up… thereby hurting all Americans at every level.
The Solution
The best solution that protects America from the short term debt ceiling and long term insolvency threats is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that is phased in over a 5 year period.
Inasmuch as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America may not have, the debt ceiling should be raised in a two-step process. The first step partially raises the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive and effective Balanced Budget Amendment. If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.
The second step raises the rest of the debt ceiling requirement when the states ratify the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment. This process gives the states an incentive to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment in less than one year (or trigger the effects of not raising the debt ceiling).
The Daily Hatch 