Category Archives: spending out of control

We got to cut this rapid increase of government spending

February 20, 2012 – 1:02 am

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

_______________________

We need to cut the rapid increase in spending.

President Obama’s Spending

Posted by Chris Edwards

The new federal budget includes a range of accounting maneuvers to cast the administration’s 10-year projections in the best possible light. Senate Republicans point out some of President Obama’s funky accounting here. But note that the George W. Bush administration also used tricks to make deficit forecasts look more optimistic.

That’s why it’s useful to look at a president’s spending numbers for the current year and next year, rather than the make-believe numbers for later years in the budget. The chart shows total federal outlays since 2000 and Obama’s estimated spending for 2012 and proposed spending for 2013. Data are for fiscal years. Also, I’ve excluded TARP spending because reestimates of TARP costs distort the data.

Spending has gone up from $2.98 trillion in 2008—the year before Obama came into office—to a proposed $3.80 trillion in 2013. That is a 28-percent increase in five years, which represents a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent. Because the economy has stagnated during this period, spending has increased as a share of GDP.

Note that the lack of an overall spending increase in 2013 is not a victory for frugality. For one thing, spending on the 2009 “stimulus” bill peaked at $235 billion in 2010 and is now falling. It will be roughly $30 billion in 2013.

Similarly, Iraq/Afghanistan war costs peaked at $163 billion in 2010 and are expected to fall to $97 billion by 2013. There have been similar drop offs in spending for recession-related programs such as unemployment insurance.

Thus, as stimulus, war, and recession-related costs are falling by hundreds of billions of dollars, President Obama is using the money to increase spending on other programs. We have run deficits greater than a trillion dollars four years in a row, and yet the president seems oblivious to the need for real spending cuts.

Here’s a better fiscal plan, which focuses on ways to cut spending and balance the budget.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, President Obama | Comments (0)

Boozman says Obama should cut spending

February 18, 2012 – 12:06 am

___

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending

Uploaded by  on Feb 14, 2011

In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced the CAP Act to dramatically cut federal spending over the next decade.

__________________________-

We are now on a fiscally irresponsible path here in the USA with the federal government spending 25% of GDP and having 4 straight budgets with over 1 trillion dollars a year in debt. That means our debt is now almost 16 trillion instead of the 9.9 trillion just 4 years ago.  Senator Boozman seems to be on the right track.

iscally responsible path

Feb 15 2012

Boozman Urges America to Reject the President’s Reckless Budget

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) took to the Senate floor today to urge America to reject President Obama’s reckless budget proposal and focus on passing a fiscally responsible budget.

“When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink.  The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again.  This is an unsustainable rate of spending,” Boozman said in his speech.

The full text of the speech can be found here:

Madam President: On Monday morning, the country was presented with President Obama’s budget proposal for the fiscal year.

If you were to only listen to the President and his surrogates, you would think this proposal is great for the nation.

The acting budget director says the President’s budget “makes the right investments.”

The head of the President’s National Economic Council used a litany of sports metaphors to make the case that “the president has very much stepped up to the plate.”

And the President himself said his budget makes “some tough choices in order to put this country back on a more sustainable fiscal path.”

The reason they are so excited about this proposal is that, they believe, in an election year, they have offered every ally something to woe their support.  This budget proposal truly does try to be everything for everyone.  The problem is, however, no one wins with it.

When you scratch the surface of this proposal, the shine quickly wears off.

The deficit reduction claims that the administration throws out to defend this proposal don’t hold water.

You can’t claim $1 trillion in cuts that Congress pushed through during the debt ceiling debate as new cuts.

Nor can you say with all honesty that $850 billion in war savings are real cuts.  This money was never going to be spent in the first place.

When you get down to it, President Obama was never serious about his pledge to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.  Like every budget this administration has proposed, this one was written with red ink.  The deficit spending proposed in the President’s FY13 budget topped a trillion once again.  This is an unsustainable rate of spending.

On Monday, the President’s team was doing a full-scale PR push for this budget.  At one point during the rollout, a reporter asked the President’s top economic aides whatever happened to that pledge the President had made to the American people.

Gone from their answers was the tough talk of making “difficult decisions” and facing “challenges we’ve long neglected.”  Instead, his advisors were left to pull out the old standby excuse that the President and his team simply “didn’t realize how bad” the economy actually is when they first took over.

Clearly, they still don’t realize it now.

Not only does the President’s budget ignore the very real disarray our fiscal house is in, it makes the mess worse.

Since President Obama took office, our national debt has shot up 42%.   Under President Obama’s watch, the national debt has jumped to a jaw-dropping $15.1 trillion.

This is the fourth year in a row that the budget would run a deficit above $1.29 trillion.  When it comes to fiscal responsibility, this is not a record to be proud of.

America deserves better than a collection of tax hikes, phony savings and additional debt.

The President’s budget proposal is bad for seniors as it takes no steps to protect and strengthen Medicare and Social Security, will hurt chances of an economic recovery through tax hikes and will add $11 trillion more to our already staggering national debt in a 10-year period.

We cannot continue to keep going down this road.   America’s fiscal health is at stake.  We’ve got to stop spending more than we take in.  If not, we risk going the direction of Greece, Portugal, Italy and other European countries that have spent their way to the brink of default.

As we head into the final year of President Obama’s first term, we have already witnessed the most rapid increase in debt under any U.S. President.  With our national debt already the size of our entire economy, the President has proposed a budget that calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.

If we followed through with this budget, deficit spending would exceed $600 billion every year but one over the next decade.  Our national debt would grow to $18.7 trillion.

President Obama would like you to believe that if we simply raise taxes we can solve all of our fiscal problems. A recent CBO report shows that spending is the primary cause of our fiscal crisis and supports spending cuts rather than tax increases to reverse this trend.  But the President is holding steadfast to his desire to raise taxes as an answer.

The President’s failed policy of borrowing, spending and taxing is just what the CBO is warning us to avoid.   It hasn’t worked in the past and it won’t work in the future.

Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem.  The fact that President Obama still believes we can tax our way out of the problem reveals a huge disconnect with the American people.

Madam President, when it comes to our country’s budget, Americans have a right to expect accountability, honesty and responsibility.  This proposal has none of those.

If President Obama refuses to acknowledge and address the very real economic crisis facing our country, let’s show America that we will.  We can do so by rejecting the White House’s proposal and passing a responsible budget that puts our nation back on a fiscally responsible path. 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

4 reasons why big government does not work

February 17, 2012 – 11:02 pm

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

A new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity gives four reasons why big government is bad fiscal policy.

I particularly like the explanation of how government spending undermines growth by diverting labor and capital from the productive sector of the economy.

Some cynics, though, say that it is futile to make arguments for good policy. They claim that politicians make bad fiscal decisions because of short-term considerations such as vote buying and raising campaign cash and that they don’t care about the consequences. There’s a lot of truth to this “public choice” analysis, but I don’t think it explains everything. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think we would have better fiscal policy if more lawmakers, journalists, academics, and others grasped the common-sense arguments presented in this video.

_______________

Four Reasons Why Big Government Is Bad Government

Uploaded by  on Feb 7, 2011

This Economics 101 video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity explains that excessive government spending undermines prosperity by diverting resources from the productive sector of the economy. Moreover, the two main ways of financing government — taxes and borrowing — cause additional economic damage. www.freedomandprosperity.org

____________________

And even if the cynics are right, we are more likely to have good policy if the American people more fully understand the damaging impact of excessive government. This is because politicians almost always will do what is necessary to stay in office. So if they think the American people are upset about wasteful spending and paying close attention, the politicians will be less likely to upset voters by funneling money to special interests.

For those who want additional information on the economics of government spending, this video looks at the theoretical case for small government and this video examines the empirical evidence against big government. And this video explains that America’s fiscal problem is too much spending rather than too much debt (in other words, deficits are merely a symptom of an underlying problem of excessive spending).

Last but not least, this video reviews the theory and evidence for the “Rahn Curve,” which is the notion that there is a growth-maximizing level of government outlays.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

Do you believe Obama when he claims his budget reduces debt $4 trillion over the next 10 years?

February 17, 2012 – 9:07 am

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

__________________

 

Do you believe Obama when he claims his budget reduces debt $4 trillion over the next 10 years? Let’s look at some facts from the Cato Institute:

 

Obama’s Busted Budget

by Michael D. Tanner

 

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Added to cato.org on February 15, 2012

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on February 15, 2012

 

In a town where bipartisan budget chicanery has been raised to an art form, President Obama’s latest budget proposal should be hailed as the da Vinci of fiscal obfuscation.

The president claims that his budget proposal reduces debt by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, combining $2.4 trillion in spending cuts with $1.6 trillion in tax hikes. Almost none of that is true.

Let’s start with the idea that the president’s budget would reduce the debt. That is true only using Washington math, under which a smaller increase is actually a decrease. In reality, the president’s budget adds $6.7 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, bringing it to nearly $25.5 trillion by 2022. That would be more than 100 percent of our GDP.

The president’s budget is dishonest and irresponsible.

And those spending cuts? The president actually counts $681 billion in cuts that were agreed to last year as part of the deal to raise the debt ceiling. Shouldn’t there be some sort of statute of limitations for how long you can claim credit for cuts that you have already made? And it should probably be shorter for cuts that you fought against every step of the way. The president also counts as a cut the $741 billion we will save from not occupying Iraq over the next 10 years, and from not being in Afghanistan a decade from now. Considering that we were never going to spend that money in the first place, that seems like slightly dishonest accounting. After all, think of all the savings we can claim by not invading Syria. And, finally, $595 billion of the claimed budget cuts is actually interest savings resulting from not having to borrow for the other phony cuts.

On the other hand, the president’s budget does include plenty of new spending. For example, there is $476 billion in new spending over 10 years for transportation projects, including the president’s favorite boondoggle, “high-speed rail.” There are also the usual bailouts for profligate state governments and teachers’ unions, including $30 billion to build more schools and $30 billion to hire teachers. Another stimulus anyone?

Overall, the president would increase federal spending from $3.8 trillion in 2013 to $5.82 trillion in 2022. That might not be as big an increase there might otherwise be, but in no way can it be called a cut.

The president isn’t even honest about his tax proposals. In the speech announcing his budget plan, President Obama devoted several paragraphs to a renewed push for the so-called Buffett rule, a new 30 percent minimum tax on the rich, based on the misleading claim that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. There is only one small problem: The president’s budget does not actually include any revenue from the Buffett rule. In fact, the budget provides no clue as to when or how such a tax might be implemented. The Buffett Rule isn’t even listed in the document’s summary of revenues and outlays. A cynic might believe that the Buffett Rule has more to do with campaign rhetoric than an actual budget plan.

Instead, what the budget does contain is a renewed call for tax increases on people and small businesses making as little as $200,000 per year. In addition, there’s the usual panoply of tax hikes on energy products, businesses, investment, and pretty much anything else the president can think of. The budget also helpfully points out that 2013 is the year in which most of the new taxes under Obamacare will take effect. Overall, the president would increase tax revenue to 20.1 percent of GDP. That’s a huge increase from the current 15.4 percent, and higher than the post–World War II average of 18.0 percent. Tax increases of that magnitude cannot help but slow economic growth and job creation.

But even if the president were to get every penny of the tax hikes he wants, his budget would never balance. The closest he would ever come would be in 2018, when the deficit would be only $575 billion. After that, deficits begin rising again, reaching $704 billion by 2022.

Fortunately for the president, he stops counting after 2022, about the time that the costs of entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security really begin to kick in, and his proposed budget does almost nothing to reform these troubled programs. One only has to look at the upward trajectory of both spending and taxes at the end of the budget window to see that president’s budget leaves us on the road to future bankruptcy.

Appearing last Sunday on Meet the Press, the president’s chief of staff — and former budget director — Jack Lew, declared that “The time for austerity is not now.” Judging by the president’s budget proposal, it’s not ever.

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, President Obama | Comments (0)

Overpaid Bureaucrats

February 16, 2012 – 11:00 pm

Hard to believe.

Everything You Need to Know about Whether State and Local Bureaucrats Are Over-Compensated, in One Chart

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

The showdown in Wisconsin has generated competing claims about whether state and local government bureaucrats are paid too much or paid too little compared to their private sector counterparts.

The data on total compensation clearly show a big advantage for state and local bureaucrats, largely because of lavish benefits (which is the problem that  Governor Walker in Wisconsin is trying to fix). But the government unions argue that any advantage they receive disappears after the data is adjusted for factors such as education.

This is a fair point, so we need to find some objective measure that neutralizes all the possible differences. Fortunately, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has a Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, and this “JOLTS” data includes a measure of how often workers voluntarily leave job, and we can examine this data for different parts of the workforce.

Every labor economist, right or left, will agree that higher “quit rates” are much more likely in sectors that are underpaid and lower levels are much more likely in sectors where compensation is generous.

Not surprisingly, this data shows state and local bureaucrats are living on Easy Street. As the chart illustrates, private sector workers are more than three times as likely to quit their jobs.

This helps explain why the unions are treating the Wisconsin debate as if it was Custer’s Last Stand. The bureaucrats know they have comfortable sinecures and they are fighting to preserve their unfair privileges.

The only bit of semi-good news for Wisconsin taxpayers is that state and local bureaucrats are not as lavishly over-compensated as federal bureaucrats.

This Center for Freedom and Prosperity video looks at all of the data and reveals a pecking order. Federal bureaucrats are at the kings and queens of compensation. State and local bureaucrats are like the nobility. And private sector taxpayers are the serfs that worker harder and earn less, but nonetheless finance the entire racket.

The video closes with a very important point that the right pay level for many bureaucrats is zero. This is because they work for programs, departments, and agencies that should not exist.

By Everette Hatcher III | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

February 16, 2012 – 8:07 am

Dear Senator Pryor,

Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion).

On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did not see any of them in the recent debt deal that Congress adopted. Now I am trying another approach. Every week from now on I will send you an email explaining different reasons why we need the Balanced Budget Amendment. It will appear on my blog on “Thirsty Thursday” because the government is always thirsty for more money to spend.

The Case for a Balanced Budget

By Bruce Bialosky

12/20/2010

 

No objective is more important for the new Congress than putting America on course toward a balanced federal budget. We used to balance our budget regularly but, except for a short period during the late 1990’s, Congress has been unable to accomplish what should be a clear-cut mission. Americans understand that deficit spending may be unavoidable in wartime or in a Katrina-like emergency, but we also believe that in the absence of these events, there is no excuse for irresponsibly increasing our national debt.

Unfortunately, our national agenda no longer seems to include a balanced budget. President Obama established a national debt commission (whose report I will address in a future column), but that was only after cranking up federal expenditures and deficits to previously unseen levels.

We all know that the big enchiladas in the Federal budget are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and national defense. That still leaves a lot of money to be saved elsewhere, yet even these opportunities are far too often belittled by elitists. For example, Jackie Calmes, a New York Times reporter, wrote that while there is general agreement on an earmark ban, “… [it] would hardly dent the projected annual deficits.” Paul Krugman, her colleague at the Times and the current economic guru of the left, routinely dismisses any savings at all, his most recent tantrum being Obama’s proposal for a two-year freeze on pay raises. He states “The actual savings, about $5 billion over two years, are chump change given the scale of the deficit.” These are two examples that occurred within days – and I could probably cite hundreds more, from both sides of the aisle.

The United States has a budget crisis that should be met by expenditure reductions, but our government has acted only with foolishness and cowardice. Let’s say your employer came to you and said “Look, the company is struggling, but I can keep you on if we reduce your annual salary from $80,000 to $70,000.” You would go home, sit down with your spouse, and figure out where you can start saving money. You could skip the Saturday night movies and join Netflix. You could learn to live without HBO. You could stop getting water delivered to the house. The bottom line is that you would adjust your expenditures because you have no choice; after all, you can’t print money or sell bonds to your neighbors. Not even to China.

What our government is doing has been going on for hundreds of years, ever since the Rothschilds made their fortune lending monies to the monarchies of Europe, and it has become an international problem of gargantuan proportions. Political leaders all over the world are making fiscal promises that they cannot keep, and this irresponsible practice has exploded in the past seventy-five years with the advent of left-wing, socialist governments. Overspending has become so pervasive that our society makes fun of it. In his recent HBO special, Dennis Miller spoke about not understanding the deficit. Miller said that he asked his son if he was upset that his generation would be saddled with the national debt. His son replied “Christ no Dad, I’m just going to saddle my kids with it.” It was good for a laugh – but Miller would never force his own kids to pay his credit card bills.

Virtually every parent I have ever met worries about what will be left for their children or grandchildren when they die. These people understand that it is immoral and sinful to leave their kids a pile of debt. Yet when it comes to the government – for which we are all responsible – people perceive it as some amorphous entity that can merrily spend more each year than it takes in without any consequences. They believe government, apparently, can pay for everything.

And unfortunately we do. Prodded by spineless and corrupt politicians who consider power far more important than responsibility, government has become the fixer of all our problems. People can live in a flood plain without insurance and then get paid by the government to rebuild in that same flood plain only to be wiped out again in the next flood. Every challenge that we have in this country is being discussed by a commission that lasts forever without ever solving the problem. Responsible Americans put their hand out when they hear of a government program because they rationalize they want their share, and if they don’t get it now someone else will. The sense of communal cost has disappeared.

The numbers are staggering. If the U.S. government had to employ the same accounting standards used by major corporations, it would report an annual deficit between $4 and $5 trillion. 41% of our current federal expenditures are paid for by borrowing money, and by 2015, America will be about $20 trillion in debt.

Our elected officials must face these facts, along with the immoral and pathetic aspects of their reckless behavior. Polls that say that taxpayers demand certain things need to be disregarded, and responsible leaders with some backbone must instead broadcast the simple truth: The jig is up and we need to reverse course. You cannot have everything you want. You can have Social Security, but you should expect less and start saving for yourself more. Medicare will help with your retirement healthcare, but you should have something saved for that as well. If you have a catastrophe, you’d better have an insurance policy because we cannot guarantee every one of your risks. And if your parents get ill in their old age, you’d better be prepared to take care of them just as they took care of you.

Saddling our kids with more and more debt is just plain wrong. The debt is bad enough now and we need to stop it from getting worse. The time is now and this Congress was elected to do just that thing.

Bruce Bialosky

Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Balancing the budget can be done

February 15, 2012 – 12:58 am

Balancing the budget can be done.

Spending is the problem but it can be slowed in order to balance the budget.

It’s Simple to Balance the Budget without Higher Taxes

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

John Podesta of the Center for American Progress had a column in Politico yesterday asserting that “closing the budget gap entirely on the spending side would require draconian programmatic cuts.” He went on to complain that there are some people who “refuse to look at the revenue side of the ledger – while insisting that we dig the hole $830 billion deeper over the next decade by extending the Bush tax cuts.”

Not surprisingly, Mr. Podesta is totally wrong. It’s actually not that challenging to balance the budget. And it doesn’t even require any spending cuts, though it would be a very good idea to dramatically downsize the federal government. Here’s a chart showing this year’s spending and revenue totals. It then shows the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of how much revenues will grow, assuming all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent and assuming that the alternative minimum tax is adjusted for inflation. As you can see, balancing the budget is a simple matter of limiting the annual growth of federal spending.

So how is it that Mr. Podesta can spout sky-is-falling rhetoric about “draconian” cuts when all that’s needed is fiscal restraint? The answer is that politicians in Washington have concocted a self-serving budget process that automatically assumes that all previously-planned spending increases should occur. So if the politicians put us on a path to make government 8 percent bigger next year and there is a proposal to instead limit spending growth to 3 percent, that 3 percent increase gets portrayed as a 5 percent cut.

This is a great scam, at least for the political class. They get to buy more votes by boosting the burden of government spending, but they get to tell voters that they’re being fiscally responsible. And they get to claim that they have no choice but to raise taxes because there’s no other way to balance the budget. In the real world, though, this translates into bigger government and puts us on a path to a Greek-style fiscal nightmare.

The goal of fiscal policy should be smaller government, not fiscal balance. Deficits are just a symptom of a government that is too large, as I have explained elsewhere. But the good news is that spending discipline is the right answer, regardless of the objective. I explained this in more detail for a piece in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Here’s an excerpt.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government this year is spending almost $3.5 trillion. Tax receipts are estimated to be less than $2.2 trillion, which means a projected deficit of about $1.35 trillion. So can we balance the budget when there is that much red ink? And is it possible to eliminate deficits while also extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? The answer is yes. …It’s a simple matter of mathematics. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that tax revenue will grow by an average of 7.3 percent annually over the next 10 years. Reducing the budget deficit is easy – so long as politicians increase overall spending by less than that amount. And with inflation projected to be about 2 percent over the same period, this is an ideal environment for some long-overdue fiscal discipline. If spending is simply capped at the current level with a hard freeze, the budget is balanced by 2016. If we limit spending growth to 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2017. And if we allow 2 percent annual spending growth – letting the budget keep pace with inflation, the budget balances in 2020. …Interest groups that are used to big budget increases will be upset if spending growth is limited to 1 or 2 percent each year. It means entitlements will need to be reformed. It means we might need to get rid of programs and departments that are not legitimate functions of the federal government. You better believe that these changes will cause a lot of squealing by lobbyists and other insiders. But that complaining will be a sign that fiscal policy is finally heading in the right direction. The key thing to understand is that there is no need for tax increases. Politicians might not balance the budget if we say no to all tax increases. But the experience in Europe shows that oppressive tax burdens are not a recipe for fiscal balance either. Milton Friedman was correct many years ago when he warned that, “In the long run government will spend whatever the tax system will raise, plus as much more as it can get away with.”

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 8, A response to your budget)

February 14, 2012 – 4:09 pm

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

__________________

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

_______________________

Senator Blunt Participates in Press Conference in Response to President Obama’s Budget 2/13/2012

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) participated in a press conference with GOP Senators in response to President Obama’s budget proposal on February 13, 2012.

_________________________

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced the CAP Act to dramatically cut federal spending over the next decade.

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

Below is a portion of an article from the group “Americans for Prosperity” and I wanted to share it with you since it agrees with the principles that I believe in.

AFP Responds to President Obama’s Budget


President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
Just another Tax-and-Spend Proposal

On February 13, President Obama released his budget proposal for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2012.  Just like every budget he has offered, this proposal spends too much, taxes too much, uses budget and accounting gimmicks, and fails to address the nation’s biggest challenges.  Last year, the President’s budget was so unserious that the Senate rejected it 97-0; not even a single member of his own party supported the plan.  This year he hasn’t done much better.

Spends Too Much, Taxes Too Much:  Once again the President produced a budget that never balances, creates trillion-dollar yearly deficits and uses campaign rhetoric instead of pro-growth tax policy.

  • The President’s budget envisions over $3.8 trillion in federal spending in 2013.  Over the next five years, his budget runs up $20.6 trillion in government spending.
  • The budget calls for $1.9 trillion in higher taxes while the economy struggles to regain its footing.  Economists of all stripes agree that raising taxes during a recession is bad policy, but the President is more concerned with campaign rhetoric about taxing the rich than using proven policies to restore economic growth.  What’s more, raising taxes only gives politicians more money to spend; it will only undermine efforts to control federal spending.
  • Even with all these new taxes, the President foresees a $1.3 trillion deficit for this year; the forth straight year with a trillion-dollar deficit.  For 2013, Obama’s budget projects a deficit of $901 billion, but if we strip out the budget’s unrealistic assumptions, yet another trillion-dollar-plus deficit is nearly certain.
  • The President uses rosy estimates to make his budget look better than it really is.  The past three years the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the President’s budget.  They found the deficits were actually 20 percent higher than the President claimed.

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Comments (0)

A mighty shark is swallowed whole just like USA being swallowed by debt

February 14, 2012 – 3:02 pm

It is true that the USA is a very powerful country in many ways, but it also true that we are BROKE AND OWE MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. That reminds me of the mighty shark in this picture below that is swallowed whole. It was so mighty until it was brought down by another giant. Our giant problem in the USA is our debt and we need to run from it as fast as we can.

Photo by Daniela Ceccarelli

National Geographic has released this soon-to-be classic photograph of one shark eating another shark whole.

The photo comes from Daniela Ceccarelli, of Australia’s Research Council Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.  Ceccarelli was working with fellow researcher David Williamson on conducting a “fish census” off Great Keppel Island, part of the country’s Great Barrier Reef. That’s when Ceccarelli thought she spotted a brown-banded bamboo shark hanging out near the ocean’s floor.

“The first thing that caught my eye was the almost translucent white of the bamboo shark,” Ceccarelli told National Geographic in an email. Instead, as Ceccarelli moved in for a closer look she noticed a camouflaged wobbegong shark emerging from seclusion with the same bamboo shark partially wedged inside its jaws.

“It became clear that the head of the bamboo shark was hidden in its mouth,” she said. “The bamboo shark was motionless and definitely dead.”

As the New Scientist explains, Wobbegongs, aka carpet sharks, are silent predators, waiting at the bottom of the ocean floor for their pray to pass by. And as stunning as this photo may be, it’s not uncommon for Wobbegongs to devour such large meals. Like several kinds of snakes, the Wobbegong has a dislocating jaw and rearward-pointing teeth that help it consume disproportionately large prey.

Although Wobbegongs bite humans with some regularity, these usually aren’t actual attacks where the shark is hunting for prey. Rather, these bites tend to be more of a defensive reflex after the shark itself has been assaulted, usually by someone unintentionally stepping on it.

While shark attacks were down in the U.S. last year, deaths from shark bites more than doubled worldwide with 12 reported deaths all happening outside of the U.S. However, Florida still led the overall national count for most attacks, with 11 of the 29 attacks reported inside the U.S.

“We had a number of fatalities in essentially out-of-the-way places, where there’s not the same quantity and quality of medical attention readily available,” George Burgess, director of the Shark Attack File, told Gannett. “They also don’t have histories of shark attacks in these regions, so there are not contingency plans in effect like there are in places such as Florida.”

You can keep track of individual shark attack statistics here.

Related posts:

A mighty shark is swallowed whole just like USA being swallowed by debt

It is true that the USA is a very powerful country in many ways, but it also true that we are BROKE AND OWE MORE THAN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. That reminds me of the mighty shark in this picture below that is swallowed whole. Photo by Daniela Ceccarelli National Geographic has released […]

Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing

Each American’s Share of National Debt Is Growing Everyone wants to know more about the budget and here is some key information with a chart from the Heritage Foundation and a video from the Cato Institute. As Washington continues to spend more than it can afford, future generations of taxpayers will be on the hook for increasing levels […]

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 134)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at cutspending@pryor.senate.gov and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I emailed to […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? ( “Thirsty Thursday,” Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor,  Why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog www.HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, I did […]

Protectionism does not work

Do you think protectionism would help, in the long run, if we don’t implement pro-growth reforms? Sometimes I wonder what are the motives of those who oppose free trade. Eight Questions for Protectionists Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell When asked to pick my most frustrating issue, I could list things from my policy field such as […]

Van Jones liberal alternative movement doomed to fail

Van Jones liberal alternative movement doomed to fail There is such an angry response to the message of the Tea Party, but is there any choice but to cut spending? Why Van Jones’ Anti-Tea Party Will Fail Brandon Stewart June 24, 2011 at 4:47 pm He talks about “rebuilding America,” but his ideas will do […]

Ron Paul’s opinion of Fed

I really like Ron Paul a lot. OCTOBER 20, 2011 Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price, the price of time. Attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. By RON PAUL To know what is wrong with […]

Norquist is right, Brantley is wrong

Max Brantley went on another tyrade about raising taxes instead of cutting spending (“How to raise taxes,” Arkansas Times Blog, November 28, 2011). However, spending is the main problem and it appears that Democrats do not want to cut a dime. Instead, they blame Glover Norquist for all their problems. Does Norquist deserve all the […]

 

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Current Events | Comments (0)

An open letter to President Obama (Part 7, A response to your budget)

February 14, 2012 – 8:14 am

On Bloomberg, Sessions Discusses Astounding Gimmicks In President’s Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

__________________

Rep. James Lankford Responds to President Obama’s $3.8 Trillion Budget

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

Rep. James Lankford (R-OK) responded to President Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposal that fails to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term as promised. The budget also delayed the tough decisions to cut spending and reform entitlements that are needed to avoid a debt crisis.

_______________________

Senator Blunt Participates in Press Conference in Response to President Obama’s Budget 2/13/2012

Uploaded by on Feb 13, 2012

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) participated in a press conference with GOP Senators in response to President Obama’s budget proposal on February 13, 2012.

_________________________

Corker Says President’s 2012 Budget Proposal Shows “Lack of Urgency” on Spending

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

In remarks on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., expressed disappointment in President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, saying it displayed a “lack of urgency” to get federal spending under control. Corker has introduced the CAP Act to dramatically cut federal spending over the next decade.

__________________

Obama’s 2012 Budget Numbers

Uploaded by on Feb 19, 2011

Erica Hill speaks with business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis about President Obama’s 2012 budget plan.

____________________

1,000 Days Without A Budget

Uploaded by on Jan 24, 2012

http://blog.heritage.org | Today marks the 1,000th day since the United States Senate has passed a budget. While the House has put forth (and passed) its own budget, the Senate has failed to do the same. To help illustrate how extraordinary this failure has been, our new video highlights a few of impressive feats in history that have been accomplished in less time.

_______________________

President Obama c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is going on out here.

The Heritage Foundation website (www.heritage.org ) has lots of good articles and one that caught my attention was concerning the budget you released on Feb 13, 2012 and it concerned the incorrect opinion out there in the USA that you can not pass a budget in the Senate because of the Republicans. Here in Little Rock we have liberal bloggers that have been saying this too.

The blogger in Little Rock who goes by the username “Elwood” on the www.ArkTimes.com blog noted on Feb 13, 2012 on the Arkansas Times Blog:

 You don’t get it both ways Salty Repub.

The process blockers in the Senate, your heroes, won’t allow anything to come to the floor for a vote. Take it up with McConnell.

I responded with this:

I am afraid that President Obama does not need any Republicans help to get his budget passed. There are 53 Democrats in the Senate and it only takes 51 votes to get the budget passed. You may have seen President Obama’s White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew on “Meet the Press” but he was incorrect.

“You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support,” Lew said on CNN’s State of the Union. “So unless… unless Republicans are willing to work with Democrats in the Senate, [Majority Leader] Harry Reid is not going to be able to get a budget passed.” Lew repeated the claim in a slightly different form on NBC’s Meet the Press, saying “One of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50, votes to pass something.”

Here is a link to a good article on it from the Heritage Foundation: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/13/morning-bell-white-house-spin-machine-hits-brick-wall/

__________

If you have the majority in the Senate then why can’t you get a budget passed? Is it true that the Republicans are holding up getting a budget passed in the Senate?

Thank you so much for your time. I know how valuable it is. I also appreciate the fine family that you have and your committment as a father and a husband.

Sincerely,

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733, lowcostsqueegees@yahoo.com

__________________________

Jack Lew on CNN

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama | Comments (0)