Category Archives: Uncategorized

Brummett: Where are the Statesmen today?

Max Brantley noted this morning on his Arkansas Times Blog:

John Brummett washes his hands of every single member of the six-man Arkansas congressional delegation for their total default on solutions for the country’s financial ills.

The state that produced Mills, McClellan, Bumpers, Fulbright, Clinton and other large Washington figures “has now shipped six empty suits to Washington, D.C., where filled ones are desperately needed.”

John Brummett in his article is critical of six Arkansans in Arkanasas. He asserts:

U.S. Sen. John Boozman — He was elected to be a mere head of cattle available for herding by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Yet all of a sudden he has found a proposal by McConnell potentially objectionable.

Boozman was last seen scratching his head with his hoof, having strayed to the side of the herd.

U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford — This old filer of personal bankruptcy because he had a little unwanted balance on a credit card says we can leave the debt ceiling where it is and, as of Aug. 2, start paying only on our debt and for the military and for Social Security and for Medicare, simply letting the rest — farmer subsidies, veteran’s benefits, law enforcement, disaster assistance, you name it — go.

If only we could let him go.

U. S. Rep. Tim Griffin — He was last heard from saying he and other tea party types think it’s time to do something big. Defaulting on debt and ruining the domestic and global economies … that would do it.

A head of cattle himself, he is herded by Paul Ryan, last seen at a high-dollar eatery on Capitol Hill enjoying a $360 bottle of pinot noir with a couple of anti-government types who appreciated his efforts to switch the burden of health care costs from government to sick old people.

U.S. Rep. Steve Womack — Otherwise nondescript, he wanted to reduce the deficit by taking away Obama’s TelePrompTer.

U.S. Mike Ross — He used to be a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats. But then most of them got beat last year by undisguised Republicans.

So there you have the sad story of how one small needy state once known for producing uncommon national political prominence has now shipped six empty suits to Washington, D.C., where filled ones are desperately needed.

______________________________

I know that many times we glorify the past and it is true that Arkansas had some very powerful men representing our State in the past. However, they were all Democrats and now almost all of them are conservative Republicans.

We need for our men in Washington to make the hard choices. You will notice above the comment by Brummett that many of the blue dog Democrats that Mike Ross associated with the past have been defeated. He is in a pretty lonely group right now. Mark Pryor is still sticking to the old methods by traveling the state and saying that the Republicans will discontine the Social Security checks. Actually it was President Obama that suggested that the other day even though Social Socurity currently has the payroll taxes coming in to pay all their bills.

We need some statesmen that will cut when we need to cut. Take a look at this fine suggestion below.

Debt-Limit Deal: $500 Billion Cut Option

Posted by Chris Edwards

Charles Krauthammer is absolutely right that Republicans must call President Obama’s bluff on the debt-limit vote. I suggested that the House GOP pass $2 trillion in cuts tied to a $2 trillion debt increase, thus handing the matter over to the Senate and the president and refusing to budge.

Krauthammer has the same idea, but with $500 billion in cuts and a $500 billion debt increase. That would certainly be better than Senator McConnell’s chicken-out plan, and it would have the advantage of being so modest in size that I think it would ultimately get large support in the Senate from moderates.

The cuts–small “trims” really–could be taken right from Obama’s own Fiscal Commission report. The table below illustrates how modest and limited are the reforms needed to hit $500 billion in savings over 10 years. Indeed, the data from the commission only covers a nine-year period and includes just some of the proposed entitlement savings.

Obama Fiscal Commission Entitlement Trims $Billions
Trim Health Care Subsidies
Reduce subsidies for medical education $60
Expand Medicare cost sharing $110
Enact tort reform $17
Reduce Medicaid tax gaming $44
Reform Tricare $38
Trim Social Security Growth
Increase benefits by chained CPI $89
Trim Growth in Other Entitlements
Increase other entitlements by chained CPI $43
Reform federal retirement benefits $73
Reduce farm subsidies $10
Reduce student loan interest subsidies $43
Total Trims, 2012-2020 $527

It would be blindingly obvious to most voters that Obama would be responsible for a debt default if he couldn’t bring himself to sign such modest cuts that were proposed by his own fiscal commission. Then, when the government runs up against the debt limit again five months from now, the GOP should have another package of cuts ready to be passed. This next time they could perhaps focus on discretionary program terminations, some of which I’ve proposed here.

Michele Bachmann and her husband up close

Uploaded by on Jul 13, 2011

Today Congresswoman Michele Bachmann joined her colleagues Congressmen Steve King (IA-05) and Louie Gohmert (TX-01) to unveil H.R. 2496, the “Payment Reliability for our Obligations to Military and Investors to Secure Essential Stability Act,” or the PROMISES Act. Introduced by King, this legislation ensures spending is prioritized in the case the federal government exceeds its ability to borrow. The PROMISES Act will direct the Treasury to pay down the interest on our national debt and ensure the Armed Forces are paid for their tireless service.

_____________________________________

FILE - In this June 27, 2011, file photo Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and her husband Marcus wave to the crowd after her formal announcement to seek the 2012 Republican presidential nomination in Waterloo, Iowa. Marcus Bachmann is defending his Christian counseling business for offering so-called ex-gay therapy, a controversial practice that's focused attention on the Bachmanns' views on social issues at a time when the Minnesota congresswoman has shown momentum in the Republican presidential race. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File) )

  • FILE – In this June 27, 2011, file photo Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn and her husband.

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — One of Michele Bachmann’s closest advisers during her rapid political rise was her husband, Marcus. He also was one of the least visible, happy to stand in his wife’s shadow even as her career took her to Washington.

These days, both Bachmanns are finding there’s no escape from the scrutiny that follows a candidate who rockets into the top tier of Republican presidential hopefuls, and Marcus Bachmann has been forced to defend his Christian counseling business from claims its therapies include “curing” people of being gay.

In an interview with the Minneapolis Star-Tribune published Friday, Marcus Bachmann did not deny he and other counselors at Bachmann and Associates Inc. have attempted to convert gay patients. But he said it’s not a special interest of the practice and would only be attempted if a client requested it.

“Will I address it? Certainly we’ll talk about it,” Bachmann told the newspaper, in response to a question about an undercover investigation by a gay activist that showed a counselor at the clinic offering the therapy. “Is it a remedy form that I typically would use? … It is at the client’s discretion.”

Bachmann’s campaign this week turned down multiple Associated Press requests to interview Marcus and Michele Bachmann. The campaign also did not respond to an emailed list of basic biographical questions about Marcus Bachmann.

The Bachmanns and people who know them describe a couple who connected in college in southeastern Minnesota, brought together in part by their deep Christian faith. Over time they raised five children, fostered 23 others, and built separate careers. She was a tax attorney, a school board candidate, a state legislator and a congresswoman; he built the counseling business they now own together.

As his wife’s star rose, Marcus Bachmann increasingly balanced his two suburban Twin Cities clinics with growing responsibilities at the family’s suburban St. Paul home.

“Without him, she couldn’t be doing what she’s doing,” said JoAnne Hood, a former neighbor who said she’s still close to the family. “He would leave notes on the kitchen island to each of the kids with a list of their chores for the day. He’ll buy the flowers in the spring and plant them in the planter boxes. He runs the whole show.”

Marcus Bachmann is one of three sons of a Swiss couple who upon their marriage in 1950 emigrated to the U.S. and bought a dairy farm in southwestern Wisconsin that the family still owns. Hood described him as “just a farm boy — he’s jovial, he’s genuine, he’s all about family, just an all-around good guy.”

He met Michele Amble when they were undergraduates at Winona State University in 1976.

“And then the Lord led me to this man …” Michele Bachmann recalled during a 2006 speech at Living Word Christian Center near Minneapolis. “Led me to him, and showed me that this was also part of my calling. That my calling was to marry this man.”

They married in 1978, around the time they switched their political allegiance from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

Marcus Bachmann, now 55, is often at wife’s side while she campaigns. Tall and burly where she is short and petite, friends say Marcus Bachmann sometimes acts as a bodyguard of sorts as his wife draws larger crowds.

Former aides and associates say Marcus Bachmann appears to be his wife’s closest adviser. But he rarely speaks on her behalf in a political setting, and even longtime allies of Michele Bachmann say they don’t know him well; the most frequent impression is of a quiet and good-natured man, amiable and laid-back in contrast to his wife’s perky charisma.

“He’s her closest confidante,” said Warren Limmer, a Republican state senator in Minnesota who teamed with Michele Bachmann during her crusade for a state constitutional gay marriage ban in 2005 and 2006.

While avoiding his wife’s political spotlight, Marcus Bachmann has been a regular guest on Christian and inspirational radio programs — sometimes making comments that have resurfaced amid his wife’s presidential bid.

In one frequently cited interview with the Point of View radio show in May 2010, Bachmann seemed to suggest gay people were “barbarians” to a question about how Christian parents should respond if their children come out. A clip on YouTube includes the statement:

“But again, it is as if we have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated, they need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we’re supposed to go down that road. That’s what’s called a sinful nature. And we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings to move into the action steps,” the clip shows Bachmann saying.

In the Star Tribune interview, Marcus Bachmann said that interview clip was doctored and that he would never call gay people barbarians. “That’s not my mindset. That’s not my belief system,” he told the newspaper.

The original interview was not available on the Point of View website, and the company was unable to provide a copy of it Friday.

___

Associated Press writer Brian Bakst contributed to this report.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 91)

 

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 Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve. 

  • Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72safe water programs.
  • A GAO audit classified nearly half of all purchases on government credit cards as improper, fraudulent, or embezzled. Examples include gambling, mortgage payments, liquor, lingerie, iPods, Xboxes, jewelry, Internet dating services, and Hawaiian vacations. In one extraordinary example, the Postal Service spent $13,500on one dinner at a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, including “over 200 appetizers and over $3,000 of alcohol, including more than 40 bottles of wine costing more than $50 each and brand-name liquor such as Courvoisier, Belvedere and Johnny Walker Gold.” The 81 guests consumed an average of $167 worth of food and drink apiece.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 90)

 

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 Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

 

  • The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $100 billionin potential spending cuts.
  • Because of overstaffing, the U.S. Postal Service selects 1,125 employees per day to sit in empty rooms. They are not allowed to work, read, play cards, watch television, or do anything. This costs $50 millionannually.
  • Washington will spend $2.6 milliontraining Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job.
  • Stimulus dollarshave been spent on mascot costumes, electric golf carts, and a university study examining how much alcohol college freshmen women require before agreeing to casual sex.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 89)

 

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 Senator Pryor myself:

Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them—costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually—fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.

  • The Advanced Technology Program spends $150 million annually subsidizing private businesses; 40 percent of this funding goes to Fortune 500 companies.
  • The Conservation Reserve program pays farmers $2 billion annually not to farm their land.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 88)

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:

The President should try to eliminate wasteful programs in his budget. Legislators should also examine every line item in the President’s budget appendix and terminate programs that lack sufficient explanations or justifications.
Conclusion
Difficult times present opportunities for leaders to chart a new course. During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt reduced non-defense spending by 36 percent to save resources. Policymakers funded the Korean War by immediately reducing non-defense spending by 25 percent. Those spending cuts required difficult choices, and lawmakers rose to the challenge.
In 2004, bold steps are again needed to rein in spending. The choices will be as difficult as those of the past, but that is what budgets are about–setting priorities. Congress and the President should seize this opportunity to refocus the federal government on the programs that matter most. Otherwise, the American people will face higher taxes, fewer jobs, less economic growth, and less effective government.

Here are some more places to cut:

  • Washington spends $92 billionon corporate welfare (excluding TARP) versus $71 billion on homeland security.
  • Washington spends $25 billionannually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.

__________________

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 87)

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:

GUIDELINE #10: Utilize the “ideas industry” for specific proposals.
Those seeking specific proposals to reduce wasteful spending have several options available:
  • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) periodically releases a Budget Options book containing more than 200 specific reforms that would reduce more than $100 billion in wasteful spending, complete with justifications and savings estimates. (See Appendix 3.)
  • The General Accounting Office (GAO) conducts hundreds of studies each year on wasteful and underperforming federal programs. The GAO also often releases a Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for the current fiscal year, which is a book similar to CBO’s Budget Options, detailing hundreds of specific, implementable ways to reduce waste.
  • The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies to lay out specific multi-year goals to improve performance and reduce waste and report regularly on their progress toward these goals. Together with Inspector General (IG) reports, GPRA reports show which programs are failing in their missions.
  • Think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and Citizens Against Government Waste release hundreds of studies each year showing how to save taxpayer dollars.

Here are some more places to cut:

  • Immediately before the current recession, Washington spent $24,800 per household. Simply returning to that level (adjusted for inflation) would likely balance the budget by 2019without any tax hikes.
  • The federal government made at least $98 billionin improper payments in 2009.

Republicans or Democrats need wake up concerning our nation’s future?

Max Brantley asserted today in the Arkansas Times Blog:

The Republicans are unified. They won’t approve an increase in the debt ceiling for any plan that puts additional taxes on millionaires, not even if Democrats trade off important cost savings in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Republicans would wreck the country to win a political point. Period.

The Republican idea of compromise is that they’ll allow the country to avoid a calamitous default as long as they get their way on everything.

_______________________________

I really don’t know if the Republicans are as united as it appears now. We will have to wait and see. However, I can tell you that if you put the Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities on the table then the USA is in far worse shape than Greece. Maybe the Democrats need to wake up and look at how important it is now to make deep cuts. Is it the Republicans or the Democrats who are leading us down the path to Greece?
I learned a lot from this article by Michael Tanner, “What the Debt Ceiling Really Means.” 

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

Added to cato.org on July 11, 2011

This article appeared in The Politico on July 11, 2011. 

The clock is slowly ticking toward Aug. 2, the date on which the U.S. faces “fiscal Armageddon” — according to the Obama administration — unless Congress agrees to raise the debt ceiling. But would we?

The Obama administration, as well as much of the media and many economists, tend to equate failure to raise the debt limit with default. That’s not precisely true.

The Treasury Department estimates that the federal government will collect a bit more than $203 billion in taxes during August — roughly $36 billion just in the first three days. But, during August, the federal government is expected to spend $307 billion. That is why we have a problem.

If the government is not able to borrow more money after Aug. 2, spending will have to be reduced to the amount of revenue that the government has. That would require roughly a 44 percent cut in federal spending.

The real fiscal Armageddon that this country faces comes not from a delay in raising the debt ceiling, but from out-of-control federal spending and government debt.

This will almost certainly hurt. But it’s not the same as default. During August, interest payments on the federal debt will total roughly $29 billion, meaning that there will be sufficient revenue to meet our obligations to creditors. If the Obama administration is truly worried that we might not do so, they could always support legislation by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) that would require the Treasury Department to pay our creditors first.

In addition, some $467 billion in government bonds is expected to come due during August, and will have to be rolled over. Though this rollover requires Treasury to enter the debt markets to purchase new securities, it is not technically “new” debt, and so does not run afoul of the debt limit.

The concern is that the U.S. would end up having to pay higher interest rates on this rolled over debt. That’s not a trivial concern: A 1 percent increase in interest rates could cost taxpayers more than $100 billion per year.

Still, we should keep that in perspective — it’s less than the amount that the government expects to borrow this month. And that is sort of worst case scenario. In 1979, the federal government actually did briefly default on its debt as the result of a debt ceiling impasse (as well as technical problems). That resulted in just a 60-basis-point increase in interest rates.

If we are really worried about a hike in interest rates, what about the hike we can expect if we fail to get federal borrowing under control? Both our deficit and total liabilities are already higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than Greece — or any of the other failing welfare states of Europe.

Despite this, creditors have been willing to lend us money at very low interest rates, simply because they trust the U.S. economy over the long-term. If we don’t get our budgetary house in order, however, that won’t be the case forever. Eventually, we will have to hike interest rates to ensure that the Chinese and others keep buying our bonds.

Former Federal Reserve governor Lawrence Lindsey estimates that if interest rates simply return to their historic average, it is likely to cost taxpayers $420 billion in higher payments in 2014, and $700 billion by 2020. The $100 billion or so that we might have to pay if we miss the debt ceiling looks good by comparison.

And what about that 44 percent cut in spending? That would require the federal government to cut spending all the way back to what it spent in 2003 — a year not notable for mass starvation and economic collapse. In fact, the revenue we will collect in August would more than cover Social Security payments, Medicare and military salaries, in addition to interest payments on the debt.

Obviously, the longer the impasse goes on, the more the inability to borrow will hurt. We will face a super version of the government shutdowns that we’ve endured before. But, eventually, the debt ceiling is going to be increased and government operations will return to more or less normal.

The real fiscal Armageddon that this country faces comes not from a delay in raising the debt ceiling, but from out-of-control federal spending and government debt.

If a little pain now helps solve that problem for the long term, it may well be worth it.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 86)

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:

GUIDELINE #9: Terminate programs rather than trimming them or phasing them out.
Budget cutters often commit the tactical error of settling for small reductions or lengthy phaseouts of obsolete programs instead of immediately terminating them. They mistakenly believe that securing small program reductions now will allow them to come back and cut the program more next time.
But leaving obsolete programs in place simply creates an opportunity for future Congresses to restore funding. Furthermore, retaining the programs leaves the bureaucracy in place and allows it to enlist interest groups in a counteroffensive against spending reductions. The old line that “those attacking the throne had better kill the king on the first shot” applies to government programs as well.
In the 1980s, President Reagan successfully terminated only 12 of the 94 programs he proposed be eliminated. Congress would often block the terminations by negotiating slight reductions and lengthy phaseouts, waiting a few years for the President’s focus to shift elsewhere and then restoring the programs to their original funding.30 Similarly, Members of the 104th Congress who proposed ending federal subsidies to programs such as AmeriCorps and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were persuaded to settle for slight spending reductions and a promise to cut more later, and the budgets of those programs have since rebounded to all-time highs.
One must never assume that spending reductions today will be followed up with additional reductions later. Retaining a program means retaining a bureaucracy dedicated to self-preservation, interest groups dedicated to aiding the bureaucracy, and a budget line item to which Congress can easily attach a larger number next year.

This is how bad it is getting:

Spending and the Budget Deficit

Under the Current Policy Baseline, Spending Is Causing the Deficits

  • Rising spending—not low revenues—is driving the long-term budget deficits. By 2020, spending is projected to be 6.2 percent of GDP above the historical average, while projected 2020 revenues are 0.2 percent of GDP above the historical average. Thus, the entire expanded budget deficit will be caused by rising spending, rather than by falling revenues—even if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are extended.
  • Between 2008 and 2020, the cost of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and net interest is projected to rise from 10.2 percent of GDP to 15.6 percent of GDP—making them responsible for nearly the entire rising budget deficit.

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 85)

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:

GUIDELINE #8: Convert several remaining programs into vouchers.
Government programs should not be bloated bureaucracies that shepherd recipients into one-size-fits-all programs. Voucher programs, which allow individuals to purchase goods and services on the open market rather than receiving them from the government, have two distinct advantages:
  • Choice. Instead of forcing program recipients to take what a bureaucracy provides, vouchers allow them to shop around and find the goods and services that fit their needs.
  • Efficiency. Providing health insurance or housing vouchers is much less costly to government than the construction and maintenance of government-owned hospitals or housing. Competition among private firms for vouchers would bring about lower prices than government monopolies.
Some policymakers believe that low-income individuals cannot be trusted to make intelligent economic decisions with their vouchers, condescendingly implying that government employees know best how to run the lives of poor families. Those worrying that private markets could not accommodate the influx of voucher-wielding families fail to recognize that vouchers create markets by strengthening demand and thereby inducing new supply.
Food stamps provide the model for a successful voucher program.29 Instead of building a bureaucracy to grow and distribute government food to low-income families, the program simply provides families with vouchers to purchase food themselves. Housing vouchers that subsidize private rent costs have proven better for low-income families than dilapidated, dangerous public housing. Most child-care programs subsidize the private facilities that parents choose instead of forcing them into government-run facilities. Federal student loan programs exist as a type of education vouchers.
Vouchers can provide choice without bureaucracy in many other areas. Medicare and Medicaid could be made more like the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), in which federal employees choose between competing private health plans with the federal government subsidizing the premium. More public housing programs can be replaced with rent vouchers.

This is how bad it is getting:

  • Despite increased borrowing, record-low interest rates have kept net interest costs down.
  • Under the President’s budget, the combination of rising interest rates and a doubling of the national debt would nearly quadruple inflation-adjusted net interest costs over the next decade.
  • By 2020, net interest costs would account for a record 16.1 percent of the federal budget and 4.1 percent of GDP. Net interests costs would be nearly three-quarters the size of the entire $1,041 billion deficit.