Even though it’s an uphill battle, I’m glad there are some lawmakers willing to fight Obamacare. They realize a hard battle today could help save America from genuine fiscal crisis in the future.

I don’t know how this government-shutdown battle (which is morphing into a debt-limit battle) will end, but I’m hopeful the taxpayers get some sort of victory.

The 2011 fight over the debt limit, after all, gave us sequestration, which has been Obama’s biggest defeat.

Heck, maybe in this year’s fight we can even keep the government shut down long enough that people realize that we can do without much of the Washington bureaucracy.

If nothing else, this fight has exposed the callow, juvenile, and spiteful mentality of the President and his team. These Washington hacks are trying to make the shutdown as painful as possible for innocent third parties.

Mollie Hemingway has a must-read article at The Federalist with lots of disgusting examples. Here are the ones that strike me as especially cruel, dangerous, and/or petty.

This goes way beyond the ordinary Washington Monument Syndrome, which occurs when politicians try to make supposed budget cuts as painful as possible.

The Obama White House is adding steroids and meth to that Syndrome in ways that are so pathetic that you would think their strategy will backfire (just like the Massachusetts Governor went overboard when he said budget cuts would lead to zoo animals being euthanized).

And people wonder why I mock politicians!?!

Since the Obama Administration’s petty actions seem like a joke, let’s close by sharing some real jokes from the late-night talk shows.

Jay Leno

• President Obama has officially canceled his trip to Asia. He said he didn’t want to be in Indonesia not doing anything to solve the crisis when he could be in Washington not doing anything to solve it.
• Actually, it’s the perfect time for President Obama to go to Asia. I mean, what better time to leave Joe Biden in charge of the country than during a shutdown?
• This government shutdown thing is getting old. The national parks are closed, museums are closed, and federal agencies are closed, but our borders are wide open. Don’t worry about that.
• It is day three of the government shutdown. Right now 33 percent of the government is doing absolutely nothing, which is not bad considering that before the shutdown 80 percent weren’t doing anything.
• This shutdown is hurting everyone. Today, Michelle Obama told fat kids: “You’re on your own. Eat a Happy Meal. I don’t care.”
• According to a new report, experts in Pakistan say $25 million in cash is smuggled out of Pakistan every day, and less than 1 percent of Pakistanis pay any income tax at all. Here’s the amazing part: Somehow their government hasn’t shut down, but ours has.
• How many are worried about a government shutdown? How many are more worried about it starting back up?
• I’m glad the government has shut down. Think about it, for the first time in years it’s safe to talk on the phone and send emails without anybody listening in.
• This whole government shutdown thing comes down to who will blink first. Well, we know it won’t be Nancy Pelosi. We know that for sure because she hasn’t blinked since the last shutdown.
• If the government does shut down, nonessential White House employees will be sent home without pay — so more bad news for Joe Biden.
• Since 1976 there have been 17 government shutdowns. The longest was during the four years that Jimmy Carter was president.

David Letterman

• At first people thought the government shutdown would last maybe a day, at the most a week. Now people are concerned, and experts are saying the shutdown may last as long as a Kardashian marriage.
• Almost a million non-essential government employees were let go. Well, isn’t that the problem, that there’s that many non-essential employees?
• Even the NSA is out of business. And while they’re closed, while the government is shut down, they are asking citizens to please spy on each other.
• Do you care that the U.S. government’s shutting down? I thought they were already shut down. I mean, honestly.

Jimmy Fallon

• Republicans were hoping John McCain would help them get their way on the spending bill — because if there’s anyone who can beat Barack Obama, it’s the guy who lost to Barack Obama.
• After Congress failed to reach an agreement on a new spending bill, the federal government officially shut down. So roads won’t get fixed, public employees won’t be able to help you, and getting a federal loan for a house will be very difficult — but there will also be a lot of differences.

Craig Ferguson

• Most people think the IRS Is just out to audit people. But that is not true. In addition to the people who do the audits, the IRS has people dedicated to defending taxpayers who get audited. But guess which group just got furloughed?
• The shutdown means the national zoo is closed. Who’ll feed the animals? Is anyone even there to lock them up at night? Pretty soon starving lions and tigers could charge out of the zoo. They’d devour the fattest, dumbest people on Capitol Hill. Actually that might be the answer to all of the problems.

Jimmy Kimmel

• Nonessential government services have been put on hold. Flight safety inspectors furloughed. National monuments closed. The Grand Canyon is closed — they filled it with spackle.
• Passport offices have been closed too. Interesting fact: Passport lines take exactly the same amount of time whether the passport office is open or not.

Having recently renewed my passport, the last Jimmy Kimmel joke hits a bit too close for comfort. But the best two jokes, in my humble opinion, are Letterman’s quip about non-essential employees being part of the problem and Leno’s line about how we should really worry about the government starting back up.

Gee, this is almost enough to make one conclude that we would be better off with a much smaller government!

P.S. Other examples of government shutdown humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, here, here, and here.

Related posts:

Big government will destroy the human spirit.

If we don’t have entitlement reform soon then we will see the programs go bankrupt in the next couple of decades. Here is a first step that we can take below. Watch this great video below:

Social Security vs. Private Retirement

Is Social Security a good retirement plan? Economics professor Antony Davies shows that Americans stand to earn significantly less and assume more risk with Social Security than other investment options. According to Davies, taxpayers would be better off both in terms of financial security and return on investment by investing their money privately. Social security is extremely expensive, soon to be insolvent, and doesn’t even offer taxpayers the most bang for their buck. For those reasons, Prof. Davies argues that it is time for the government to phase out Social Security. Davies’ solution: the government should honor its obligations to current retirees while giving Americans the freedom to invest their money as they see fit.

_____________________________

U.S. Government Increases National Debt—and Keeps 128 Million People on Government Programs

By Patrick Tyrrell and William W. Beach
January 8, 2013

Abstract: Between 1988 and 2011, the amount of the U.S. population that receives assistance from the federal government grew by 62 percent. That means that more than 41 percent of the U.S. population is enrolled in at least one federal assistance program. To make matters worse, per capita expenditures on recipients are rising as well. In 2010, over 70 percent of all federal spending went to dependence-creating programs. That growth is unsustainable, as baby boomers are now retiring every day and their entitlements cost more each year. The publicly held federal debt will exceed 100 percent of GDP in 2024. Such a high level of debt always hurts an economy—and the people who live in it. The time for Congress to reform dependence-creating government programs is now.

The number of people receiving benefits from the federal government in the United States has grown from under 94 million people in 2000 to more than 128 million people in 2011. That means that 41.3 percent of the U.S. population is now on a federal government program. The 128 million is an estimate based on the recently released March 2011 U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS), which, due to the survey methodology, most likely undercounts the actual number.

Heritage Foundation calculations using the March 2011 CPS found the number of people who receive assistance from at least one federal program to be 128.8 million. Using the Census Bureau number for the U.S. population in July 2011, which was 311,591,917, at least 41.34 percent are federal government program beneficiaries.[1] While very few Americans would deny that the federal government should play a role in aiding those in need, this number doubtless qualifies as far too large, indicating that taxpayer dollars are going to those not in need as well.

Many of those who receive benefits from the federal government could live well without them, so they do not count as truly dependent on the federal government.[2] Warren Buffett is the beneficiary of a federal program—Social Security—but, since he does not rely on that income for his livelihood, he should not be considered dependent on government programs. Others depend on the programs for nearly all of their income, housing, health care, food, and other needs and so fall under the classification of truly dependent on the government. Still others are somewhere in between, depending on government financing for, say, college, but little else. Consequently, it is important to note that stating that 128.8 million people receive benefits from a government program does not mean that all of them are dependent on the government.

The Numbers

In the CPS, the Census Bureau surveys thousands of U.S. citizens and non-citizens living in the U.S. in randomly drawn monthly phone surveys. Together, the roughly 60,000 households surveyed are a representative cross section of the U.S. population. While the CPS is conducted each month, the March survey has the most detailed questions. Only the March CPS survey format contains a sufficient level of detail to count federal government program participants.

The responses to the March 2011 CPS have now been released, and these individual responses were sorted for this report. All of the data were examined for responses by individuals who answered affirmatively that they were receiving benefits at the time of the survey. Based on their responses, Heritage created a new dataset from those who responded that they receive financial or in-kind benefits from at least one government program. By counting the individuals in that dataset, and using a weight assigned by the Census Bureau to each individual, the weighted number of people who depend on government programs was found.

The new dataset of people on government programs can then be further sorted to find out how many people say they are on a particular program. Here are some of the resulting numbers:

• 128,818,142 people are enrolled in at least one government program.
• 48,580,105 people are on Medicaid.
• 35,770,301 people receive their retirement income from Social Security.
• 43,834,566 people are on Medicare.
• 39,030,579 people are living in a household where at least one person accepts food stamps.
• 6,984,783 people are living in subsidized rental housing.
• 2,047,149 people are receiving a higher-education subsidy.

It is important to note that the above categories overlap; for example an individual may receive both subsidized rental housing and food stamps. The total number—128,818,142 people on at least one government program does not double count individuals, however.

The 128,818,142 figure for people enrolled in at least one program is surely an undercount: The CPS responses are well known to undercount those receiving Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, State Children’s Health Insurance, higher-education support, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.[3]

The undercount in higher-education subsidies may be the most important, because recipients of education subsidies are generally younger and not likely to be enrolled in other programs. Sorting the March 2011 CPS data shows that, of the two million people in the survey who responded that they receive higher-education subsidies, fewer than one half of 1 percent relied on Social Security retirement income; only 1.5 percent were also on Medicare; and only 16 percent received food stamps. The 2 million people who stated they receive higher-education subsidies are assuredly much fewer than the actual number, since the number of people receiving Pell Grants alone in 2011 was 9.7 million.[4] It is not known why the undercount in education subsidies is so large, but it is likely related to the weights the CPS uses to represent college students. Therefore, even counting only Pell Grant recipients would add millions to the lowball estimate of 128.8 million total people who receive assistance from a government program.

Housing subsidies are also most likely undercounted. According to the March 2011 CPS, only 6,984,783 individuals live in subsidized rental housing. Other government data puts the number at 4,952,191 households in 2010, not individuals.[5] Again, the weights used in the survey may contribute to the shortfall.

Growth in Number of People on Government Programs Over Time

The rate of growth in the number of people who are enrolled in a federal program far outpaces general population growth. (See chart.) In fact, an analysis of the March 2011 CPS responses going back to 1988 reveals that the number in March 2011 (128,818,142) is 62 percent higher than it was in March 1988 (79,592,924). Meanwhile, the U.S. population has grown only 27 percent since that year. In other words, the number of people who are enrolled in at least one federal program has grown more than two times faster than has the U.S. population. That growth is unsustainable as baby boomers are now retiring every day, and their entitlements cost more each year. The publicly held federal debt will exceed 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2024.[6] Such a high level of debt always slows an economy.[7] One need look no further than the current situations in Greece, Italy, or Spain to see what high levels of national debt do to a country’s economic health. The European Union now faces a recession because of the debt its members owe. Shrinking economies are bad for everyone who lives in them, but they especially hurt the young, who have much higher rates of unemployment than older workers.[8] Shrinking economies make it even harder for young workers to find jobs. Their very futures are the ones in peril because of that debt.

While the number of people on a federal program has grown too fast, the average amount spent per capita has greatly outpaced even that level. (See chart.) The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Dependence on Government has been released annually since 2002. It tracks the amount of money that is spent on federal-assistance programs.[9] The data is in constant 2005 dollars, meaning that the amount spent increases or decreases due to government policies, not inflation. Between 1988 and 2011, spending on dependence-creating federal government programs has increased 180 percent.[10] versus “only” a 62 percent increase in the number of people who are enrolled in federal government programs, and a 27 percent increase in the population. Not only are more people enrolled in government programs than ever before, but more U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent on each recipient every year.

What the Numbers Mean

What these alarming numbers mean is that a large proportion of the people in the United States have two kinds of income: (1) money that they or their family have earned, and (2) money transferred to them from U.S. taxpayers through the vehicle of a federal government program. Those consuming the second kind count for over 128.8 million individuals—41.3 percent of the population. According to Wall Street Journal research, when counting the number of people who live in a household where at least one person is on a government program, the dangerous tipping point of half of all Americans is nearly reached.[11] at 49.1 percent.

If one person in a household receives federal assistance, it is often the case that all members of that household do. This is certainly the case for food stamps: If a family shares meals and one of the relatives accepts food stamps, all members of that household are using those food stamps for part of their food.[12] If one person in a household receives a rent subsidy, everyone who lives in the home is a recipient.

The Clock is Ticking

The time to reform dependence-creating government programs is now. In 2010, over 70 percent of all federal spending went to dependence-creating programs.[13] It went to subsidize the living expenses of over 128.8 million individuals in the U.S. in 2011, which was more than 41 percent of the U.S. population. When the percentage of those living in a household where at least one person is subsidized is calculated, the number tops 49 percent. The problem is too much government subsidizing, and too much transfer of wealth from taxpayers to those who pay fewer and fewer taxes. After all, government does not create wealth by spreading it around.

Congress would do well to remember that there are no free subsidies and benefits. The government today is borrowing from future taxpayers to pay the current government program enrollees. The game will soon be up as debt approaches 100 percent of GDP. The United States should not owe 100 percent of all the goods and services produced in a year to its debtors. It is time for across-the-board entitlement reform so that the red ink does not drown America’s babies as they grow older and seek out their vision of the American dream. It is time for elected officials to restore America’s future for kids today who deserve to live in the great land of opportunity that America has been for the generations that came before them—instead of being bound to pay off a mountain of debt that they had no part in creating and that they should not have to face.[14]

—Patrick D. Tyrrell is Research Coordinator in the Center for Data Analysis, and William W. Beach is Director of the Center for Data Analysis, and Lazof Family Fellow in Economics, at The Heritage Foundation.