Category Archives: spending out of control

Republicans may compromise with Democrats in order to get control of debt

The Debt Bomb: A Decade of DC Spending is Driving America Closer to an Economic Apocalypse

Alexis Garcia reports on America’s exploding debt. Experts blame entitlements like Social Security and government spending. But what is the solution? Can we raise taxes without crushing the economy and the middle class? Does Obama really want to lower the debt, or does he support continued deficit spending? See interviews with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Brian Riedl, Jason Peuquet and former Congressman Ernest Istook (R-OK).

Andrew Sullivan reported today for Reuters:

Top congressional Republicans said on Sunday they would be open to a compromise on healthcare costs, one of the biggest stumbling blocks in a deal to get the United States’ debt under control.

Representative Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House of Representatives Budget Committee, said he would “absolutely” be willing to negotiate with Democrats, who have hammered his plan to scale back government-run health plans for the poor and the elderly.

With Ryan’s plan headed for likely defeat in the Democratic-controlled Senate, that chamber’s top Republican said it was time for “an adult conversation” on ways to keep healthcare costs under control.

“Let’s just stipulate that nobody is trying to throw Grandma off the cliff,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.”

Health reform is a top sticking point as the two sides try to hash out a budget deal that would give lawmakers political cover to back an increase in the country’s borrowing authority.

And as the 2012 election season gets underway, it is shaping up to be a top campaign issue as well.

Ryan’s proposal to partially privatize the Medicare health plan for the elderly has already imperiled the presidential hopes of one Republican, Newt Gingrich, who faced a fierce conservative backlash last week after he described it as “right-wing social engineering.”

Polls show that Ryan’s proposed changes are unpopular with voters, and McConnell said he is not urging his fellow Republicans to support it when it comes up for a vote in the Senate this week.

“We have other budgets that Republicans are pushing,” McConnell said. “We’re not going to be able to coalesce behind just one.”

The United States reached its $14.3 trillion debt limit last week, and the Treasury Department says it can stave off a default until early August.

Experts say a default would push the country back into recession and roil markets across the globe.

Republicans and some Democrats say they won’t back a ceiling increase that does not include steps to rein in the debt load, which has more than doubled over the past decade.

In talks led by Vice President Joe Biden, top lawmakers have agreed to at least $150 billion in spending cuts, but that is far short of the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that outside experts say is needed to stabilize the debt over a 10-year span.

On healthcare, the two sides are separated by a gulf of trillions of dollars. Ryan’s plan would save $2.2 trillion by scaling back Medicaid, the government-run health plan for the poor, and repeal President Barack Obama’s signature health reform program, the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

Obama, in turn, has proposed saving $480 billion by accelerating reforms in the program — a non-starter for Republicans who insist it must be repealed.

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Ryan said compromise was possible — reversing an earlier stance that a deal on healthcare would not be reachable until after the election.

“Of course, absolutely,” Ryan said, when asked if he would be open to negotiation. “Of course we would, this is the legislative process. But let me be clear: We are the only ones who have put out a plan.”

Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen, a participant in the Biden talks, said Washington could find savings by lowering the price the government pays for prescription drugs, rather than scaling back benefits for patients.

Van Hollen repeated Democrats’ contention that any debt-reduction plan requires higher taxes, saying Republicans’ reluctance to consider them forced Ryan to push his unpopular cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

“You can’t do it with a one-sided, lopsided approach,” he said on “Meet the Press.”

McConnell declined to say on Fox whether more tax revenue would be part of a final deal, but later in the day he reiterated his firm anti-tax stance.

“There will be no tax increases in connection with raising the debt ceiling. We’re talking about spending reductions,” he said in a prepared statement.

(Editing by Philip Barbara and Eric Beech)

Category:

FRIEDMAN FRIDAY “The Failure of Socialism” episode of Free to Choose in 1990 by Milton Friedman (Part 2)

Milton Friedman: Free To Choose – The Failure Of Socialism With Ronald Reagan (Full)

Published on Mar 19, 2012 by

Milton Friedman’s writings affected me greatly when I first discovered them and I wanted to share with you.

Ronald Reagan introduces this program, and traces a line from Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” to Milton Friedman’s work, describing Free to Choose as “a survival kit for you, for our nation and for freedom.” Dr. Friedman travels to Hungary and Czechoslovakia to learn how Eastern Europeans are rebuilding their collapsed economies. His conclusion: they must accept the verdict of history that governments create no wealth. Economic freedom is the only source of prosperity. That means free, private markets. Attempts to find a “third way” between socialism and free markets are doomed from the start. If the people of Eastern Europe are given the chance to make their own choices they will achieve a high level of prosperity. Friedman tells us individual stories about how small businesses struggle to survive against the remains of extensive government control. Friedman says, “Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state, needs to be gotten into the hands of private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values.” Eastern Europe has observed the history of free markets in the United States and wants to copy our success. After the documentary, Dr. Friedman talks further about government and the economy with Gary Becker of the University of Chicago and Samuel Bowles of the University of Massachusetts. In a wide-ranging discussion, they disagree about the results of economic controls in countries around the world, with Friedman defending his thesis that the best government role is the smallest one.
___________
Below is a portion of the transcript of the program and above you will find the complete video of the program:

Here is another real success story, this time in Czechoslovakia. Martin was a rock musician. Today he makes documentary films. Some years ago, he did a concert tour of the United States and brought back secondhand recording equipment. The communist government let him bring it back, after paying a hefty import tax, because he said he wanted to record folk music __ something the government was not doing and did not plan to do.

In the past year, since things have opened up, his business has exploded. Along with music and films, he now duplicates video cassettes. He also makes audio cassettes for other Czech producers and has devised his own English language course on tape. He is on his way and many more will follow if the government just gets out of their way. You just can’t keep good people like that down.

The guests at this party aren’t much interested in self-driving entrepreneurs like Martin. High powered business executives from North America and West Europe __ they are interested in bigger game. They are here to do business and make good profits for their firms. They’ll do it by arranging joint ventures between their western companies and government enterprises. To succeed, they have to get on the right side of the politicians and the bureaucrats who are in charge. It is large scale lobbying, very much in the western manner. The danger is that in the process, local government bureaucrats and big foreign business will end up freezing out local entrepreneurs.

Friedman: The assets of Hungary belong to the people of Hungary. I do not believe they should be sold. You are a citizen of Hungary, who owns the state enterprises?

Unknown: Okay, the society as a whole.

Friedman: Not the society, the people.

Unknown: Well, give it to the people.

Friedman: In finance ministries all over Eastern Europe, the talk is all about privatization, but rhetoric is one thing __ action sometimes very different.

One example is in Prague where Vacla Klouse, the finance minister, is desperately trying to free the Czech economy.

Vacla Klouse: The people who were the reformers at that time were done after the Russian invasion, they were fired from their jobs and they return to politics with their own extremely obsolete ideas, and now they are trying . . .

Friedman: But he is up against political planners that aren’t ready to give up control. They are all anticommunists, all in favor of markets, but many are still beguiled by the idea of market socialism. A third way between capitalism and socialism, Klouse and I believe that is a mirage __ that a third way will take Czechoslovakia straight to the third world. It must either move directly to a pure free market, or it will get stuck just as Yugoslavia has.

Klouse: . . . I think intellectuals tend to underestimate the intelligence of the ordinary people . . .

Friedman: Poland and Hungary have exactly the same problem. Some, like Klouse, want to move to free markets right away. Others still hanker after socialist control of the markets.

Klouse: . . . use the word naive citizens. They are the interventionist economies and the other, so this is my speech in the parliament . . . . . .

Friedman: Political power is limited, but economic power is not limited and you can have, if you have one millionaire, you can have another millionaire, another millionaire, without anybody else being worse off. In fact, everybody else will be better off. It seems to me again, the people understand that. I can’t believe that your ordinary people here don’t. They know overnight you can make a change if you could only get the government off the back of the people.

Where are we headed __ we are heading all the way up here __ we’ll get there. Let’s not get any more gas than we need to. What is it? It is about $1.00 a liter which makes it about $4.00 a gallon of gas.

In these countries, the hardest problem is to transform their heavy industries. This is Novahoota, a vast collection of steel mills in Poland and a disaster in every sense. It is inefficient, costly, and above all, a major polluter. The best thing to do with places like this would be to bulldoze them, but that is almost impossible. They are too well shielded by special interests: the unions, the bureaucrats, and all the other political interests on the fringes.

The communists socialize the means of production. They tried to run everything from the center. It didn’t work. It was a mess and a failure. We in the United States, on the other hand, have been socializing the fruits of production. That is, the government has been taking money from some people, the people who produce the goods and services, and giving it to other people who do not produce goods and services. The end result is likely to be the same loss of incentive and organization if we carry it too far. That is one lesson we should learn from these countries.

A year ago, the cornucopia of fruits and vegetables and other things in this street market were simply not obtainable. It is one of the first signs of the flowering of enterprise under the new regime. This market is in Krakow, Poland. Goods are readily available now, only because the government eliminated price controls allowing the market to set the prices. Like a miracle, overnight the stalls had goods for sale. This gentleman sells bulbs and seeds. He is happy in the market, but many traders would like to set up in stores and develop on a larger scale. At the moment, they can’t. The stores are all owned by the state. The traders are stymied unless and until the stores become private property. When they do, the market will get another boost.

This youngster is 16. He is still in high school, but this is Saturday and he is in the market selling jeans from Thailand, making a little money for himself. He is studying to be a gardener. But when I asked him what he was going to do when he left school, he had no hesitation __ he was going to be a businessman. There is the hope of Poland.

Everybody knows what needs to be done. The property that is now in the hands of the state need to be gotten into the hands of the private people who can use it in accordance with their own interests and values. The problem is how to do it. Now that you have some degree of political freedom, there is an awful fight going on about who is going to get what share of the total pie. Everybody wants a little bigger piece. It is a political mine field, but unless that mine field can be gotten through, the game is up. It will be a failure. If it can be gotten through, then you will have an opportunity for these resources to be used the right way for the right things.

We in the West know only too well how hard it is to get the government out of something once they have been in it. Here in Poland they have been in it for 50 years and in a much bigger way than the United States. So they have a real job on their hands.

It would be silly of us, on the basis of a brief trip, to try to judge how successful these countries will be in doing what no country has yet been able to do __ transform a totalitarian state into a prosperous, free society. If this experiment is successful, it will not only transform Eastern Europe __ it will also offer an invaluable blueprint for the economic development of many poor countries.

You know, nothing is more striking than the wide differences in the standard of life of people who live in different parts of the world. Why? Not because of race or religion or culture or natural resources. After all, the Chinese who live in Hong Kong and in Taiwan are of the same race and background as those who live in Red China, yet their standards of living are vastly different. The same thing is true of East Germany and West Germany; of South Korea and North Korea; of Japan before the major restoration and Japan after the major restoration. The real explanation are the economic institutions that they adopt __free private markets versus central planning.

The countries of Eastern Europe have finally overthrown their communist masters who foisted central control on them. They have the rare opportunity to write on a clean slate; to create the institutions of private property and free markets that are the only ones that have ever achieved widespread prosperity and human freedom. We in the United States, on the basis of our experience of the last 10 years, know how hard it is to cut a government down to size. We hope they succeed better than we did. If they do, we will learn as much from them as they have learned from our example.

Brantley: Children hurt by budget cutters. Liberals will keep spending till the levee breaks? Part 1

HALT:HaltingArkansasLiberalswithTruth.com

Today Max Brantley started whining about the children that will be hurt by all these impending budget cuts (Arkansas Times, Feb 28). I guess he always thinks the answer to everything is to throw more federal programs and money at it.

Have you ever heard of the great flood of 1927. My grandfather moved to Memphis in 1927 and he told me about this flood. There was a lady named Memphis Minnie and she wrote about this flood. I always heard that there was lots of great blues music that had come out of Memphis, but I always thought that was overstated and that the Blues was not a significant form of music.

However, at the same time I was listening to groups like Led Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones, I had no idea that many of their songs were based on old Blues songs out of Memphis.

One of my favorite Led Zeppelin songs was “When the Levee breaks.” It was based on a song by Memphis Minnie. When I think about the recent increase of federal Spending and federal Deficits under President Obama, it makes me think of this song. In 1927 the rains kept coming and coming and finally the levee broke. Now the federal spending keeps coming and the deficits continue to build up and I wonder when will our government go bankrupt?

Memphis Minnie and Joe Mccoys original.

Led Zeppelin

_________________________

President Obama admits that the Federal Government is out of money but that doesn’t stop him from still borrowing more and more to keep spending it. When will our government go bankrupt? When will the levee break?

Video : Obama “We are out of money”

May 23, 2009

Evidently Drudge Report  is running a headliner stating that Obama said “We are out of money” — There is no corresponding text to it other than this.

If you think for one second that this isn’t gonna wreck havoc on every industry including advertising then you are living in an illusionary world.

‘WE’RE OUT OF MONEY’
Sat May 23 2009 10:32:18 ET

In a sobering holiday interview with C-SPAN, President Obama boldly told Americans: “We are out of money.”

C-SPAN host Steve Scully broke from a meek Washington press corps with probing questions for the new president.

SCULLY: You know the numbers, $1.7 trillion debt, a national deficit of $11 trillion. At what point do we run out of money?

OBAMA: Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we’ve made on health care so far. This is a consequence of the crisis that we’ve seen and in fact our failure to make some good decisions on health care over the last several decades.

So we’ve got a short-term problem, which is we had to spend a lot of money to salvage our financial system, we had to deal with the auto companies, a huge recession which drains tax revenue at the same time it’s putting more pressure on governments to provide unemployment insurance or make sure that food stamps are available for people who have been laid off.

So we have a short-term problem and we also have a long-term problem. The short-term problem is dwarfed by the long-term problem. And the long-term problem is Medicaid and Medicare. If we don’t reduce long-term health care inflation substantially, we can’t get control of the deficit.

So, one option is just to do nothing. We say, well, it’s too expensive for us to make some short-term investments in health care. We can’t afford it. We’ve got this big deficit. Let’s just keep the health care system that we’ve got now.

Along that trajectory, we will see health care cost as an overall share of our federal spending grow and grow and grow and grow until essentially it consumes everything…

barack-obama

Written by TheFounder · Filed Under Advertising Agency News

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute tells how the Republicans can win the federal government shutdown fight with the Democrats. I will be posting portions his his article the next few days. Here is the first part:

With the GOP-led House and the Democratic Senate and White House far apart on a measure to pay the federal government’s bills past March 4, Washington is rumbling toward a repeat of the 1995 government-shutdown fight (actually two shutdown fights, one in mid-November of that year and the other in mid-December).

This makes some Republicans nervous. They think Bill Clinton “won” the blame game that year, and they’re afraid they will get the short end of the stick if there is a 1995-type impasse this year.

A timid approach, though, is a recipe for failure. It means that President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can sit on their hands, make zero concessions, and wait for the GOP to surrender any time a deadline approaches.

To put it simply, Republicans need to hold firm and fight hard.

In other words, budget hawks in the House have no choice. They have to fight.

But they can take comfort in the fact that this is not a suicide mission. The conventional wisdom about what happened in November of 1995 is very misleading.

Republicans certainly did not suffer at the polls. They lost only nine House seats, a relatively trivial number after a net gain of 54 in 1994. They actually added to their majority in the Senate, picking up two seats in the 1996 cycle.

More important, they succeeded in dramatically reducing the growth of federal spending. They did not get everything they wanted, to be sure, but government spending grew by just 2.9 percent during the first four years of GOP control, helping to turn a $164 billion deficit in 1995 into a $126 billion surplus in 1999. And they enacted a big tax cut in 1997.

If that’s what happens when Republicans are defeated, I hope the GOP loses again this year.