Category Archives: spending out of control

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 133)

February 6, 2012 – 7:37 am

 

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 this above address and I got this email back from Senator Pryor’s office:

Please note, this is not a monitored email account. Due to the sheer volume of correspondence I receive, I ask that constituents please contact me via my website with any responses or additional concerns. If you would like a specific reply to your message, please visit http://pryor.senate.gov/contact. This system ensures that I will continue to keep Arkansas First by allowing me to better organize the thousands of emails I get from Arkansans each week and ensuring that I have all the information I need to respond to your particular communication in timely manner.  I appreciate you writing. I always welcome your input and suggestions. Please do not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you in the future.

Here are a few more I just emailed to him myself:

  • End low-priority programs that should never have been created in the first place, including:
  1. The Denali Commission (2004 spending: $56 million, discretionary);12
  2. The Conservation Reserve Program ($1,879 million, mandatory);13
  3. The Commission of Fine Arts ($8 million, discretionary);
  4. The Historic Whaling and Trading Partners Exchange Program ($9 million, discretionary);
  5. The Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation ($14 million, discretionary);
  6. AmeriCorps ($324 million, discretionary);
  7. The National Endowment for the Humanities ($131 million, discretionary);
  8. Farm subsidies for wool, mohair, lentils, and chickpeas ($28 million, mandatory);
  9. The Marine Mammal Commission ($3 million, discretionary);
  10. The East−West Center ($20 million, discretionary);
  11. The Legal Services Corporation ($341 million, discretionary);
  12. The protectionist programs of the International Trade Administration ($364 million, discretionary);
  13. The Bureau of International Labor Affairs ($105 million, discretionary);
  14. The National Commission on Libraries and Information Science ($1 million, discretionary);
  15. The U.S. Institute of Peace ($17 million, discretionary);
  16. The Agriculture Department’s wood utilization research ($6 million, discretionary);
  17. The National Endowment for the Arts ($112 million, discretionary); and
  18. Most of the 945 federal advisory committees and commissions scattered across 52 agencies.14

This is how bad it is getting:

Entitlement Spending

Three Major Entitlements and Tax Revenues, 2000-2050

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Who is responsible for large deficits? Bush or Obama?

February 6, 2012 – 12:13 am

I found this on the internet and I have tried to find the origin of the story. You will notice this post came from Tony Salazar on Nov 1, 2010.

B-b-b-but it’s his fault … he started it”…..a must read

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.
So once more, a short civics lesson.


Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.


Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.


In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.


For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.


And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.


If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.


In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Interview with Tea Party Senator Mike Lee of Utah

February 4, 2012 – 2:37 pm

Here is an excellent interview above with Senator Lee with a fine article below from the Heritage Foundation.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) came to Washington as the a tea-party conservative with the goal of fixing the economy, addressing the debt crisis and curbing the growth of the federal government. It’s an uphill battle for the youngest member of the U.S. Senate, but one he’s prepared to fight.

Lee’s recent book, “The Freedom Agenda: Why a Balanced Budget Amendment is Necessary to Restore Constitutional Government,” outlined his goals for changing Washington. (Listen to our recent podcast.) Yesterday at Heritage, he delivered the annual Helms Lecture, detailing his opposition of the Law of the Sea Treaty — a measure supported by the Obama administration that awaits Senate ratification.

Lee spoke to us afterward about President Obama’s jobs plan, the mounting federal debt and his solution to saving Social Security.

In the days following Obama’s speech to Congress, Lee sharply criticized the president’s ideas for raising taxes and hiking spending to spur economic growth. As he explained to us, “We need to not be doing more of the same things that made the problem worse. We need to refocus on getting the federal government out of the way rather than making the federal government part of the problem.”

The interview runs a little more than 4 minutes. Hosted by Rob Bluey and produced by Brandon Stewart, with help from Hannah Sternberg.

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

Obama should’ve let GM fail

February 4, 2012 – 11:31 am

I firmly believe in the magic of the free market. However, President Obama does not. Our other USA car companies would have been stronger now if he let GM fail. Take a look at these two articles below:

Ford (F) Sales Up, General Motors’ (GM) Down in January

Chris Preston
February 1, 2012

Fresh off their best sales year since 2008, U.S. auto makers posted mixed results in the first month of 2012.

Ford Motor (NYSE: F), the largest publicly traded automaker by market capitalization, saw its U.S. sales increase 7.3% in January. General Motors (NYSE: GM), the second-largest publicly traded U.S. auto maker, reported a 6% decline in January sales from a year ago in part because of the deep discounts the company offered last month.

Despite GM’s year-over-year sale drop-off, its stock is up 1.9% in mid-day trading today. Ford’s stock, meanwhile, is up only 0.9% after its improved sales.

GM’s stock is likely benefitting from the good news about the auto industry as a whole today.  New-vehicle sales surged in the U.S. last month.

No automaker performed better than Chrysler, which is not a publicly traded company. Chrysler’s January sales improved 44% from the same month a year ago. Ironically, booming sales at the one privately-held auto maker among America’s “Big Three” are largely responsible for boosting GM’s publicly traded stock.

GM was the lone major U.S. auto maker to report a year-over-year sales decline last month. Slower sales of its big pickup trucks – Chevy Silverado sales were down 4.7%, GMC Sierra sales dropped 10.4% — were partly responsible for the decline. Cadillac sales were also down 29% from a year ago.

Ford, meanwhile, grew its sales thanks in part to increased interest in its Focus compact car. Overall, Ford expects sales growth of between 2% and 3% in the current quarter.

______________________

Let’s Divest of GM Yesterday

Posted by Daniel Ikenson

Writing in today’s Washington Post, Charles Lane posits that the time is now for the U.S. Treasury to divest of its remaining 500 million shares of General Motors stock.  I agree with that conclusion, but not with Lane’s rationale or his recommendation for a heavy-handed, government-imposed exit strategy.

Just to recap: the Treasury recouped $23 billion of taxpayers’ $50 billion outlay when it sold GM shares to the public in an IPO in November 2010; the outstanding 500 million shares in government coffers must be sold at an average price of $54 to recover the remaining $27 billion; the IPO price was $33; today’s price is $21.69.  If all 500 million shares could be sold at today’s price, the Treasury would raise $10.8 billion, leaving taxpayers at a loss of just over $16 billion. (Of course, the sale of such a large number of shares would drive the average selling price way below today’s price, resulting in a much larger taxpayer loss.)

Lane is correct to conclude that GM’s immediate future isn’t looking quite so rosy. Demand is tanking in Europe. Concerns remain about whether GM will continue to be able to fund its $128 billion pension plan. And sales of the “game-changing” Chevy Volt have been lagging since the vehicle’s commercial introduction some 13 months ago—well before its engines demonstrated an annoying propensity to spontaneously combust. (Not to worry, says GM’s public relations team: the engines don’t seem to catch fire while being driven, only an hour or two after they’ve been parked in the garage.) Recognizing that that qualifier hasn’t been reassuring enough, GM is now offering to buy back any Chevy Volt it has ever sold, which doesn’t bode well for the bottom line, but also affirms how few of these Government Motors show pieces have even sold.

That grim analysis is the basis for Lane’s preference for government divestment now. There is more downside risk than upside potential. It is an argument based on market-timing, rather than on the principle that bad things happen when the government has a stake in the outcome of a race that it can influence. Sure, the administration would love to divest of GM at a profit to taxpayers. But the longer it is allowed to wait for that train to arrive, the greater the temptation to grease the skids.

The government should divest now. It should have divested in June, when it was first legally permissible to do so.  But the administration (following, by logic, what would have been Lane’s advice at the time) rolled the dice, expecting the stock value to rise. Instead it fell. And then there was this.

But my bigger problem is with Lane’s proposal for a managed divestment.  He writes:

It’s time to cut our losses.  Treasury should start selling its stake in GM.

And I know just the buyer: GM. The company is sitting on more than $33 billion in cash, about triple the market value of Treasury’s 500 million shares, which is roughly $10.8 billion.

Though GM wants to dedicate much of its cash to shoring up its pension plan, it could still absorb most or all of Treasury’s shares, even if Treasury charges a modest premium over the current market price, as it should.

Lane proposes this under the guise of some perverse fealty to a “free-enterprise economy,” as it would spare shareholders from the stock price-depressing impact of an unnatural 500 million share dump. But those shareholders knew the risks they were taking when they purchased GM stock in the first place. They certainly knew that the largest single shareholder didn’t intend to hold its position for very long. Lane’s argument for protecting those shareholders in the name of free-enterprise in unconvincing, if not misplaced.

Furthermore, Lane’s zeal for sticking it to GM seems to eclipse any real commitment to free markets. Forcing GM to divert resources from where management wants to commit them in order to achieve some favorable political outcome (a smaller taxpayer loss) is just as coercive as some of the administration’s actions on the road to GM’s nationalization in the first place.

GM should not be entitled to any favors or exceptional treatment by virtue of its ownership structure. To be certain of that, it should be 100 privatized yesterday. But likewise, GM should not be subject to compensatory or otherwise countervailing policies designed to punish or remove any perceived advantage. For starters, it is impossible to measure the benefits received or the penalties suffered with any precision. Demanding that GM not be exposed to special treatment goes in both directions.

 

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

Dan Mitchell demonstrates again that spending is our problem but it can be solved

February 3, 2012 – 10:46 am

Sometimes it appears that our problems are impossible to solve. Take a look at a good solution:

New Congressional Budget Office Numbers Once Again Show that Modest Spending Restraint Would Eliminate Red Ink

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

Back in 2010, I crunched the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office and reported that the budget could be balanced in just 10 years if politicians exercised a modicum of fiscal discipline and limited annual spending increases to about two percent yearly.

When CBO issued new numbers early last year, I repeated the exercise and again found that the same modest level of budgetary restraint would eliminate red ink in about 10 years.

And when CBO issued their update last summer, I did the same thing and once again confirmed that deficits would disappear in a decade if politicians didn’t let the overall budget rise by faster than two percent each year.

Well, the new CBO 10-year forecast was released this morning. I’m going to give you three guesses about what I discovered when I looked at the numbers, and the first two don’t count.

Yes, you guessed it. As the chart illustrates (click to enlarge), balancing the budget doesn’t require any tax increases. Nor does it require big spending cuts (though that would be a very good idea).

Even if we assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent, all that is needed is for politicians to put government on a modest diet so that overall spending grows by about two percent each year. In other words, make sure the budget doesn’t grow faster than inflation.

Tens of millions of households and businesses manage to meet this simple test every year. Surely it’s not asking too much to get the same minimum level of fiscal restraint from the crowd in Washington, right?

At this point, you may be asking yourself whether it’s really this simple. After all, you’ve probably heard politicians and journalists say that deficits are so big that we have no choice but to accept big tax increases and “draconian” spending cuts.

But that’s because politicians use dishonest Washington budget math. They begin each fiscal year by assuming that spending automatically will increase based on factors such as inflation, demographics, and previously legislated program changes.

This creates a “baseline,” and if they enact a budget that increases spending by less than the baseline, that increase magically becomes a cut. This is what allowed some politicians to say that last year’s Ryan budget cut spending by trillions of dollars even though spending actually would have increased by an average of 2.8 percent each year.

Needless to say, proponents of big government deliberately use dishonest budget math because it tilts the playing field in favor of bigger government and higher taxes.

There are two important caveats about these calculations.

1. We should be dramatically downsizing the federal government, not just restraining its growth. Even if he’s not your preferred presidential candidate, Ron Paul’s proposal for an immediate $1 trillion reduction in the burden of federal spending is a very good idea. Merely limiting the growth of spending is a tiny and timid step in the right direction.

2. We should be focusing on the underlying problem of excessive government, not the symptom of too much red ink. By pointing out the amount of spending restraint that would balance the budget, some people will incorrectly conclude that getting rid of deficits is the goal.

Last but not least, here is the video I narrated in 2010 showing how red ink would quickly disappear if politicians curtailed their profligacy and restrained spending growth.

___________________________

Other than updating the numbers, the video is just as accurate today as it was back in 2010. And the concluding message—that there is no good argument for tax increases—also is equally relevant today.

P.S. Some people will argue that it’s impossible to restrain spending because of entitlement programs, but this set of videos shows how to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

P.P.S. Some people will say that the CBO baseline is unrealistic because it assumes the sequester will take place. They may be right if they’re predicting politicians are too irresponsible and profligate to accept about $100 billion of annual reductions from a $4,000 billion-plus budget, but that underscores the core message that there needs to be a cap on total spending so that the crowd in Washington isn’t allowed to turn America into Greece.

 

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

How free is the USA?

February 3, 2012 – 7:33 am

Uploaded by on Jan 12, 2011

http://www.heritage.org/index Is the American Dream dead? How free is America’s economy? Check out the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom for all the answers.

______________________

Economic freedom is not heading the right direction in the USA. My son Wilson has been asking me if there are any other countries that are less socialistic then us and I have been painting a pretty bleak picture out there for him. This article and chart below show there are some countries heading the right direction. Unfortunately, the USA is not one of them.

Economic Freedom of the World: Lessons for the U.S.

by James D. Gwartney, Robert Lawson and Joshua Hall

James Gwartney is a professor at Florida State University. Robert Lawson is a professor at Southern Methodist University. Joshua Hall is a professor at Beloit College. They are co-authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, which can be found at http://www.freetheworld.com, and is co-published by the Cato Institute.

Added to cato.org on September 26, 2011

This article appeared on The Huffington Post on September 25, 2011

Economic freedom in the United States is on the wane. Historically a standard bearer for freer markets, the United States has seen its economic freedom rating fall in the last decade according to the latest Economic Freedom of the World index, published by a world-wide network of institutes. In 2000, the U.S. was ranked 3rd in the world behind only Hong Kong and Singapore, but in the most recent report, the U.S. is ranked 10th behind countries like Canada, Chile, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

The index measures the degree to which people in a nation are free to pursue their own economic objectives without government taxes and regulations, as well as the extent to which government protects property rights and provides a sound monetary environment. The decline of the U.S. is the result of massively higher government spending and borrowing, increased regulation, and especially less secure property rights. Ballooning budget deficits are crowding out private credit causing the rating in this component to fall to 0.0 from 9.3 (out of 10) since 2000. Asset forfeiture laws, eminent domain abuse, the wars on drugs and terrorism, TSA, and warrantless wiretaps have apparently taken their toll on the security of property rights.

The so-called Washington Consensus of the 1990s — free trade, stable money, and privatization — appears dead. The housing bubbles, financial crises, bankruptcies, bailouts, stimulus, debt crises, and erratic markets of the past few years seem to have led to a new consensus. Policymakers now tell us that markets have failed, and government stimulus, subsidies and new regulations are needed to set things right.

James Gwartney is a professor at Florida State University. Robert Lawson is a professor at Southern Methodist University. Joshua Hall is a professor at Beloit College. They are co-authors of the Economic Freedom of the World report, which can be found at http://www.freetheworld.com, and is co-published by the Cato Institute.

More by James D. Gwartney

When evaluating such claims, it is important to remember the fundamental truth of economic life: Markets work. When people are free to buy, sell, produce, trade, and move they do a pretty good job of bettering themselves and others in the process. This is not just common sense or idle theory — there is tons of evidence.

Nations that score higher on the index tend to be richer, grow faster, have less poverty, live longer, be more educated, and on and on. On virtually every measure of the good life, we find that more economic freedom yields better results. Other research finds economic freedom corresponds with less warfare, greater human rights, more gender equity, less unemployment, improved democracy, more trust, and less corruption. The results of the Economic Freedom of the World project and the scholarly analysis it has facilitated are simply overwhelming. Economic freedom works.

Over the past decade, the rating of the United States has fallen almost a full point on the economic freedom scale. Prior research indicates that a decline of this magnitude will reduce a country’s long-term growth rate by at least a full percentage point. In the case of the United States, this will mean future average annual growth of real GDP of 2 percent rather than our 3 percent historical average.

While economic freedom has fallen in the United States, there is good news in the former communist world. A number of formerly centrally planned economies have made remarkable progress toward freer markets during the past decade. Eight of them, Slovakia, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Albania, Mongolia, and Georgia, now rank in the top 40. By way of comparison, only three Latin American countries, Chile, Panama, and Peru, place in the top 40. All of these countries now rank higher than Sweden and France, for example.

With economic freedom, profits and losses direct resources toward socially beneficial activities. When too many resources are allocated by politics, a system of crony capitalism emerges where politicians can reward the politically powerful. Unlike true entrepreneurs, crony capitalists do not create wealth; instead they plunder wealth from taxpayers and other citizens.

America has prospered historically because we have chosen economic freedom rather than political allocation and crony capitalism. To the extent we move away from economic freedom, our future prosperity will be diminished.

_________________

This article includes a List of countries by economic freedom.

2011 List by the Fraser Institute[1] 2011 List by The Heritage Foundation[2]
Rank↓ Country↓ Score↓
1  Hong Kong 9.01
2  Singapore 8.68
3  New Zealand 8.20
4  Switzerland 8.03
5  Australia 7.98
6  Canada 7.81
7  Chile 7.77
8  United Kingdom 7.71
9  Mauritius 7.67
10  United States 7.60
11  Bahrain 7.59
11  Finland 7.59
13  Slovakia 7.56
14  United Arab Emirates 7.54
15  Denmark 7.52
15  Estonia 7.52
15  Hungary 7.52
18  Cyprus 7.51
19  Austria 7.50
20  Luxembourg 7.49
21  Germany 7.45
22  Japan 7.44
23  Panama 7.41
24  Lithuania 7.40
25  Ireland 7.38
26  Taiwan 7.37
27  Georgia 7.36
28  Bulgaria 7.34
28  Oman 7.34
30  Albania 7.32
30  Netherlands 7.32
30  South Korea 7.32
Rank↓ Country↓ Score↓
1  Hong Kong 89.7
2  Singapore 87.2
3  Australia 82.5
4  New Zealand 82.3
5  Switzerland 81.9
6  Canada 80.8
7  Ireland 78.7
8  Denmark 78.6
9  United States 77.8
10  Bahrain 77.7
11  Chile 77.4
12  Mauritius 76.2
13  Luxembourg 76.2
14  Estonia 75.2
15  Netherlands 74.7
16  United Kingdom 74.5
17  Finland 74.0
18  Cyprus 73.3
19  Macau 73.1
20  Japan 72.8
21  Austria 71.9
22  Sweden 71.9
23  Germany 71.8
24  Lithuania 71.3
25  Taiwan 70.8
26  Saint Lucia 70.8
27  Qatar 70.5
28  Czech Republic 70.4
29  Georgia 70.4
30  Norway 70.3
By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Current Events, Taxes | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Norquist is right, Brantley is wrong

February 2, 2012 – 4:08 pm

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 blame? Charles Krauthammer set the record straight below:

The Grover Norquist myth

Charles KrauthammerNovember 28, 2011

WASHINGTON — Democrats are unanimous in charging that the debt-reduction supercommittee collapsed because Republicans refused to raise taxes. Apparently, Republicans are in the thrall of one Grover Norquist, the anti-tax campaigner, whom Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called “the 13th member of this committee without being there.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid helpfully suggested “maybe they should impeach Grover Norquist.”

With that, Norquist officially replaces the Koch brothers as the great malevolent manipulator that controls the republic by pulling unseen strings on behalf of the plutocracy.

Nice theory. Except for the following facts:

•Sen. Tom Coburn last year signed on to the Simpson-Bowles tax reform that would have increased tax revenue by $1 trillion over a decade.

•During the debt-ceiling talks, House Speaker John Boehner agreed to an $800 billion revenue increase as part of a Grand Bargain.

•Supercommittee member Pat Toomey, a Club for Growth Republican, proposed increasing tax revenue by $300 billion as part of $1.2 trillion in debt reduction.

Leading, very conservative Republicans proposing tax increases. So why does the myth of the Norquist-controlled anti-tax monolith persist? You might suggest cynicism and perversity. Let me offer a more benign explanation: thickheadedness. Democrats simply can’t tell the difference between tax revenue and tax rates.

In deficit reduction, all that matters is tax revenue. The holders of our national debt care not a whit what tax rates yield the money to pay them back. They care about the sum.

The Republican proposals raise revenue, despite lowering rates, by opening a gusher of new income for the Treasury in the form of loophole elimination. For example, the Toomey plan eliminates deductions by $300 billion more than the reduction in tax rates “cost.” Result: $300 billion in new revenue.

The Simpson-Bowles commission — appointed by President Barack Obama and endorsed by Coburn — used the same formula. Its tax reform would lower tax rates at a “cost” of $1 trillion a year while eliminating loopholes that deprive the Treasury of $1.1 trillion a year. This would leave the Treasury with an excess — i.e., new tax revenue — of $100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over a decade.

Raising revenue through tax reform is better than simply raising rates, which Democrats insist upon with near religious fervor. It is more economically efficient because it eliminates credits, carve-outs and deductions that grossly misallocate capital. And it is more fair because it is the rich who can afford not only the sharp lawyers and accountants who exploit loopholes but the lobbyists who create them in the first place.

Yet the Democrats, who flatter themselves as the party of fairness, are instead obsessed with raising tax rates on the rich as a sign of civic virtue. This is perverse in three ways:

1) Raising rates gratuitously slows economic growth, i.e., expansion of the economic pie for everyone, by penalizing work and by retaining inefficiency-inducing loopholes.

2) We’re talking pennies on the dollar. Obama’s coveted Bush tax cut repeal would yield the Treasury, at the very most, $80 billion a year — offsetting 2 cents on the dollar of government spending ($3.6 trillion).

3) Hiking tax rates ignores the real drivers of debt, which, as Obama himself has acknowledged, are entitlements.

Has the president ever publicly proposed a single significant structural change in any entitlement? After Simpson-Bowles reported? No. In his February budget? No. In his April 13 budget “framework”? No. During the debt-ceiling crisis? No. During or after the supercommittee deliberations? No.

As regarding the supercommittee, Obama was AWOL — then immediately pounced on its failure by going on TV to repeat his incessantly repeated campaign theme of the do-nothing (Republican) Congress.

A swell slogan that fits nicely with the Norquist myth. Except for another inconvenient fact: It is the Republicans who passed — through the House, the only branch of government they control — a real budget that cut $5.8 trillion of spending over the next 10 years. Obama’s February budget, which would have increased spending, was laughed out of the Senate, voted down 97-0. As for the Democratic Senate, it has submitted no budget at all for 2 1/2 years.

Who, then, is do-nothing? Republicans should happily take on this absurd, and central, Democratic campaign plank. Bring Simpson-Bowles to the House floor and pass the most radical of its three deficit-reduction alternatives.

Dare the Senate Democrats to vote down the grandest of all bargains. Dare Obama to veto his own debt commission. Dare the Democrats to actually do something about debt.

Washington Post Writers Group

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist based in Washington.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in Cato Institute, Social Security, Taxes | Comments (0)

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

February 1, 2012 – 2:13 pm

Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

Uploaded by on Sep 7, 2011

Share this on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/qnjkn9 Tweet it: http://tiny.cc/o9v9t

In the debate of job creation and how best to pursue it as a policy goal, one point is forgotten: Government doesn’t create jobs. Government only diverts resources from one use to another, which doesn’t create new employment.

Video produced by Caleb Brown and Austin Bragg.

___________________________

When I think of all our hard earned money that has been wasted on stimulus programs it makes me sad. It has never worked and will not in the future too. Take a look at a few thoughts from Cato Institute:

Feeling Spent

by Michael D. Tanner

This article appeared in The New York Poston September 13, 2011. 

On Thursday night, the president laid out his plan for job creation, a $447 billion stimulus proposal, most of which we have seen before. After all, if Congress passes this new round of government spending, it would be the seventh such stimulus program since the recession began. George W. Bush pushed through two of them, totaling some $200 billion, and Obama already has enacted four more, with a total price tag of roughly $1.3 trillion.

The result: Three years and $1.5 trillion of spending later, we are back to the same gallimaufry of failed ideas. Among the worst:

1. Temporary Tax Cuts. The president wants to extend and expand the temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax that Congress enacted last December. The president also called for a grab-bag of tax credits for businesses that buy new equipment, hire veterans or even give workers a raise. There is obviously nothing wrong with letting workers keep a bit more of their money. And some of the tax breaks might encourage businesses to speed up otherwise planned hiring or purchases, providing a short-term economic boost. But neither people nor businesses tend to make the sort of long-term plans needed to boost production, generate growth and create jobs on the basis of temporary tax changes. This is especially true when businesses can look down the road and see tax hikes in their future.

If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.

2. Further Extending Unemployment Benefits. The president wants to spend $49 billion to provide another extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks. Of course everyone can sympathize with the plight of the long-term unemployed. But, the overwhelming body of economic evidence suggests that extending unemployment benefits may actually increase unemployment and keep people out of work for longer. In fact, many economists believe that current extensions of unemployment benefits have already extended the average length of unemployment by three weeks or more.

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

Federal Spending Grew More Than Ten Times Faster Than Median Income

January 31, 2012 – 12:47 am

Federal Spending Grew More Than Ten Times Faster Than Median Income

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.

When federal spending grows faster than Americans’ paychecks, the burden on taxpayers becomes greater. Over the past few decades, middle-income Americans’ earnings have risen only 27 percent, while spending has increased 299 percent.

PERCENT CHANGE OF INFLATION-ADJUSTED DOLLARS (2010)

 
 
Download

Federal Spending Grew More Than Ten Times Faster Than Median Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and White House Office of Management and Budget.

Chart 3 of 42

In Depth

  • Technical Notes

    The charts in this book are based primarily on data available as of March 2011 from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The charts using OMB data display the historical growth of the federal government to 2010 while the charts using CBO data display both historical and projected growth from as early as 1940 to 2084. Projections based on OMB data are taken from the White House Fiscal Year 2012 budget. The charts provide data on an annual basis except… Read More

  • Authors

    Emily GoffResearch Assistant
    Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy StudiesKathryn NixPolicy Analyst
    Center for Health Policy StudiesJohn FlemingSenior Data Graphics Editor

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

Our giving federal government (“Where’s my payout?”)

January 30, 2012 – 7:46 am

Now the federal government spends over 25% of our total GDP. It seems everybody is getting money from the federal government except me. Boo Who!!!! Sometimes you just have to laugh at it all.

Arlo Sings Bailouts

Posted by David Boaz

Only days after the president declared, “No more bailouts, no more handoutss,” I see that Arlo Guthrie is touring the South in February and March. What’s the connection? If you have the good fortune to see him, be sure to ask for “I’m Changing My Name to Fannie Mae.” That 2008 song was itself a new version of Tom Paxton’s classic song “I’m Changing My Name to Chrysler,” sung here by Arlo: “When they hand a million grand out, I’ll be standing with my hand out….If you’re a corporate titanic and your failure is gigantic, Down in Congress there’s a safety net for you.”

The 2008 version is sung here by Arlo and here by Paxton. Besides the name of the company, they had to make a few other changes in the lyrics, like “When they hand a trillion grand out, I’ll be standing with my hand out.”

But that was October 2008. By the end of December, I was noting that it was a Merry Christmas for GMAC, which learned on Christmas Eve that the Federal Reserve had approved its application to become a bank holding company. That gave GMAC “access to new sources of funding, including a potential infusion of taxpayer dollars from the Treasury Department and loans from the Fed itself,” as the Washington Post explained. GMAC wasn’t the only company that suddenly became a “bank holding company” in order to cash in on the $700 billion financial bailout. Late one night in November, American Express was granted the same privilege, along with Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, and CIT. Which was why I suggested then that Tom and Arlo needed a new version: “I’m Changing My Name to Bank Holding Company.”

For now, enjoy “I’m Changing My Name to Fannie Mae”:

Uploaded by on Oct 12, 2008

Arlo “updates” Tom Paxton’s “I’m Changing My Name To Chrysler” for these times. Live at The Guthrie Center!

When Arlo performed “Fannie Mae” at Farm Aid, I got tons of requests to post it…

BTW,this is without drummer, Terry a la Berry. He had a gig in Texas.

Abe Guthrie, keyboards,
The Burns Sisters, (Marie, Annie & Jeannie),vocals, Jody Lampro, bass & Bobby Sweet, guitar!

Live at The Guthrie Center Church October 11, 2008.

Arlo is on tour now, titled “Lost World Tour” with this band and Terry a la Berry! Terry has played drums for Arlo for decades. For more information go to:

www.risingsonrecords.com

_____________________________

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