An interesting graphic can be found here. It shows deficits by year, 1980 through 2010, in both dollars and as a percent of GDP. Most interesting.
From the ideological side of the fence, I notice that Clinton's surplus did not happen until after the Republicans took over in 1994. I also note that after W's 'monster deficit' in 2004 - which is no where close to where we are now(!) - was followed by a steady decline until 2008. IMHO, the 2008 deficit was predominately caused by the economic collapse, although the budget was most certainly bloated (and first pure Democrat budget in a decade or so). This trend continued into 2009 and 2010, when spending *really* took off. I also think the projected reductions in the deficit in the coming years are woefully optimistic.
All of this ideological analysis means nothing.
Whether Democrats or Republicans get proportionate blame is meaningless. Congress writes the checks, Presidents cash them. Everyone's finger is in the pie with the ONLY goal of "getting re-elected".
We both agree that we have a spending problem. Right now, it appears BOTH SIDES are trying to find a way to push things into the next Congressional cycle so THEY won't have to deal with the very hard decisions which are looming. Rest assured that I'm just as ticked off by the Country Club Republicans as I am by the Wacky Left. Everyone is on a spending spree, and the head-in-the-sand pronouncements that things are not as bad as they could be, hides the problem (and the solution).
Fundamentally, I think either you believe in economic liberty – which is to say that government IS NOT the optimum means of allocating investment – or you don’t. I am hopeful that an increasing number of people realize how we REALLY got in this mess (and who was at the controls, e.g., all of the self-serving 'power brokers'). Unfortunately, this is counter-balanced by an increasing number of the "dumb-masses" who are accepting the argument that government ought to take any money lying around to spend as government wants, and this is OK (e.g., ‘fair’) just so long as it soaks ‘the rich’.
I don’t want to fix blame, and I don't want to shift the burden from Peter to Paul, and I don't want to waste time trying to manipulate who gets the credit... I want true economic freedom to make a Real Comeback.
If I may paraphrase Jerry Pournelle again, "Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free. And the universe is not fair."
- Steve
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spending. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Another un-original idea...
So the bureaucrats and bean-counters are talking TAX INCREASES (again). And, as usual, without finding very many significant reductions in one the spending side. Want to generate some revenue from the "Evil Rich"? Here's an idea...
How about a 50% surtax on anything earned after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Example, leave a $300K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman-Sachs, and pay a $350K surtax. Such surtax to be in effect for ten (10) years.
Now, I'm mostly after elected and appointed positions only, not the hired rank-and-file, but they don't completely escape either. Those worthy folks being paid a salary in the upper 20% percentile of taxpayers would have their 50% surtax only kick in for the difference at 20% above their public-sector salary, and would be limited to only(?) 5 years. All those above the 20% income level take the big 10-year bite with the rest.
And while we're at it, let's take the pain another step further and say that any salaries paid to such former government officials aren’t tax-deductible for corporations while the surtax is in effect. See? There's a private-sector penalty, too.
Some enterprising budget hawk (from either party) should add this concept to a spending bill and watch the fur fly.
- Steve
How about a 50% surtax on anything earned after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Example, leave a $300K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman-Sachs, and pay a $350K surtax. Such surtax to be in effect for ten (10) years.
Now, I'm mostly after elected and appointed positions only, not the hired rank-and-file, but they don't completely escape either. Those worthy folks being paid a salary in the upper 20% percentile of taxpayers would have their 50% surtax only kick in for the difference at 20% above their public-sector salary, and would be limited to only(?) 5 years. All those above the 20% income level take the big 10-year bite with the rest.
And while we're at it, let's take the pain another step further and say that any salaries paid to such former government officials aren’t tax-deductible for corporations while the surtax is in effect. See? There's a private-sector penalty, too.
Some enterprising budget hawk (from either party) should add this concept to a spending bill and watch the fur fly.
- Steve
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Eat the Rich
Friday, November 27, 2009
More on 'Climategate'
For more than a decade, we've been told that there is a scientific "consensus" that humans are causing global warming, that "the debate is over" and all "legitimate" scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this "consensus" really means. What it means is this: the fix is in.
For any looking at this blog that are new to the topic - AGW "skeptics" had posted a challenge on the ClimateAudit website (here) claiming scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the well-publicized chart showing a dramatic runaway warming trend in the late 20th century. After requests made under FOI for access to the CRU's data was rejected, a hacker (disillusioned researcher on the inside?) collected and published thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU computers onto the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified this and acknowledged the e-mails appear to be genuine. These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt AND scientific weakness in the global warming theory by its very loudest proponents.
Back in the Good Old days, when science was all about develop-a-theory-then-report-the-facts-and see-where-it-takes-us, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, then it's WRONG. apparently, we have returned to the Inquisition times he-who-shouts-the-loudest-must be-correct, either that or "don't let them kill the golden goose".
In science, you can’t change the rules in midstream. Set forth in advance the test that would falsify (not PROVE) your theory, perform the test, and accept the result if it does contradict your hypothesis. Then move on - either to the next test, or GO BACK and revise your theory. Anything else is word play... and not SCIENCE.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud at the highest levels, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. There have been billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, and dozens of prominent scientists have virtually established a criminal racket in which they seek government money to maintain a LIE.
Prof. Phil Jones at CRU has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government which was used to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. BTW - I'm still collecting totals on U.S. spending. (My last set of totals have the U.S. spending almost $80 BILLION Dollars on climate research over the last 20 years.) Oh - and those charges of skeptics and 'deniers' being in the pay of the oil companies? While the US was spending BILLIONS, Exxon-Mobil spent about 23 million during the same period. Worse, that's about 1/5000th of the amount spent on carbon trading in 2008 alone. Incredible.
This is an insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are cheered and feted by an adoring media as public heroes. The e-mails document their own pats-on-the-back as they boast of their manipulation of the data as being intended to 'protect a bigger truth' and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of Billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. Civilization - and all forms of human progress - are founded upon the availability of cheap and abundant energy. The real cost of this fraud is the Trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation - Emissions-Trading, Cap-and-Trade, pick a buzzword - that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
If all this Government money (from the taxpayers!) was spent by the Defense Department for weapons systems, etc., and this money went unaudited, the Citizens Watch groups would be screaming so loudly it would probably bring down the Government. But those same groups seem to think you just can’t spend enough on “The Climate.” If you fund development of a fighter jet for $100 million and it winds up costing $1 Billion, at least you get a plane. But we need to keep spending and spending on The Climate, just to make sure The Climate is OK... Egad.
As we uncover the depth and details of this fiasco, remember that there is nothing that can change the mind of a true believer because his MIND is not involved with his true belief. He has FAITH and that faith is his proof. It is a staggering irony that many who deny the existence (or need) for a religious belief somehow line up like the very sheep they deride following their own type of religion.
It only takes about 10% of the population to make a revolution. The most consistent and persistent 10% will win. One side (let's call them "L") has spent several hundred years working to build their 10% and have been both consistent and persistent. The other side (call them "P") has been focused on other things: science, technology, and business - and they have been wildly successful. The L have been focused on taking the results of P's efforts and using those results for their ends. They have been wildly successful. They could not have done what they have done without P first creating the goods and values the L steal and consume.
The challenge is to figure out how to stop feeding L and to allow them to starve to death. (Which, incidentally, is the L plan for P but only after the L" have totally consumed all that the P are able to produce, that is, until all the P die... then the L, like all parasites, will look for a new host.)
You think their plan won’t work? The abject failure in any program they propose and follow and the consequent demise of modern technological civilization *IS* their plan working. You say “but that cannot be true because it's not reasonable.” Reason is not what they use to formulate their plans. They intend to keep everyone focused on the irrelevant minutia while they stay focused on their malignant goal.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated - and the culprits (not the whistle-blowers) need to be brought to justice.
- Steve
For any looking at this blog that are new to the topic - AGW "skeptics" had posted a challenge on the ClimateAudit website (here) claiming scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at Britain's University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the well-publicized chart showing a dramatic runaway warming trend in the late 20th century. After requests made under FOI for access to the CRU's data was rejected, a hacker (disillusioned researcher on the inside?) collected and published thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU computers onto the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified this and acknowledged the e-mails appear to be genuine. These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt AND scientific weakness in the global warming theory by its very loudest proponents.
Back in the Good Old days, when science was all about develop-a-theory-then-report-the-facts-and see-where-it-takes-us, if your theory can't predict or explain the observed facts, then it's WRONG. apparently, we have returned to the Inquisition times he-who-shouts-the-loudest-must be-correct, either that or "don't let them kill the golden goose".
In science, you can’t change the rules in midstream. Set forth in advance the test that would falsify (not PROVE) your theory, perform the test, and accept the result if it does contradict your hypothesis. Then move on - either to the next test, or GO BACK and revise your theory. Anything else is word play... and not SCIENCE.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud at the highest levels, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. There have been billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, and dozens of prominent scientists have virtually established a criminal racket in which they seek government money to maintain a LIE.
Prof. Phil Jones at CRU has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government which was used to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. BTW - I'm still collecting totals on U.S. spending. (My last set of totals have the U.S. spending almost $80 BILLION Dollars on climate research over the last 20 years.) Oh - and those charges of skeptics and 'deniers' being in the pay of the oil companies? While the US was spending BILLIONS, Exxon-Mobil spent about 23 million during the same period. Worse, that's about 1/5000th of the amount spent on carbon trading in 2008 alone. Incredible.
This is an insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are cheered and feted by an adoring media as public heroes. The e-mails document their own pats-on-the-back as they boast of their manipulation of the data as being intended to 'protect a bigger truth' and prevent it from being "confused" by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of Billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. Civilization - and all forms of human progress - are founded upon the availability of cheap and abundant energy. The real cost of this fraud is the Trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation - Emissions-Trading, Cap-and-Trade, pick a buzzword - that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
If all this Government money (from the taxpayers!) was spent by the Defense Department for weapons systems, etc., and this money went unaudited, the Citizens Watch groups would be screaming so loudly it would probably bring down the Government. But those same groups seem to think you just can’t spend enough on “The Climate.” If you fund development of a fighter jet for $100 million and it winds up costing $1 Billion, at least you get a plane. But we need to keep spending and spending on The Climate, just to make sure The Climate is OK... Egad.
As we uncover the depth and details of this fiasco, remember that there is nothing that can change the mind of a true believer because his MIND is not involved with his true belief. He has FAITH and that faith is his proof. It is a staggering irony that many who deny the existence (or need) for a religious belief somehow line up like the very sheep they deride following their own type of religion.
It only takes about 10% of the population to make a revolution. The most consistent and persistent 10% will win. One side (let's call them "L") has spent several hundred years working to build their 10% and have been both consistent and persistent. The other side (call them "P") has been focused on other things: science, technology, and business - and they have been wildly successful. The L have been focused on taking the results of P's efforts and using those results for their ends. They have been wildly successful. They could not have done what they have done without P first creating the goods and values the L steal and consume.
The challenge is to figure out how to stop feeding L and to allow them to starve to death. (Which, incidentally, is the L plan for P but only after the L" have totally consumed all that the P are able to produce, that is, until all the P die... then the L, like all parasites, will look for a new host.)
You think their plan won’t work? The abject failure in any program they propose and follow and the consequent demise of modern technological civilization *IS* their plan working. You say “but that cannot be true because it's not reasonable.” Reason is not what they use to formulate their plans. They intend to keep everyone focused on the irrelevant minutia while they stay focused on their malignant goal.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated - and the culprits (not the whistle-blowers) need to be brought to justice.
- Steve
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Prescription Drugs Reply
Chris,
Not to rain on your parade, but *our* program - clearly still in development - does not HAVE a "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act". (It doesn't have Medicare, Medicaid, and any other politically 'sacred cows', for that matter.)
Thus, applying our valuable time arguing about which party did what-when-where, how much it cost, and who voted for or against such-and-such is a Waste Of Time (other than for making sure we don't repeat the same implementation mistakes in our New Approach). Yes, you and I could point out this or that ideological point ad infinitum - but that doesn't get us anywhere, does it? And isn't that EXACTLY what both of us accuse the current self-appointed ruler of Both Parties of doing? They pontificate about endless and frequently meaningless details and attempts to satisfy their respective power-bases and they are *not* devoting very much statesmen-like effort to ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM! And even when they *do* try, they fail to consider the Unintended Consequences adequately.
As much as I would enjoy the diatribes that would result from each of us chasing those oh-so-tempting ideological rabbits, I am struggling to set such things aside. Instead, I'd like to focus on reaching a genuine, truly-non-partisan compromise - one that has less to do with ideology and more to do with providing the actual products & services for people that are truly in need.
That said, I appreciate your acknowledgment of the HUGE costs associated with the R&D efforts to bring these new wonder drugs to market. Many pundits and 'reform advocates' fail to recognize how things work in the Real World at all. The free-enterprise system has been directly responsible in ways too many to count for making that happen. Those companies and individuals took the risk and I - for one, apparently - have no problem with them charging all the market will bear. For every successful drug there are dozens of failures and those R&D costs must be recovered somehow or there is no reason for businesses to work on finding new ones.
That's not to say that I - yes, your humble resident conservative - do not have issues with the drug companies. I do. For example: I don't like private companies getting government funding and other subsidies to do R&D when the government doesn't get an ROI on it's investment (tax breaks are a different beast). Conversely, I don't like government putting unnecessary, bureaucratic road-blocks to R&D and then ignoring the increased cost those regulations cause. I think drug patent protections are too long in some cases, not long enough in others (the problem here is one-size-fits-none: a new headache remedy is not on the same level as a new cancer drug). I don't like government *not* doing honest negotiations with the end-user in mind (e.g., patient *and* taxpayer) for products and services. I don't like the lack of protection on legitimate patents in the international arena. And so on, and so on...
But these are problems in how it's been done in the past. Are they real issues? Yes, of course. Do we have all the answers? No, we don't (at least; not yet). Yes, the devil is in the details, and we'll get to them.
To avoid future confusion on my comment, re-consider the phrasing of your original point:
9. Provide universal access to low cost, generic medicines.
My Point: I am concerned with that "universal access" phrase. Historically, it almost always gets translated to "confiscate". THAT is the issue I'm raising. There must be adequate protections for developers of goods and services as well as the consumer. Drugs do not start as a "generic", nor should they. But once the patent period has expired - which should be tied to some reasonable recovery of all R&D expenses - THEN a drug can become a 'generic' and the future cost savings are from being tied to the actual production cost of the drug itself.
Commercial Freedom demands that there *must* be a reasonable prospect for profit - which is NOT a 'dirty word' - in the research and creation phases for new drugs and treatments (in all phases, actually). It is the prospect of personal profit based on one's efforts that is the powerful mechanism which drives commerce and many forms of human behavior. This is a good thing, since I, for one, am not interested in being stuck with what we have now (or retreating back to the point of using leeches).
I called "universal access" a sound bite because it's main purpose is to 'sound good' to the Great Unwashed (thus generating popular support), while having no clearly defined meaning for how it gets accomplished, and which all too easily gets translated into, "I want it and *my* government will *force* you to GIVE it to me." Sorry, that philosophy is Wrong.
Let's re-establish Unavoidable Rule #1 - Everything has a cost: TANSTAAFL.
So, let us agree to set aside the ideological arguments you raised about MMA - I agree with many of your points - because such a beast doesn't exist in our plan and we know better than to try it again. As such, my original comments and concerns on #9 and #10 are reasonably valid - simply pointing out topics we must consider when we get to the implementation phase. Among the things we must address at that time will include defining the appropriate mechanisms to encourage and reward Positive Behaviors such as Responsible Planning, Assuming Personal Responsibility even-when-consequences-are-life-threatening, etc., while simultaneously discouraging the negative actions and minimizing Unintended Consequences. (The key word in that sentence is appropriate.) Now, THAT is where the Real Challenge comes into play.
BTW - If there is a True Need to "reform Health care" in this country, then by all means, let's *really* start over from Ground Zero... That means we haven't *saved* anything yet, because we're still trying to define the budget for what we WILL spend. Once that is done, *THEN* we get to prioritize HOW we will spend those funds and on WHAT products and services will be provided... This task cannot be easy, or they would not need people of our caliber to do it...
*sigh* - We have a LONG way to go.
- Steve
Not to rain on your parade, but *our* program - clearly still in development - does not HAVE a "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act". (It doesn't have Medicare, Medicaid, and any other politically 'sacred cows', for that matter.)
Thus, applying our valuable time arguing about which party did what-when-where, how much it cost, and who voted for or against such-and-such is a Waste Of Time (other than for making sure we don't repeat the same implementation mistakes in our New Approach). Yes, you and I could point out this or that ideological point ad infinitum - but that doesn't get us anywhere, does it? And isn't that EXACTLY what both of us accuse the current self-appointed ruler of Both Parties of doing? They pontificate about endless and frequently meaningless details and attempts to satisfy their respective power-bases and they are *not* devoting very much statesmen-like effort to ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM! And even when they *do* try, they fail to consider the Unintended Consequences adequately.
As much as I would enjoy the diatribes that would result from each of us chasing those oh-so-tempting ideological rabbits, I am struggling to set such things aside. Instead, I'd like to focus on reaching a genuine, truly-non-partisan compromise - one that has less to do with ideology and more to do with providing the actual products & services for people that are truly in need.
That said, I appreciate your acknowledgment of the HUGE costs associated with the R&D efforts to bring these new wonder drugs to market. Many pundits and 'reform advocates' fail to recognize how things work in the Real World at all. The free-enterprise system has been directly responsible in ways too many to count for making that happen. Those companies and individuals took the risk and I - for one, apparently - have no problem with them charging all the market will bear. For every successful drug there are dozens of failures and those R&D costs must be recovered somehow or there is no reason for businesses to work on finding new ones.
That's not to say that I - yes, your humble resident conservative - do not have issues with the drug companies. I do. For example: I don't like private companies getting government funding and other subsidies to do R&D when the government doesn't get an ROI on it's investment (tax breaks are a different beast). Conversely, I don't like government putting unnecessary, bureaucratic road-blocks to R&D and then ignoring the increased cost those regulations cause. I think drug patent protections are too long in some cases, not long enough in others (the problem here is one-size-fits-none: a new headache remedy is not on the same level as a new cancer drug). I don't like government *not* doing honest negotiations with the end-user in mind (e.g., patient *and* taxpayer) for products and services. I don't like the lack of protection on legitimate patents in the international arena. And so on, and so on...
But these are problems in how it's been done in the past. Are they real issues? Yes, of course. Do we have all the answers? No, we don't (at least; not yet). Yes, the devil is in the details, and we'll get to them.
To avoid future confusion on my comment, re-consider the phrasing of your original point:
9. Provide universal access to low cost, generic medicines.
My Point: I am concerned with that "universal access" phrase. Historically, it almost always gets translated to "confiscate". THAT is the issue I'm raising. There must be adequate protections for developers of goods and services as well as the consumer. Drugs do not start as a "generic", nor should they. But once the patent period has expired - which should be tied to some reasonable recovery of all R&D expenses - THEN a drug can become a 'generic' and the future cost savings are from being tied to the actual production cost of the drug itself.
Commercial Freedom demands that there *must* be a reasonable prospect for profit - which is NOT a 'dirty word' - in the research and creation phases for new drugs and treatments (in all phases, actually). It is the prospect of personal profit based on one's efforts that is the powerful mechanism which drives commerce and many forms of human behavior. This is a good thing, since I, for one, am not interested in being stuck with what we have now (or retreating back to the point of using leeches).
I called "universal access" a sound bite because it's main purpose is to 'sound good' to the Great Unwashed (thus generating popular support), while having no clearly defined meaning for how it gets accomplished, and which all too easily gets translated into, "I want it and *my* government will *force* you to GIVE it to me." Sorry, that philosophy is Wrong.
Let's re-establish Unavoidable Rule #1 - Everything has a cost: TANSTAAFL.
So, let us agree to set aside the ideological arguments you raised about MMA - I agree with many of your points - because such a beast doesn't exist in our plan and we know better than to try it again. As such, my original comments and concerns on #9 and #10 are reasonably valid - simply pointing out topics we must consider when we get to the implementation phase. Among the things we must address at that time will include defining the appropriate mechanisms to encourage and reward Positive Behaviors such as Responsible Planning, Assuming Personal Responsibility even-when-consequences-are-life-threatening, etc., while simultaneously discouraging the negative actions and minimizing Unintended Consequences. (The key word in that sentence is appropriate.) Now, THAT is where the Real Challenge comes into play.
BTW - If there is a True Need to "reform Health care" in this country, then by all means, let's *really* start over from Ground Zero... That means we haven't *saved* anything yet, because we're still trying to define the budget for what we WILL spend. Once that is done, *THEN* we get to prioritize HOW we will spend those funds and on WHAT products and services will be provided... This task cannot be easy, or they would not need people of our caliber to do it...
*sigh* - We have a LONG way to go.
- Steve
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Quick Thoughts on "Let's Get Serious Part 1"
Quick Thoughts on "Let's Get Serious Part 1"
1. Please don't waste our collective time wandering down a litany of military budget items. If you will agree to take just as sharp a scalpel to domestic spending as you propose to do for Defense, I will agree that a complete re-visit of the entire budget process is needed. Keep in mind that when it comes to domestic (entitlement) spending, an across-the-board re-evaluation means there are no 'sacred cows' - everything (and I do mean everything) is on the table. If it doesn't work or isn't *really* needed - out it goes. Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
2. A paraphrase of an old quote: "There is no more expensive military than a second-class military." I also suggested - against my better judgment, but I can think of nothing better that would produce FAST results - a complete two-year FREEZE on *all* spending, including the military budget. What's wrong with that? The first step to implementing reductions in spending is to stop the increases (all of them).
3. If you want to close military bases around the world - fine. But I suspect we'll run afoul of some treaty obligations. That also means our ability to respond quickly and effectively around the world (as needed to protect legitimate US interests) *will* be negatively affected. (Let's not argue over WHAT constitutes a 'national interest' and just recognize they *do* exist, all over the world.)
4. On the Medicare issue - which will lead us back to Health Care, another looming boondoggle, IMHO - I'll start by stating the obvious: "Heath Care" is not a "Right". It is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. But - Is it a real political issue? Sure. So how about this idea (proposed elsewhere, but I like it)... BTW, This is not applicable for Defense spending, for obvious reasons.
Congress has absolute power over D.C. They can, quite literally and legally, do whatever they want. So... Congress can/should develop a plan for whatever 'experiment' in health care they like. Put it in operation in D.C. Let's see it work for five-ten years. Then, honestly examine the Real World FACTS - No 'wishful thinking' allowed. If their solution is so wonderful, it will be blindingly obvious to all. If it *doesn't* work, then why should something that cannot work in the D.C. "lab" be applied blindly to the entire country? Come to think of it, you could use the same approach with education and many, if not most, domestic (e.g. entitlement) programs. Short form: If they have all the answers, prove it in D.C. first.
"...This attitude has so poisoned the atmosphere that a rational public review of defense spending has become almost impossible in this country. And Steve, if you are the advocate of limited government you claim to be, why shouldn't we have that review?"
Like I said, I'm willing. So are most others... Provided we don't LIMIT the review to Defense. The ENTIRE budget process is broken. There is a very Real Danger to reducing our military capacity. So tread softly. That's enough for now...
- Steve
1. Please don't waste our collective time wandering down a litany of military budget items. If you will agree to take just as sharp a scalpel to domestic spending as you propose to do for Defense, I will agree that a complete re-visit of the entire budget process is needed. Keep in mind that when it comes to domestic (entitlement) spending, an across-the-board re-evaluation means there are no 'sacred cows' - everything (and I do mean everything) is on the table. If it doesn't work or isn't *really* needed - out it goes. Hint: Be careful what you wish for.
2. A paraphrase of an old quote: "There is no more expensive military than a second-class military." I also suggested - against my better judgment, but I can think of nothing better that would produce FAST results - a complete two-year FREEZE on *all* spending, including the military budget. What's wrong with that? The first step to implementing reductions in spending is to stop the increases (all of them).
3. If you want to close military bases around the world - fine. But I suspect we'll run afoul of some treaty obligations. That also means our ability to respond quickly and effectively around the world (as needed to protect legitimate US interests) *will* be negatively affected. (Let's not argue over WHAT constitutes a 'national interest' and just recognize they *do* exist, all over the world.)
4. On the Medicare issue - which will lead us back to Health Care, another looming boondoggle, IMHO - I'll start by stating the obvious: "Heath Care" is not a "Right". It is NOT mentioned in the Constitution. But - Is it a real political issue? Sure. So how about this idea (proposed elsewhere, but I like it)... BTW, This is not applicable for Defense spending, for obvious reasons.
Congress has absolute power over D.C. They can, quite literally and legally, do whatever they want. So... Congress can/should develop a plan for whatever 'experiment' in health care they like. Put it in operation in D.C. Let's see it work for five-ten years. Then, honestly examine the Real World FACTS - No 'wishful thinking' allowed. If their solution is so wonderful, it will be blindingly obvious to all. If it *doesn't* work, then why should something that cannot work in the D.C. "lab" be applied blindly to the entire country? Come to think of it, you could use the same approach with education and many, if not most, domestic (e.g. entitlement) programs. Short form: If they have all the answers, prove it in D.C. first.
"...This attitude has so poisoned the atmosphere that a rational public review of defense spending has become almost impossible in this country. And Steve, if you are the advocate of limited government you claim to be, why shouldn't we have that review?"
Like I said, I'm willing. So are most others... Provided we don't LIMIT the review to Defense. The ENTIRE budget process is broken. There is a very Real Danger to reducing our military capacity. So tread softly. That's enough for now...
- Steve
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Capitalism by Lemmings
Allow me to depart, for a short while, from attempting to stay above the ideological fray… (I need a break anyway; I can only do this for so long…)
Fair Warning - This is going to be a L-O-N-G post…
To begin, I must apologize… The President *has* called for cuts in spending – and (surprise!) it was Defense Spending! Back in January, 2009, he asked for an 11% cut in Pentagon spending. Given the challenges we are facing in the world from a military point-of-view, that action seems potentially dangerous. But, for the moment – let’s go with those making those cuts (which would total about 55 Billion, I think) As a matter of fact, about 75% of the budget "cuts" he has requested come from the Defense Budget. So, while we’re busy using that scalpel you suggested (instead of my butter knife) – here’s a few non-military cuts to consider - many are taken directly from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Plan :
- $1 billion for Amtrak, which hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years
- $2 billion for child-care subsidies
- $50 million for that engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts
- $400 million for MORE global-warming research (sorry, Al, but isn’t there already a “consensus”? isn’t it true “the discussion is over”?)
- $2.4 billion for “carbon-capture demonstration projects”
- $650 million (on top of billions already doled out) to pay for digital TV conversion coupons (at about 120 million homes, it would have been cheaper to just by one from Wal-Mart send it to every household in the country)
- $600 million for the federal government to buy new cars
- $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities
- $150 million for the Smithsonian
- $81 billion for Medicaid
- $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits
- $20 billion for food stamps
- $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax
- $66 billion on education (because it is obviously working so much more effectively than our military)
- $6 billion to weatherize “modest income homes”
- $6 billion to provide internet in “underserved” areas
- $6 billion for “higher education modernization.”
- $20 billion in health information technology to “prevent medial mistakes.”
- $600 million for satellite development and acquisitions, including climate sensors and climate modeling.
- $250 million “to address long-term economic distress in urban industrial cores and rural areas distributed based on need and ability to create jobs and attract private investment.” (thanks for being so specific)
- $300 million for the National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries
- $400 million for “ready-to-go habitat restoration projects”
- $120 million to provide subsidized community service jobs to an additional 24,000 low-income older Americans
- $1.5 billion to help local communities build and rehabilitate low-income housing using green technologies.
- $500 million to rehabilitate and improve energy efficiency at some of the over 42,000 housing units maintained by Native American housing programs
- $10 million for “rural, high-need areas to undertake projects using sustainable and energy-efficient building and rehabilitation practices”
…etc., etc., etc…
WHOA! Steady there! Calm down!... I will admit *some* of the entries on that list are arguably “needed”. But is there no room for eliminating THINGS THAT DON’T WORK? (which, BTW, are his exact words to justify cutting the Defense budget) In the midst of a recession, does ALL of this really qualify as CRITICAL “investing”? NOTHING on that list can wait – not even for One Year? Do these spending proposals really expand and encourage PRIVATE SECTOR jobs (or just create temporary public sector jobs)? Short form: Do we *really* need to increase spending across the board? I DOUBT IT. (I could go on and on, and so could you).
A quote attributed to good ol’ Senator Everett Dirkson states it nicely– "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money".
Yes, there *are* legitimate ways and reasons to enact carefully considered cuts in the Pentagon budget. But taking a shotgun approach to the Left’s whipping boy – while ignoring the very serious foolishness in other parts of the budgeting process - is insane at best and could place the country as a whole in significant danger. A 50% cut – without corresponding cuts in domestic spending - is a recipe for disaster. (You can’t wait for the “need” to surface before you start the R&D.) And, like it or not, there ARE people and countries out there who DO NOT LIKE US. They don’t care how much we “want to talk” or “feel a need to understand their issues”. There is no guarantee any kind of dialogue will remove the gun he has pointed at our head. (But pointing a better gun at HIS head will at least get his attention. If he is willing to kill himself to make his point, we lose nothing by being prepared - and still have the option of taking him out first.)
Cuts to the Defense budget is a move than should be taken cautiously and with careful consideration. You don’t do it just because “times are tough” and because “we all have to make sacrifices”. (Really? Unions, too? Government employees? Companies deemed “too big to fail?”)
OK… maybe I was being too obtuse about making specific cuts. So, let’s make it real simple and jump back out of the funnel and look at the Big Picture…
Immediately FREEZE *all* federal spending at the 2009 budget level. Do it for one year, no… make that TWO YEARS. That means 2010 and 2011 will have *NO* increases, whether previously planned or not. No COLA adjustments in benefit payments to individuals. No raises for staffers. No new jobs ‘created’ at the public teat. No pay raises for ANYONE; not even the military… THAT is “controlling runaway spending” in a very real way we can all understand.
If you want to get technical, how about formally locking federal spending to a defined percentage of collected tax revenues in the previous year (and that percentage can’t be more than 100%). And then mandate that any – repeat *any* - department that exceeds it’s budget will have its NEXT annual budget reduced by the amount of the overage… THAT will drive people to seek “efficiency” in government like nothing else.
As a knuckle-dragging, greedy, fiscal conservative - am I being too tough? Or too aggressively tight-fisted? Tough times require tough measures, don’t they? And let’s not forget… It’s not THEIR money – that’s MY MONEY they are spending! (and YOURS, too).
The easiest and most effective way for government to “benefit private industry” is to Get The Hell Out Of The Way. And that specifically means - Stop trying to invent new and creative ways to TAX anything that currently moves, moved at one time, or is no longer capable of moving. The transfer of Real Wealth from Private Entities to the Government DOESN’T WORK.
“I think you will find that the foreign competitors who have been cleaning our clock for so many years are the ones who have managed to make government an effective partner rather than a nagging wife (or husband - sorry ladies)…” Really? The governments of the most “successful” foreign competitors we have are run by despots and tyrants (whether by individuals or committees). The ‘successful economic’ example of exactly which country are you suggesting we follow?
“I'm not going to dive into the specifics of where and how Obama's budget proposals aim at backing up and augmenting private enterprise rather than leading it around by the nose.” Please try and find the time – I see a lot of nose leading and demands being made. The only ‘backing up’ I see is jerking back on the reins. The only visible “augmenting” is the addition of onerous regulation and back-seat-driving.
Let’s be serious – there are a new set of rules being set up by the current administration. The game is changing. I admit it’s not a Soviet Union /
In
Companies are not supposed to look out for their shareholders or their employees or even their customers. Their single focus is to watch
Am I exaggerating? Look at how the mortgage ‘rescue’ plan is operating under government control and private (barely) ownership. Look at the cap-and-trade proposal and the emphasis on government mandated controls in accordance with “green” lending practices and “green” job creation, and “green” this and “green” that. (“One Fish, Two Fish, Green Fish, Green Fish”). Look at the brutal strong-arm actions leading up to the Chrysler deal…
And have you noticed how foreign nationals, especially terrorists, will have no fear of reprisal or any reason to suspect a violation of their constitutional rights – but that CEOs of US companies do *not* have the same ‘rights’? And these actions and tactics by the administration are supposed to ENCOURAGE business and private industry? Please.
Their Goal is very simple:
And before you go dancing down this road, I’d like to point out: “No, It Doesn’t.”
Look at how wonderfully effective the Japanese economy has been for the past 20 years. They provide modern validation to the fact that government usually gets it wrong. Sometimes it fails to anticipate the market (
You probably dislike this comment, but I think it has at least a grain of Truth that is often ignored - "Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others." – Ayn Rand.
As long as I am standing on my “extremist soapbox”, and before I get down from these lofty heights – what we are experiencing, what we are facing, what we are being asked to swallow and be grateful to have received - is called TYRANNY.
If you want to “cut” something - start there.
- Steve
Monday, May 4, 2009
Fandango Side-Step
Chris, I think you’re a little guilty of reading between the lines on me. You seem to think I’m bashing the Obama administration in favor of the Republicans: Not hardly, although I can see why you might think that...
1. It is clear, the economy started slowing down last summer. I don’t contribute that solely to small business, but yes, they’re part of it. The monthly single-digit tax revenue losses were a signal ignored by ALL.
2. The *BIG* reductions in tax revenue started in December (check the numbers). That’s after the election. With the euphoria surrounding the election, why did that happen? Once the decision was made, it was time to act on the outcome. Maybe I’m assigning too much ‘credit’ to small business for making moves. If so, mea culpa. (“But, it still moves”).
3. At no point did I assert that if Republicans had won in November, this fiasco would not have happened. That said…
4. I deliberately *did* imply that the Democratic win probably accelerated the process. I’m also stating rather forcefully that the policies being promoted by the PRO’s will likely prolong the recession. Once again, I’m not trying to assign blame for precisely how we got here, but where I see us going will NOT get us out of this mess – and I think that’s the type of discussion you want to have, anyway.
Now, commenting on your “Stark Reasons”:
Point One – Mostly I agree. Yes, the recession was inevitable. I think there has been more to it than simple trade deficits - runaway spending comes to mind, among other things. And please don’t waste time pointing fingers at which party spent the most: Focusing on assigning blame gets us nowhere.
Point Two – I respectfully disagree. Yes, you raise a valid point about “losing out for years”. I agree with that. However, I contend that small businesses *do* make decisions based on their legitimate interpretation of government policy and what it means to their business survival. They delay as long as possible before making that decision, but when it becomes obvious, they MOVE and take action quickly – and the results show up in the economy fast, too.
Point Three - It is hard to argue that based on the announced proposals and policies of the PRO’s that business in general (and small business specifically) have a target painted on them. Whether those policies are proposed by President Obama or a theoretical “President McCain” is not the point.
I’m not arguing about the WHO; it’s the WHAT THEY ARE DOING that is Wrong. Do I want OBAMA to fail? No. Absolutely Not... I WANT THE POLICIES HE IS PROMOTING TO FAIL. (OK. There. That should be clear. You want to “have at it”: Let’s rock.)
First, We’re going to agree that SPENDING is a BIG part of the problem. As far as the current administration - I don’t see any attempt, even marginal ones, to try and rein in the spending. If anything they are SPENDING MORE. This is BAD.
Second: Is *some* spending necessary? Absolutely. But you cannot "spend" you way to a recovery. You must begin by acknowledging that any spending on government programs by government employees, it is an EXPENSE, not INCOME. If a policy does not generate or promote Private Sector revenue - or at least not get in the way of making it possible - IT WON’T WORK in the long run. There is *way* too much pork and unnecessary (so-called ‘discretionary’) spending coming out of D.C., and you can put that 100% at the feet of the PRO’s. And, please remember, whether the Republicans or “President McCain” would have done the same is immaterial.
Third: You mentioned the current administration “are taking some initiatives” – Really?
- Spending Billions of dollars on corporate bailouts which run up TRILLIONS of dollars in
- Changing how student loans work (from loans to direct payments)…
- Suggesting criminal prosecution against Bush-era lawyers for ‘interrogation techniques’…
- ‘protecting’ the Health Care proposal from Republican filibuster
Whose head is in the sand when it comes to working on what is Truly Important? In other words, would you please point out these policies and “initiatives" designed to foster and improve competition in the world marketplace? I can’t find ‘em.) Yeah, it's only been "100 days", but you would THINK that he would be focused on the Most Important issues first - and, seeing where the PRO's have been working on - it doesn't look good. What they are doing is like pounding imaginary ants with a banana - no matter how much you enjoy it, it is ultimately messy and unproductive.
Look, even if the economy shows huge gains later this year - I seriously doubt it, but I admit it’s possible - the PRO’s economic policies represent a HUGE shift toward government expansion and intervention. They need TAX MONEY to support all this spending - and all these government contracts and 'new workers' – where are they going to get it? from WHO?
What can be done? (regardless of WHO is in the Oval Office)… Here’s some EASY ones:
1. Suspend ALL Salary Increases (including COLA) for all non-critical, non-emergency federal government employees for the next three years (e.g., military, FEMA, etc., are exempt – this is a cut on bureaucratic / office positions only).
2. Rollback the last TWO rounds of Congressional pay raises.
3. Require that all Congressional and Executive staff budgets be reduced by not less than 10%. Cut the people or cut the salaries, whatever it takes.
(Harsh? Maybe. But those are the kinds of CHANGES that businesses have to make when times get tough…)
4. Suspend all direct payments in “foreign aid” for one year: not just our ‘enemies’, not just our 'friends', ALL of them. While we're at it, send the UN a BILL for the cost of supplying US troops for all these UN 'peacekeeping' tasks. Being the world's policeman has a price, but not just paid out of our pocket...
One more; I'm on a roll...
5. (I call this the “tit-for-tat” rule; wish it was my idea). All imports coming into the
There you go. Chew on ‘em.
- Steve
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
