Category Archives: spending out of control

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

September 26, 2011 – 12:54 am

The Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 1)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.
Rep. Brooks on Fox Business: BBA and the Debt Ceiling Vote

Print

Share

 

Rep. Mo Brooks To Vote No On Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill

08/01/11

Washington, D.C. – Today Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL) made the following statement concerning his vote on the Budget Control Act of 2011:

 

Summary

The Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Ceiling Bill is bad for America, bad political process, bad for national defense, does not prevent unsustainable budget deficits, kicks the debt ceiling crises down the road to 2013 (when America will have more debt and less financial strength with which to fix the problem), and fails to satisfactorily decrease the risk of an American credit rating downgrade.

 

Overview

America must, and will, raise the debt ceiling.  The question is not whether Congress will raise the debt ceiling; the question is when and how.  Regardless of when the debt ceiling is raised, every bill and obligation of America to its citizens and creditors will be paid in full (albeit, with the exception of creditors, some payments may be delayed).

I have voted to raise the debt ceiling provided the debt ceiling bill makes America’s financial condition better, not worse.

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 22, 2011, when I voted for the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan (cutting FY 2012 expenditures by a modest $111 billion in the context of a $1.5 trillion deficit; capping federal government expenditures within historically justifiable 18-20% ranges; and passing a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that protect future generations of Americans from revisiting the financial mess we face).

I voted to raise the debt ceiling on July 29, 2011, when I voted for the Boehner Plan (which included a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment requirement).

I will not vote for the Obama-Reid-Boehner Debt Bill (herein the “Debt Bill”) because it is not up to the financial challenges America faces. 

 

Background:  The Problem

Years of spending binges by the federal government have come home to roost.  America’s debt exceeds $14 trillion.  America has suffered three consecutive years of trillion dollar deficits (and faces trillion dollar deficits into the foreseeable future).

Annual deficits and accumulated debt force America to confront two major financial threats, both with one common cause: unsustainable budget deficits.

In the short term, America faces a debt ceiling crisis.  Over the longer term, America faces a debt crisis. 

If trillion dollar deficits continue indefinitely, America’s insolvency and bankruptcy is certain, thereby risking America’s national defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, NASA, and everything else the federal government does.

 

Debt Bill Deficiencies That Compel a “No” Vote

The accumulative deficiencies in the Debt Bill compel me to vote “No.”  The deficiencies are:

1. Minimal Time for Consideration and Deliberation.

The Debt Bill is 74 pages of interwoven, complicated legal and budgetary terms.  I have read and studied the Debt Bill in the limited time available.  The Debt Bill forces onto our children and grandchildren another $2.4 trillion in debt burden, yet we are expected to vote on it with less than 24 hours notice.

This is insufficient time to thoroughly understand the Debt Bill’s nuances, for budget experts to digest the Debt Bill and offer their insights, for the public to analyze the legislation and share their insight, and for Congress to make a wise and deliberative decision.

While some argue the Debt Bill must pass by the White House’s August 2 deadline; I believe it is better to act wisely than in haste.  The economy will be much worse if Congress, in haste, makes a $2.4 trillion error. 

2. Significant Defense Cuts in FY 2012 & 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts national defense by $2 to $17 billion (the variance is due to different Debt Bill interpretations by the House Armed Services Committee).

The Debt Bill creates a 12-member Joint Select Committee (six Senators and six Congressmen; six Republicans and six Democrats).  By November 23, the Committee must recommend $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction measures (spending cuts and/or tax increases).  If the Committee makes a recommendation, Congress must vote on the recommendation on or before January 15. 

If the Committee splits 6-6 and makes no recommendation, or if either House of Congress rejects the Committee’s recommendation, then the Debt Bill mandates that the Defense budget be cut $60 Billion in FY 2013 (i.e. – in the fiscal year beginning 14 months from now, on October 1, 2013).

National defense is the top priority of the federal government.  If the Debt Bill passes, there is an unnecessary and substantial risk that it will trigger risky defense cuts in just 14 months that undermine the defense capabilities of America.

3. The Bill Does Not Fix the Underlying Problem.

The Bill makes America’s financial challenges worse by inadequately addressing unsustainable deficits that threaten America with insolvency and bankruptcy and force debt ceiling increases.

The Debt Bill’s “cuts” bind no future Congresses.  Hence, the only “cuts” that count are those for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013.

In FY 2012, the Debt Bill cuts discretionary federal government spending by only $7 billion (versus FY 2011 levels), while overall federal government spending actually increases (“discretionary spending” is less than 30% of total federal government spending). 

In FY 2013, the Debt Bill increases discretionary federal government spending by $4 billion (over FY 2012 levels).  Overall federal government spending again increases significantly.

Hence, in both FY 2012 and 2013, the federal government deficit is estimated to exceed $1 trillion/year if the Debt Bill passes and, under the best of scenarios, the Debt Bill’s “solution” increases America’s debt by $2.4 trillion in less than two years, which makes America’s debt problem much worse, not better.

4. Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment. 

The Debt Bill requires a vote of Congress on a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment but does not require that Congress pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. 

The July 29 Boehner Bill required passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment before the Phase II debt ceiling increase would occur.  The Debt Bill eliminates the requirement for a Balanced Budget Amendment, thereby eliminating the only long-term fix to America’s unsustainable deficits. 

5. Punting the Debt Ceiling Crisis to 2013. 

Because of 2012 election considerations, the Debt Bill “kicks the can down the road” to 2013, when a financially weaker America will be less capable of facing yet another debt ceiling crisis. 

America will be weaker because debt service burdens will be $2.4 trillion more and the total debt of $16.7 trillion will likely be subject to higher interest rates and more onerous payment obligations.

America must face its unsustainable deficit issue while it is stronger, not weaker.  The longer America waits, the worse the economic outcome will be.

6. Credit Rating Cuts.

In my judgment, the Debt Bill substantially increases the long-term risk of a cut in America’s credit rating. 

Standard & Poor stated on July 14, 2011, that America’s credit rating is at risk if Washington has “not achieved a credible solution to the rising U.S. government debt burden and [is] not likely to achieve one in the foreseeable future.”  Standard & Poor president Deven Sharma reiterated this concern on July 27, 2011 when he testified before the House Financial Services Committee that, “The more important issue is really the long-term growth rate of the debt… that is the more important issue at hand.”

Similarly, Moody’s stated on July 13, 2011 that, if the debt ceiling is raised, America’s credit rating outlook “would very likely be changed to negative… unless [there is a] substantial and credible agreement [on] long-term deficit reduction.”

The Debt Bill does not cut America’s short or long-term deficits enough to minimize the risk of downgrade in America’s credit rating… a downgrade that will, in turn, drive up America’s debt service cost and reduce funding for all other federal government programs.  To make matters worse, if America’s interest rates go up; state, local and private interest rates are likely to also go up… thereby hurting all Americans at every level.

 

The Solution

The best solution that protects America from the short term debt ceiling and long term insolvency threats is a debt ceiling increase coupled with a Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment that is phased in over a 5 year period.

Inasmuch as constitutional amendments often take years to pass, time that America may not have, the debt ceiling should be raised in a two-step process.  The first step partially raises the debt ceiling when Congress passes a substantive and effective Balanced Budget Amendment.  If the Senate and House concur, this can be done in as little as a week.

The second step raises the rest of the debt ceiling requirement when the states ratify the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment.  This process gives the states an incentive to ratify the Balanced Budget Amendment in less than one year (or trigger the effects of not raising the debt ceiling).

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 114)

September 26, 2011 – 12:24 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.

Therefore, I went to the website and sent this email below:

Here are a few more I  emailed to him myself.

Senator Rand Paul on Feb 7, 2011 wrote the article “A Modest $500 Billion Proposal: My spending cuts would keep 85% of government funding and not touch Social Security,” Wall Street Journal and he observed:

Here are some of his specific suggestions:

Agency/Program Funding Level Savings % Decrease
Independent Agencies —– $2.048 B —–
Plenty of independent and efficient consumer groups exist throughout the United States, and Consumer Reports is
just one example. It is time that the federal government retreats from such services, as its presence in this arena is
unnecessary and was never intended in the first place.
The Founding Fathers did not envision a government that included funding for the arts. They understood that what
one citizen may see as a favorable artistic expression may offend another. This is why the arts are better left to
private support; it is not government’s role to pick and choose which artists should be subsidized.
No media outlet should exist which requires government support to survive; especially in the case of NPR, which
makes no apologies for its often one-sided, government subsidized options. Further, PBS has produced many hit
television shows that will be able to produce revenue for continued broadcasting; as it is, public dollars are
subsidizing the creation and growth of lucrative brands that generate millions of dollars of merchandising revenues.
The American taxpayer deserves better.
Affordable Housing Program – Eliminated
Commission on Fine Arts – Eliminated
Consumer Product Safety Commission – Eliminated
Corporation for Public Broadcasting – Eliminated
National Endowment of Arts – Eliminated
National Endowment for Humanities – Eliminated
Privative the Smithsonian Institution – Privatized
State Justice Institute – Eliminated

By Everette Hatcher III | Comments (0)

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

September 25, 2011 – 2:40 pm

Tea Party Conservative Senator Mike Lee interview

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 President Obama | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

What is the debtwall and when are we going to hit it?

September 25, 2011 – 2:31 pm

What is the debtwall and when are we going to hit it?

It appears to me that we can not continue to borrow money at this pace:
World Sovereign Deficits Analysis Chart
August 25, 2011

There is a limited amount of money that the world’s sovereign governments can borrow in any single given year without pressuring interest rates to rise above the point of affordability. This limit is approximately 9% of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP). The following graph chart demonstrates this concept.

The world’s GDP has been hovering around $60 trillion for the past three years. The orange line on the chart is 9% of recorded world GDP. The blue line is 10% of world GDP. The teal line is the combined collective deficits of all world governments. The red line is the individual sovereign deficits of the United States. The purple line is emerging and developing economies which includes non-G7 and non-G20 economies. The dark blue indigo line is the European Union. And the olive green line is advanced economies without the U.S. and Europe. This would be the G20 countries’ economies.

Again, the teal line is the combination of the red, purple, indigo and olive individual country economy totals. Prior to 2008, combined world government deficits were well below 9%. In response to the 2008 worldwide economic meltdown, governments made one-time extraordinary expenditures to keep the world’s economy afloat. This included TARP, Stimulus, bank and corporate bailouts, and ongoing structural deficits. This number peaked, as one would expect, in 2009. 2010 was an extension of those extraordinary expenditures. The definition of a Debt Wall is the point at which total world government deficit spending exceeds 9%, and thereby forces interest rates to rise above the point of affordability for sovereign government borrowing. The simple formula to know when one has reached the Debt Wall is:

World Gross Domestic Product x Y(9%) – combined world government deficits = 0 or less

Applying this formula to 2009 world spending illustrates why the United States Federal Reserve implemented QE1. Their purported reason was to keep interest rates down, and that’s exactly what they did. As the Debt Wall Index approached zero, it was necessary to print money rather than borrow it. QE2 was an extension of QE1 and part of the same process. What is alarming now is that the projections of world government deficit spending for 2012 again approaches the ceiling of world liquidity and the Debt Wall. The only difference is that now, deficit spending is not extraordinary, it is structural. This means that it goes on forever unless the economy grows faster than the percent of deficit spending to the overall GDP. Given the fact that total government and world debt is approaching 100% of GDP, the world cannot afford higher interest rates, even for a short period of time.

The projected GDP of the world in 2012 is approximately $60.25 trillion. The amount of cash available to fund government deficit spending on a world basis is approximately $5.4 trillion. As the world’s governments continue to borrow and spend, we are on a collision course with the Debt Wall. The Debt Wall Index is a countdown to this collision. If the economy grows faster than we have projected, the Debt Wall Index will be adjusted to reflect that. On current projections of economic growth and government spending, the Debt Wall will be hit by July 31, 2012.

World Sovereign Deficits Analysis Chart

Post to Twitter

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

Stimulus did not work earlier and will not now (Part 2)

September 24, 2011 – 12:02 am

Dan Mitchell discusses the effectiveness of the stimulus

Uploaded by on Nov 3, 2009

11-2-09

 

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:

3. Bailing Out the Teachers Unions. The president’s plan calls for spending $35 billion in grants to states to hire or retain some 280,000 teachers. The president wants to spend another $30 billion to repair and modernize school buildings, with the catch that school districts that accept the funds are prohibited from laying off any teachers. Spending on school building and repair has already increased by 150% over the last two decades, without either improving education or generating many jobs. And the greatest threat to teacher retention is not a lack of federal aid, but burdensome labor contracts.

4. More Infrastructure Spending. Like all the stimulus bills before it, the president’s latest proposal calls for still more pork barrel spending for “infrastructure.” One begins to wonder why we haven’t paved over the entire country by now. No doubt there are roads and bridges in need of repair, but the ability of the federal government to sort out good projects from bad is debatable at best. And the president is once again planning to plow money into such dubious projects as high-speed rail.

5. More Tax Hikes. Worst of all, the president plans to pay for all this new spending by — you guessed it — raising taxes on businesses and high-income Americans. The president, once again, referred to “millionaires and billionaires” in his speech, but his actual proposal calls for raising taxes on families earning as little as $250,000 per year. In places like New York, that’s not the “super rich.” In addition, many of these tax hikes would fall on small businesses. The president’s jobs plan, then, is to tax exactly those people and businesses that create jobs. And all this is on top of the new taxes and regulations that the Obama administration has already pushed through.

Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow.

 

More by Michael D. Tanner

It’s not just the details of the president’s proposal that are wrongheaded, it’s the basic concept. The real drags on our economy have nothing to do with the failure of government to spend enough. The federal government is now spending roughly 24% of GDP. State and local governments are spending another 10% to 15%, meaning government at all levels is spending roughly 40 cents out of every dollar produced in this country. If government spending brought about prosperity, we should be experiencing a golden age.

The president’s plan is a bit like having someone break your leg then give you a crutch and call it a stimulus. Might it not be better to avoid breaking your leg in the first place? It’s time to stop spending, cut taxes, reduce our debt, and rollback burdensome regulation. That will generate far more jobs than any government jobs program.

When it comes to stimulus, the seventh time is not the charm.

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

President Obama’s plan and the Heritage Foundation response

September 23, 2011 – 3:09 am

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

_______________________________

It is a time for statemen. However, President Obama steps up to the plate and fails to swing.

Mike Brownfield

September 20, 2011 at 9:37 am

Two years ago, as the United States was coming out of the last recession, President Obama was asked how raising taxes on anyone would help with the economy. The President’s answer? “Normally you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t, and why we’ve instead cut taxes.” Fast forward to today, as America is struggling with zero job growth and a stagnant economy, and the President has dramatically changed his rhetoric, proposing $1.5 trillion in new taxes on the American people and the country’s job creators.

Those massive tax increases come as part of the President’s plan to reduce the nation’s out-of-control debt, but rather than address the underlying spending problem, it will further deepen America’s economic quagmire and only serves to stall the real reform America needs in order to get on a path of fiscal sanity, as Heritage’s Alison Fraser explains:

Obama is demanding a ‘balanced’ approach as though somehow hiking taxes is both fair and necessary. But this notion that he is pushing — half tax hikes and half spending cuts — is beyond the class warfare message it sends. It is a tactic. A tactic to stall the real reforms that our leaders in Washington must undertake now in order to avert a fiscal, economic and moral crisis.

Real reform is necessary because of the depth and scope of America’s spending nightmare. ”The federal government today is claiming roughly one-fourth of total economic output — about 25 percent of gross domestic product,” Heritage’s Patrick Knudsen writes. That’s a post-World War II record, and it’s a huge drag on the economy since all that spending is paid for by taxes and borrowing, which reduce the amount available for investment in the private economy. And down the road, the outlook isn’t good: Social Security is growing at a rate of 5.8 percent per year, Medicare at 6.3 percent, and Medicaid at 9 percent. Unless those programs are fundamentally reformed, their costs will keep going up, and taxes will have to keep being increased to pay for them.

Disappointingly, the President yesterday retreated from his previous overtures to entitlement reform and took Social Security reform off the table while proposing minor cuts to Medicare and Medicaid–rather than the reform that would make a significant difference for the country. Obama’s plan is bad news for our nation’s defense as well, posing even more radical cuts for an already under-funded military.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the President’s plan ignores America’s core spending problems, his plan to drastically raise taxes is coming at a time when the country can least afford it. How will the latest Obama tax increase play out? Heritage’s Curtis Dubay explains:

The new revenue would come from allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for families and small businesses earning more than $250,000 a year, limiting their deductions, and the President’s new “Buffett Rule” that would further raise these job creators’ taxes in some way which the President has not defined. He also wants to eliminate deductions, credits, and exemptions. This is a war the President is waging on success–as if so-called fat cats were the root of our spending problems.

The President has set his sights on the wealthy despite the fact that the top 10 percent of earners in America already pay about 70 percent of federal income taxes. And taxing America’s job creators will only serve to reduce productivity, slow economic growth, depress wages and salaries, and decrease household wealth. To use the President’s own words, raising taxes in bad economic times would “take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.” Where is that President Obama today?

Raising taxes will not fix our budget and debt crisis. But it can be solved by transforming our entitlement programs, rolling back wasteful and inefficient spending, protecting the nation, and overhauling our punitive, inefficient and noncompetitive tax code, as laid out in Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending and Restore Prosperity.

America is facing an unemployment crisis, a debt crisis, a spending crisis, and an entitlement crisis. Instead of making things better, President Obama wants to make matters worse by icing that nightmarish cake with massive tax increases. Two years ago, President Obama emphatically renounced raising taxes in a recession. Now, with the 2012 election looming, he has changed his tune and is taking aim at America’s job creators in a game of class warfare designed to play to his liberal base. Job creation has fallen by the wayside.

By Everette Hatcher III | Also posted in President Obama, Taxes | Comments (2)

Obama’s funny math: Saving money that never was going to be spent

September 22, 2011 – 12:36 pm

Addington, McConaghy Debate Obama’s Jobs Plan

Published on Sep 9, 2011 by

Sept. 9 (Bloomberg) — David Addington, vice president at the Heritage Foundation, and Ryan McConaghy, economic director at Third Way, discuss President Barack Obama’s $447 billion jobs plan. They speak with Deirdre Bolton and Erik Schatzker on Bloomberg Television’s “InsideTrack.” (Source: Bloomberg)

_______________________________

We have been hearing about how the stimulus saved jobs that would have been losted even though unemployment went up after the stimulus was passed. Now we are hearing about the money Obama’s plan will save.

Still Spreading the Wealth

by Michael D. Tanner

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

Added to cato.org on September 21, 2011

This article appeared on National Review (Online on September 21, 2011.

Back when Barack Obama was running for president, he famously told Joe the Plumber that his goal was to “spread the wealth around.” Judging from the deficit-reduction plan that the president introduced on Monday, he really meant it.

The president’s plan barely makes a pretense of reducing spending. The Obama administration claims that its proposal would reduce future budget deficits by roughly $4.4 trillion. But that includes $1.1 trillion in savings from troop draw-downs in Afghanistan and Iraq that were already going to occur. This is an old trick by which the president gets to “save” money that was never going to be spent. The president also reaches back to include $1.2 trillion in savings from the debt-ceiling deal that was signed into law last month. And, he includes $430 billion in savings from lower interest payments as a result of the reduced debt.

The president’s actual cuts total less than $580 billion over the next ten years. That amounts to less than 1.3 percent of expected total federal spending over that period. It barely offsets the cost of the new stimulus bill he announced last week.

The American welfare state is alive and well.

Entitlement reform, once the supposed basis for a grand compromise, is now off the table. Social Security is running a deficit and facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded liabilities, but the president makes no changes to the program. Medicaid would be cut by roughly $72 billion over ten years, barely more than $7 billion per year in a program that today costs $276 billion annually. The president would trim Medicare by $248 billion over ten years. Depending on which accounting measure you use, that program is facing unfunded liabilities of $30–90 trillion, meaning that under the best-case scenario, the president is proposing a reduction of less than 1 percent. And none of the president’s proposed Medicare savings amounts to structural change in the program, which is what is needed. Instead, the president falls back on the usual grab-bag of cuts in provider reimbursements. Those cuts are likely to drive providers out of the program, making it harder for seniors to see a doctor, while doing nothing to change the program’s path towards insolvency.

The American welfare state is alive and well.

On the other hand, the president throws his weight fully behind tax hikes. His plan would increase taxes by $1.5 trillion over the next ten years. That’s on top of $450 billion in tax hikes that the president proposed last week to pay for the stimulus package. In total, the president is seeking nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes, compared to $580 billion in spending cuts. That amounts to nearly $4 in taxes for every $1 in cuts.

And, let’s look at those taxes. The president continues to focus his rhetoric on millionaires and billionaires, but his proposal includes the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for people earning as little as $200,000 per year. That tax hike would also fall heavily on small businesses and almost certainly would slow job creation.

The president’s other big tax initiative is, of course, the new “Buffet rule,” a new alternative-minimum tax designed to ensure that “millionaires and billionaires” pay the same effective tax rate as middle-income workers. While that populist pitch may well prove politically popular, numerous studies have shown that it is highly misleading. Few millionaires and billionaires actually pay taxes at such low effective tax rates. Those that do are receiving the majority of their income from capital gains, income that has already been taxed multiple times before it is subject to the capital-gains tax.

Besides, we should never forget that investment is both risky and necessary for job creation. It is exactly the sort of thing we should be encouraging.

But in the end, economic growth and job creation is secondary to the president. So is deficit reduction. This proposal is about the president’s idea of “fairness,” as he has said over and over. The president sees the wealthy as achieving their success not through hard work and initiative but by exploiting the less well-off or through pure luck. They are the winners of life’s lottery, in his view. It is his job, therefore, to remedy this injustice. That means taking money from some and giving it to others.

It’s about “spreading the wealth around.”

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

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 8 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

September 22, 2011 – 12:23 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)

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)

September 21, 2011 – 7:32 am

Sixty Six who resisted “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal (Part 49)

This post today is a part of a series I am doing on the 66 Republican Tea Party favorites that resisted eating the “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” Debt Deal. Actually that name did not originate from a representative who agrees with the Tea Party, but from a liberal.

Rep. Emanuel Clever (D-Mo.) called the newly agreed-upon bipartisan compromise deal to raise the  debt limit “a sugar-coated satan sandwich.”

“This deal is a sugar-coated satan sandwich. If you lift the bun, you will not like what you see,” Clever tweeted on August 1, 2011.

National Security Cuts a Cause for Concern in Final Debt Deal

Representative Michael Turner of Ohio

 
 

Washington, Aug 2 –

For months, Congress has been debating how to deal with the economic questions surrounding an increase in our debt limit. At a time when foreign nations own nearly $4.5 trillion of our $14.2 trillion debt – proposed cuts in the recently passed deal could have serious implications for our national security.  That’s why I was concerned that national security funding would be subject to an initial $175 billion cut in the final version of the Budget Control Act of 2011 that has been passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Throughout this debate I have advocated for our government to cut current spending and cap it at a responsible level so that we may balance our budget. We must remember though that in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the founding fathers empowered Congress to: “Provide for the common Defense… To raise and support Armies … (and) To provide and maintain a Navy.” Fulfilling that obligation and meeting our budgetary responsibilities are not mutually exclusive. As a nation we should be able to provide for our defense and balance our budget. One should not come at the expense of the other.

This is a critical moment for both our nation and our armed forces. We have servicemembers deployed overseas in support of a number of military and humanitarian operations including Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Those operations over the past 10 years have taken a toll on our forces. Currently, the Army needs $25 billion to reset its force right now, while the Marines need $12 billion. Our men and women in uniform are not only being asked to make further sacrifices with additional deployments, but in some cases they’re relying on equipment which is often older than they are. For example, Navy ships and light attack vehicles, on average, were built 20 years ago. In addition the Air Force is relying on bombers averaging 34 years in age and is refueling aircraft with tankers that are nearly 50 years old. 

An additional point of concern is that further cuts to defense are being used as a bargaining chip in a yet to be named Congressional “super-committee.” Twelve members of Congress from the House and Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, are required to find an additional $1.8 trillion in cuts. If the committee deadlocks on an agreement, or fails to complete its work by November 23rd of this year – then $281 billion in additional defense cuts automatically take effect. These cuts are unspecified and are an arbitrary number chosen to pressure the “super-committee” members into crafting an inadequate deal in fear of these cuts being enacted. I voted against this bill because I could not support a process which circumvents the normal legislative process and gambles with our national security.

Our military remains strong and morale among servicemembers remains high, but we cannot continue to operate with a strained force or we will not be able to meet the obligations of the future. In fact, the Vice-Chiefs of Staff of each of our braches of the military echoed this same sentiment at a hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. General Philip Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force stated that some components of the Air Force “are right at the ragged edge.”  Furthermore, additional proposed cuts of $281 billon in the bill would result in a “fundamental restructure of what it is our nation expects from our Air Force.”

Our national defense has always been a bipartisan issue in the halls of Congress. Members from both sides of the aisle recognize the role our military plays in both protecting this nation, and advancing the goals of our foreign policy. Subjecting this integral piece of our government to cuts, without thorough debate in committee and on the House floor, sets a dangerous precedent.

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

Cato Institute gives Bill Clinton credit

September 20, 2011 – 2:46 pm

Spending Restraint, Part I: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton

Uploaded by on Feb 14, 2011

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.

_____________________________

Over the years the liberals keep on calling for more spending but our solution is to restrain government growth. The funny thing is that BILL CLINTON BALANCED THE BUDGET BY RESTRAINING SPENDING BUT NOW DEMOCRATS ACT LIKE THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN THE RECIPE FOR SUCCESS.

Real-World Cases Prove: Spending Restraint Works

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

Added to cato.org on March 4, 2011

This article appeared in Investor’s Business Daily on March 4, 2011.

Good fiscal policy doesn’t require miracles — or dramatic showdowns. All politicians have to do is limit the growth of the public sector. Combined with normal revenue growth, this approach eliminates red ink very quickly.

This is what happened in the U.S. during the Clinton-Gingrich years. Between 1994 and 1999, total government spending increased by an average of just 3% annually. The budget deficit, which was projected in early 1995 (18 months after the 1993 tax increase!) to remain above $200 billion for the rest of the century, quickly became a budget surplus once spending was restrained.

Fiscal discipline also works when it is tried in other nations. Data from the Economist Intelligence Unit reveal that four nations — Canada, Ireland, Slovakia and New Zealand — dramatically reduced budget deficits in recent decades by imposing strict limits on government spending.

Daniel Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

 

More by Daniel J. Mitchell

Interestingly, these data also reveal that the tax burden was stable or falling during these periods of fiscal progress.

Canada, for instance, was in deep fiscal trouble. The burden of government spending had climbed above 53% of gross domestic product in 1992 and the deficit was more than 9% of economic output. Then lawmakers embarked on a new course. Government was put on a diet, and between 1992 and 1997 Canada’s budget rose from $374 billion Canadian to $391 billion, an average annual increase of less than 1%.

This period of frugality paid big dividends. The burden of government spending dropped to 44% of GDP. The budget deficit, meanwhile, completely disappeared. After five years of fiscal discipline, record levels of red ink were transformed into a small budget surplus.

Ireland was in a tailspin by the mid-1980s. The burden of government spending had skyrocketed to more than 60% of GDP and the nation’s deficit was consuming more than 12% of economic output. To avoid a crisis, Irish policy froze the budget. The Irish budget was 14.7 billion euros in 1985, and it was only 14.7 billion euros in 1989.

This four-year spending freeze was enormously successful. The burden of government spending plunged to less than 43% of GDP. The budget deficit also fell dramatically, consuming just 2.7% of economic output at the end of this period.

Slovakia, like many other nations that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet empire, was saddled with a large public sector. To solve the problem, policymakers restrained government. From 2000-03, the Slovakian budget grew from 11.5 billion euros to 11.8 billion euros, an average increase of 1.3%.

This modest period of fiscal discipline had a big impact. The burden of the public sector dropped from 36.9% of GDP down to 29.2% of economic output. During this time, the deficit fell from 8.7% of GDP to 2.0%. Combined with pro-growth policies such as the flat tax and personal retirement accounts, the nation has enjoyed robust growth.

Last but not least, let’s look at New Zealand. The burden of the public sector by the end of the 1980s had climbed to more than one-half of economic output. The Kiwis staged a turnaround by putting a clamp on public-sector spending. Between 1990 and 1995, the New Zealand Budget actually dropped from $39.3 billion New Zealand to $38.8 billion.

This five-year spending freeze put the nation in a much stronger position. The burden of government spending plummeted by more than 10 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand, dropping from 53.5% of economic output down to 43.1%. And a deficit of 4.5% of GDP was transformed during those five years to a surplus of 2.8% of GDP.

This pattern should not be a surprise. Restraining government spending generates good results because the private sector grows faster than the public sector.

Many self-proclaimed deficit hawks in Washington argue that deficit reduction is impossible without substantial tax increases. But American policymakers implemented a big tax cut, in 1997, during the period when the deficit became a surplus.

In other nations, the tax burden actually dropped by significant amounts during the relevant periods — falling by 8.1 percentage points of GDP in Ireland, 1.1 percentage points of GDP in Slovakia, and 3.1 percentage points of GDP in New Zealand. The overall tax burden did rise in Canada, but only by 0.3 percentage point of GDP.

The moral of the story is that limiting the growth of government spending is the right recipe. If the politicians in Washington replicated the spending discipline of these other nations, we would enjoy similar results.

Two percent annual spending increases would lead to fiscal balance by 2021. Limiting spending growth to 1% annually would balance the budget by 2019. A spending freeze would balance the budget by 2017.

Spending Restraint, Part II: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Uploaded by on Feb 22, 2011

Nations can make remarkable fiscal progress if policy makers simply limit the growth of government spending. This video, which is Part II of a series, uses examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending. Part I of the series examined how Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were successful in controlling government outlays — particularly the burden of domestic spending programs. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org

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