Jul 26 2011
14 trillion and a few hundred billion change is what the federal government owes, right now. It’ll be more like 15 billion by the end of 2011.
Guess who gets to pay it back? Not me. Maybe not you, if you’re middle aged or so. Here’s who will be paying it back, in cash, in kind, in trade, or in economic disaster and unemployment.
Another entry in the Powerline Prize contest.
Jul 26 2011
Another high placing (but not quite winning) entry in the Powerline Prize competition for a media product to illustrate the danger of our national debt.
Jul 25 2011
Obama calls for compromise on debt
President Barack Obama said on Monday a temporary six-month extension of debt ceiling does not solve the problem and might not be enough to avoid credit downgrade.
Obama said he has told leaders of both parties they must come with a fair compromise in the news few days that can pass Congress.
The President wants to be able to pin the blame on big spending and higher borrowing, increasing the national debt, on Republicans. He doesn’t want it to still be on the table for the 2012 election cycle, which is the real reason he doesn’t want only a six month extension…. he knows that in six months, he’ll look even worse.
The truth, of course is that a six month extension that matches debt ceiling raises to REAL, RIGHT NOW CUTS, not future pie-in-the-sky maybe cuts, is ITSELF a compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats.
But compromising with Democrats is usually a one way street. You compromise. They don’t. Then they insist you compromise some more, taking your compromised position as the new bargaining starting point.
As Erick Ericson points out, we’ve had 17 debt commissions, and innumerable promises to study future cuts in the last decades. It’s ALWAYS a smokescreen to pretend something is being done while protecting the status quo, or taxing/spending/borrowing even more.
In Washington speak, a CUT is simply a reduction in spending INCREASES planned for the future. Get it? If you planned to increase your spending by 20% next year, and only increase it by 10%, you get to call THAT a CUT in the beltway…. when in fact it is an INCREASE, still.
Liar, liar, pants on fire, Mr. President.
Jul 24 2011
The Powerline contest for media illustrating the debt crisis facing the USA is done, and here is one of the top entries (not a winner, but highly rated):
I’m thinking most of us are the fish.
I’d feel better about it if the video had a disclaimer: NO GOLDFISH WERE HARMED DURING THE PRODUCTION OF THIS VIDEO.
Just kidding.
Feb 09 2011
Obama to call for $53B for high-speed rail
President Barack Obama is calling for a six-year, $53 billion spending plan for high-speed rail, as he seeks to use infrastructure spending to jumpstart job creation.
An initial $8 billion in spending will be part of the budget plan Obama is set to release Monday. If Congress approves the plan, the money would go toward developing or improving trains that travel up to 250 miles per hour, and connecting existing rail lines to new projects. The White House wouldn’t say where the money for the rest of the program would come from, though it’s likely Obama would seek funding in future budgets or transportation bills.
Obama’s push for high-speed rail spending is part of his broad goal of creating jobs in the short-term and increasing American competitiveness for the future through new spending on infrastructure, education and innovation. During last month’s State of the Union address, Obama said he wanted to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail within 25 years.
At the same time he’s calling for new spending on sectors like high-speed rail in the upcoming budget, Obama also has pledged to cut overall spending as he seeks to bring down the nation’s mounting deficit.
Well, to be clear, Obama only called for a “freeze in spending”… a freeze at the ridiculously high levels he set in his first two years. Only his sycophants in the press would call not raising spending even further “a cut.”
In any case, America is not Europe, nor is it Japan. There is not now a demand for high speed rail, nor will there be anytime soon. If there was a demand for it, private interests would be busy investing in it, expecting to make money from it. Obama seems to have learned nothing from the subsidy infested mess that is Amtrak.
I propose a better way to spend the money. He should invest in research in alchemy. Turning lead into gold is probably impossible…. but maybe not. And along the way, spending 50 billion dollars is likely to accidentally result in some real science getting done, something with at least “spin off” benefits, technologically and economically.
So lets hear it for alchemy in the federal budget. That makes a LOT more sense, and is probably a better way to spend large amounts of money, than high-speed rail, which will continue to be a sinkhole for money even after it’s built, which will probably cost a lot more than anyone now projects.
Of course, we all know Obama has no actual hope of doing this. He just brought it up to play to his lefty audience, who love anything that makes people get in lines and wait somewhere. But Obama knows he has no chance of getting this through a Republican House of Representatives. He’s just talking for effect, and public relations with his base.
Still… maybe in trying to turn lead into gold, the scientists would finally discover cold fusion.
May 13 2010
Health overhaul law potentially costs $115B more
President Barack Obama’s new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.
If Congress approves all the additional spending called for in the legislation, it would push the ten-year cost of the overhaul above $1 trillion, an unofficial limit the Obama administration set early on.
The Congressional Budget Office said the added spending includes $10 billion to $20 billion in administrative costs to federal agencies carrying out the law, as well as $34 billion for community health centers and $39 billion for Indian health care.
The costs were not reflected in earlier estimates by the budget office, although Republican lawmakers strenuously argued that they should have been.
Say it isn’t so! You mean, a newly minted government program is really going to cost more than they said it would?
I’m shocked and appalled. Mostly appalled.
Appalled that there is anyone, anywhere, who doesn’t think that the program is likely to cost 2 or 3 times as much as estimated, at a minimum… and maybe much more.
Of course, there are people in the world who know nothing of history.
May 08 2010
Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
William Shakespeare
After reading this article I can only wonder which of these attributes of greatness applies to the esteemed junior Senator from the great State of Minnesota. Given the times in which we live, given the magnitude and seriousness of so many national and international issues facing our great nation, it is of great comfort to know Stewart Smalley is on the job!
The people from the land of 10,000 lakes must be so proud.
Mar 30 2010
An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship
A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.
To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment’s first sentence: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
……………………….
Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”
George Will’s piece, linked above, gives a nice history of the 14th Amendment, and explains clearly why it should not be interpreted to mean that all babies of illegal aliens are automatically US citizens. But somehow, I don’t think Congress is likely to act on this anytime soon, since the Democrats want to turn as many illegals as possible into voters… for them. That’s why they are loathe to enforce our borders, they are for same day registration/voting and “motor voter” laws, and are only too happy to accept the support of illegal alien activist organizations.
I’m sure the Democrats mourn the passing of ACORN, which was famous for finding ways for illegals to vote, not to mention evade taxes and other laws.
So we won’t see a Congressional reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment anytime soon. But read all of Will’s piece. It’s essential information for the next time someone tries to convince you that it makes any kind of sense Constitutionally for anchor babies to be automatic US citizens.
Mar 29 2010
Neither side is happy with Stupak
We all know how Rep. Bart Stupak caved the day of the passage of the government takeover of health care. But we don’t know why.
Well, we do know why. We’ve known all along that Stupak supported ObamaCare. After getting his amendment passed to the original public option health care bill that passed the House in November, he voted for the final bill. But it is baffling to pro-lifers why he, who had the power to singlehandedly make or break health care reform, would give up all that power in the last minute for a worthless scrap of paper.
An executive order cannot change current law. They can easily be overruled by the courts, which have done so in the past. Legislation from Congress supersedes them. And an executive order can be rescinded at any time. President Obama could sign the order then revoke it 60 seconds later. If the new health care system withstands legal challenges and a possible repeal, this executive order will just become another Mexico City Policy, rescinded and reinstated whenever a new president takes office.
Stupak’s move pleases neither side of the abortion debate. The pro-life side thinks the order doesn’t go nearly far enough, and the pro-abortion side thinks it goes too far. The SBA List rescinded the Defender of Life award we were supposed to give Stupak at our gala two days ago. Other pro-life groups across the country have condemned him and are now working to defeat him instead of supporting him. Pro-abortion groups are doing the same. NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund are now backing Stupak’s primary challenger.
In an editorial to be published Saturday in the Washington Post, Stupak says, “The pro-life groups rallied behind me, many without my knowledge or consent, not necessarily because they shared my goals of ensuring protections for life and passing health-care reform but because they viewed me as their best chance to kill health-care legislation.”
Oh, yeah? Then why did pro-lifers in Congress vote in favor of the Stupak Amendment in November, thus opening the door for your group to vote for the bill and therefore pass it? And if you didn’t want pro-life groups rallying behind you, why did you accept their money and support?
Mr. Stupak, we trusted you. We thought we had found a hero, someone who was standing up for Life when it looked hopeless. And then we found out you’re just like any other politician, lying to the people to get your way. You broke our heart. And now pro-lifers are not rallying around you, but around your opponent. We’re going to do everything we can to ensure you get defeated with everyone else in November.
Actually, I think the Left is quite happy with Stupak. They got what they wanted from him, and he provided cover for Democrats from pro-life districts. In the end, he sold out to Obama and the Democrats for less than a mess of pottage.
The definition of a pro-life Democrat is someone who wants to say they are pro-life but vote for pro-abortion candidates and policies. That’s because they think many other things are more important than ending legal abortion. But you can’t be seriously pro-life and think that there is all that much that matters more than ending legal abortion. So another way to describe a “pro-life” Democrat is as someone who is vaguely uncomfortable with legal abortion-on-demand, but doesn’t think it matters enough to do anything really significant about it, and certainly not enough to take any political risks for it, or risk losing on any other issue that matters more.
These days, pro-life Democrats always fold in the end, which is predictable by the fact that they caucus with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
The latest oxymoron: pro-life Democrat.
Add it to the list of species that went extinct in the 20th century.
Feb 03 2010
There is one guaranteed way to stimulate employment. That’s to cut taxes for employers, and make it known that the cuts will be in place for a very long time. That stability will be the enticement that employers need to feel confident about expanding their operations. This is historically verifiable for anyone who looks. But in a strange dream that somehow strategies that have never worked before will now start to work, Congress looks to create jobs, but will it be enough?
Democrats in Congress are furiously crafting legislation to spur job creation, but experts warn that the benefits could be too small to make much difference.
Senate Democrats plan to meet Tuesday to discuss a package that could provide billions in help for strapped state and local governments, as well as infrastructure projects. They’re also considering tax breaks to small businesses for hiring workers and to help make homes more energy-efficient.
The House of Representatives passed its own $154 billion jobs plan last month.
………………
Some analysts warned that such limited stimulus measures would hardly make a dent in a $14.2 trillion economy, however.
“It’s more of a painkiller than a cure,” said Robert Bixby , the executive director of the Concord Coalition , which monitors fiscal issues.
“While $150 billion might give the economy some stability, it’s not large enough to make much of a difference,” added Muhammad Islam , an associate professor of economics at St. Louis University .
…………….
“The roadblock is just general business confidence,” Bethune said. “Whether this kind of legislation will do the job is hardly clear.”
During his campaign, when a reporter pointed out to Obama that across-the-board tax cuts had created economic booms in the past, he said, regarding even-handed tax cuts for all economic classes, “It’s a matter of fundamental fairness,” by which he meant that tax cuts that benefit all economic classes, including the “rich,” are somehow unfair. The Left, of course, is only for “targeted tax cuts,” meaning tax rebates to people who pay little or no tax.. and who do not engage in the kind of economic activity that creates jobs.
Crystal ball time (not that it’s especially difficult to predict that what has happened before will happen again): the Democrat congress will not lower taxes generally, in a way that affects all businesses and likely employers. They will fund a bunch of non-productive public works projects that will create flurries of employment, but nothing sustained, nothing that leads to a true recovery. They will lionize themselves for small gains, and portray themselves as the great rescuers of the economy.
Hopefully, the electorate will know better. Of course, they didn’t in 2008.
Reagan proved that cutting taxes during a recession is the surest road to recovery. Obama and the Democrats are raising them, regardless of what they say, simply by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
Some people are slow learners.
