Soak the Rich Game

Fellow blogger, Ohioan and friend Jason Hart, created a terrific and fun game/graphic that allows you to "Soak the Rich" by giving you a turn at solving America’s $15.6 Trillion national debt.

It explains:

Politicians, the editorial page of The New York Times, the talent at CNN, and the average Fine Arts professor agree: the answer to America’s debt crisis is to make The Rich pay their “fair share.” With this consensus from such a broad swath of America’s leading minds, who are we to argue?

Let’s start with a realistic goal: the 2011 federal deficit of $1.3 Trillion. Click an industry to double income taxes on the nation’s largest employers and take all of their CEOs’ pay. For more information, simply click each industry you’d like to soak. Track your progress below, and click the “Show Results” button at any time to see the impact of your new taxes!

It shows a bunch of green (the color of money) boxes representing industries from Aerospace to Utilities. Below that is a red (color of debt) progress bar. Each individual tick on the progress bar equals $2.16 Billion in new taxes.

As you select an industry, an information box pops up. For instance, I selected Oil & Gas - evil companies that they are - and found this:

Soak Marathon Oil Corp. and the 39 other Oil & Gas companies in the S&P 500 index?

Doubling corporate income taxes and taking CEO pay will provide $63.9 billion in new taxes, undercut 22.1 billion shares of stock, and threaten 672,685 jobs.

Don't worry... some of those jobs are overseas!

Of course, my choice was "soak 'em" and not "cancel" which resulted in the progress bar turning green for about a quarter of an inch. So much for evil oil and gas.

You can then 'check your results' to see what you've accomplished. For my Oil & Gas selection, I managed to cover 4.8% of a single year's federal deficit. Oh - and with that same amount of money I could have bought "Wembley Stadium, a baker's dozen Boeing 787s, a Porsche 911 Turbo for yourself and each of your 99 closest friends, and 5 Manhattan penthouses overlooking Central Park with a cool $1 billion & change left over."

Check it out for yourself here and see if you can solve the budget crisis. Oh - be sure to share it with anyone who spouts off that taxing the rich is the solution.

Dereliction of Duty part III - Three years without a budget

Congratulations U.S. Senate on your continuing dereliction of duty. As of today, it's been three full years that you have failed to pass a budget.

As I wrote earlier this month:

The Congressional Budget Act requires both houses of Congress to pass a budget - and the deadline is April 15th. In fact, the Senate's own website details the law and dates.
...
This is a clear dereliction of duty. They have failed to uphold their responsibilities under a law that they, themselves, have passed. They have ignored their duty to represent us by providing an authorized budget to enable and limit the spending by the federal government.

And why haven't they passed a budget? Well, according to Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND), it's the "wrong time."

“This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor,” he said. “I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.”

You see, they have an election this year and heaven forbid that they have to actually vote to do something about the debt (amount they owe because they've been borrowing for years) or the deficit (the amount they spend over and above the amount of revenue they take in). Why - gasp - voters might actually hold them accountable! What a novel idea.

The Democrats in the Senate did have an opportunity to at least begin the process of budgeting. They held a 'markup session' on April 19th, though Rep. Conrad made it known that it would be discussion only - no votes would be taken.

Democrats again were derelict in their duty.

All 11 Republicans showed up for the meeting - no Democrats did. As @BudgetGOP tweeted: "Based on participation, it's almost as if Republicans are more concerned than Democrats about reducing our deficits."

So why aren't they giving us a budget? Democrats obviously don't like President Barack Obama's budget. Both budgets he presented failed to garner a single vote - even from members of his own party.

Perhaps this information from last June will give us a clue:

“The Budget Committee Chairman says he now, once again, has a budget that he is sharing secretly with his Democrat colleagues. Yet we hear no indication that a full text of the resolution will be made public or, crucially, that it will be slated for a public mark-up in the Committee as required by law… Making matters worse, we have reason to believe from statements and news leaks that the budget will have even more taxes and even fewer cuts than advertised. Tax increases may well exceed $2 trillion. And it may cut, or save, as little as $1.5 trillion—just one-fourth of the spending reductions achieved by House Republicans… A colossal tax hike combined with anemic spending cuts only speeds our current trajectory towards a bigger government, a bigger debt, and a weaker private sector.”

The nation is heading toward an abyss and Americans know that we cannot continue to borrow and tax in order to maintain spending beyond our means. Democrats know this too. They realize that any budget that proposes huge tax increases (on everyone because there just aren't enough 'rich' people to tax despite their rhetoric to the contrary) will be at odds with their constituents and they don't want to risk their potential re-election by actually doing their jobs. So they do nothing, hurtling us closer to the drop-off.

I take that back - they do do something. They commit dereliction of duty hoping you won't notice.

Sadly, they're probably right.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz - against the budget before she was for it?

In an interview on Fox News Tuesday, Bret Baier asked Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz about budgets, specifically the lack of a budget from the U.S. Senate in three years.  The budget discussion begins at the 2 minute mark. 




Baier, noting that Democrats have gone out of their way to criticize the budget presented by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), said there was no Democrat budget on the table.

Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) objected stating that Pres. Barack Obama had submitted a budget.  But Baier continued saying the President's budget wasn't being voted on.

“That’s right, because House Republicans voted it down,” she said.

EXCEPT....

The vote on Obama's most recent budget was 414-0. 

It wasn't just House Republicans who voted it down - not a single Democrat voted for it, including Wasserman Schultz herself!

Hypocrisy, lies, distortions ... how does she live with herself?

Too bad Baier didn't ask her about her own vote...

Dereliction of duty part 2 - Dems fail to show for budget meeting

From Hot Air comes this Picture of the Day: 

Guy Benson says that this is a picture worth 1,086 words — one for each day since the Democrat-led Senate passed the budget resolution required by law each April 15th. This picture comes from yesterday’s so-called “mark-up session” of the Senate Budget Committee, a meeting which chair Kent Conrad helpfully promoted by declaring that he wouldn’t allow any votes to be taken on budgets. That turned the meeting into nothing more than a discussion forum, one that Conrad’s colleagues decided to skip. The picture, taken by a Republican staffer at the meeting, shows all 11 Republicans sitting on the far side of the table — and almost no Democrats in their chairs:


The meeting was broadcast on one of the C-SPAN channels, so this isn’t exactly a secret. Only three Democrats bothered to show up at all, out of a dozen assigned to it. Republicans showed up, prepared to cast votes to finally bring the ignominious streak of 1,085 days (as of yesterday) without a budget resolution to an end. Sadly, Democrats — who control the committee, the chamber, and the White House — don’t have the same sense of responsibility.

You'll need to go to the links to see the photo - but it's worth it.  Talk about pricelesss!

Dereliction of duty - 1,086 days and counting

Since our current budget problems and debt haven't caused enough angst and uncertainty, the Senate is going to add to the problem by NOT passing a budget again this year. 

As The Hill reports:

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) bowed to pressure from fellow Democrats on Tuesday and postponed a committee vote on a 2013 budget resolution, most likely until after the November elections.

Conrad on Wednesday will begin a committee markup of a resolution based on the Bowles-Simpson deficit recommendations, but told reporters there is no date scheduled on which the markup vote would occur.

“This is the wrong time to vote in committee; this is the wrong time to vote on the floor,” he said. “I don’t think we will be prepared to vote before the election.”

This is the "wrong time"?!?  The wrong time for whom? 

Apparently for Senators who have an election this year.  I guess getting re-elected is more important than doing your job in the first place.  Besides, if they pass a budget, all those Senators will be on the record and we certainly can't have that, now can we?  As the Free Beacon reports:

Many suspect that Conrad’s plan was derailed at the last minute by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) and other Senate Democrats, who did not wish to cast political difficult votes on health care, energy, taxes, and government waste just months before the 2012 election.

Imagine that!

As of today, it's 1,086 days (and counting) since the Senate passed a budget.  In case you're wondering, that's just nine days short of three years.



The Congressional Budget Act requires both houses of Congress to pass a budget - and the deadline is April 15th.  In fact, the Senate's own website details the law and dates.  Does April 15th sound familiar?  Can you imagine what would happen if we told the government that now was "wrong time" to pay our taxes because we had Christmas coming up that we needed to plan for?

No wonder people want to pass a 28th Amendment.

This is a clear dereliction of duty.  They have failed to uphold their responsibilities under a law that they, themselves, have passed.  They have ignored their duty to represent us by providing an authorized budget to enable and limit the spending by the federal government. 

No wonder our debt is over $15 Trillion and our deficit for 2012 is projected to be over $1 Trillion.  If you don't have a budget to dictate what you can spend, you can spend whatever you want.  And our Congress and President are doing just that.

But. you ask, if they're going to begin committee markup, aren't they doing their jobs?

Not exactly.  As Keith Hennessey explains, it's not a markup if you don't vote:

I imagine Chairman Conrad will receive favorable press coverage for proposing the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson recommendations. If he doesn’t use his power as Chairman to force a vote, however, then his proposal is little more than an interesting debate topic.

Unless I’m missing something Chairman Conrad is not marking up a budget resolution tomorrow. He is instead convening the committee for a discussion. He will lay down the Bowles-Simpson numbers as his own and everyone will talk. Then he will adjourn the meeting tomorrow without any votes, without any date to reconvene, without any deadline or forcing action for private bipartisan negotiations he hopes will then occur but for which he has low expectations of success.

It’s not a markup if you don’t vote.

Hennessey also agrees with me on the dereliction of duty: 

"The job of a Member of Congress is to vote on legislation, not to talk about legislation. Talk is sometimes helpful but If Members of Congress are not voting they’re not doing their job."

The worst part about all of this is not the failure to have a budget for the massive federal government.  It's not even the fact that our Senator are in violation of law and derelict. 

I think the worst part is that most of the nation hasn't got a clue and cares more about who made the cut on "American Idol" and whether or not people can get a knockoff of Angelina Jolie's engagement ring.

ICYMI roundup

Due to some unexpected conflicts yesterday, I did not get a chance to do a blog post, so here is an In Case You Missed It (ICYMI) roundup:

*  Republican members of the Energy and Commerce Committee Responded to the Obama Administration's EPA proposal to kill jobs and eliminate energy supplies:

Republican members pushed back strongly this week against EPA’s new proposed rule regulating greenhouse gases for new coal plants. In a hearing Wednesday with EPA Assistant Administrator Gina McCarthy, Republican members of Subcommittee on Energy and Power blasted the administration's actions to shut down coal-fired power generation in the U.S., arguing that it is yet another example that the president's promise of an 'all of the above' energy strategy rings hollow, putting both jobs and affordable, reliable energy at risk.   Read more...

*  Sunday was April Fool's Day, but this is no joke - and it's gone mostly unreported in the lame street media.  As of April 1, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world:  39.2%.  Our companies now have a distinct disadvantage with their foreign competitors.  And in a global economy, the United States is now less attractive to companies looking for a new plant or facility. 

And really, even God only asked for 10%, why should the government take more than a third of all profits?  That's money that would have gone to investors, shareholders, owners and used to spur the economy to produce more - or money that would have gone to additional wages and benefits for workers. 

People who think government deserves more in taxes forget the unseen - the greater amount of economic good the money would have generated if it had stayed in the economy rather than be diverted to government for such things as a teapot museum (which failed, btw) or cowgirl hall of fame.

*  From the 'people-who-live-in-glass-houses' file, President Barack Obama has decided to criticize the Republican budget passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.  However, Obama's own budget failed to get a single vote.  Republicans didn't vote for it, which isn't a surprise.  But no Democrat voted for it either.  And this is the second time he's submitted a budget that couldn't get a single vote.

Furthermore, the Senate, which is required the Constitution to do a budget, hasn't passed one in 1,069 days.  That's just a mere 26 days short of three years!  Dereliction of duty is too kind a term for this kind of failure.  And hypocrisy is too kind a term for what the President is doing, but that's part of the plan:  tear apart what the other guy is doing instead of doing something yourself.

*  On the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case, some deliberate fraud by the news media has come to light.  NBC is investigating itself over a doctored playing of the call Zimmerman made to the police on the night of the shooting.

NBC's "Today" show ran the edited audio of George Zimmerman's phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman says: "'This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black."

But the audio recording in its entirety reveals that Zimmerman did not volunteer the information that Martin was black. Instead, Zimmerman was answering a question from a police dispatcher about the race of the "suspicious person" whom Zimmerman was speaking about.

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows that Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

The 911 officer responded saying, "OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?"

"He looks black," Zimmerman said.

The abridged conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher that NBC ran on March 27 has been blasted by media watchdog groups as misleading.

And then there is ABC News which originally ran a story about video that supposedly showed no injuries to Zimmerman, as he claimed.  But yesterday, after they 'enhanced' the video, they changed their story, saying the video clearly shows the gash the on back of Zimmerman's head.  You'd think, before going forward with a story portraying Zimmerman as lying about his injuries, they would have 'enhanced' the video to be sure.

Now how many people do you think are going to rely solely upon the first stories reported, rather than the actual facts that have now come out?

*   Still think spending by the government isn't the problem and that it needs even more taxes? If Uncle Sam had won the MegaMillions jackpot, he'd be able to pay 1/250th of 1% of the U.S. debt.  Sobering thought, isn't it?

*  Student loan debt has now exceeded $1 trillion - more than credit card and auto loans.  But there is an alternative:  SoFi - Social Financing. 

The $1 trillion US student loan market is broken. We are here to offer an innovative approach. We are using the power of social communities to transform the industry. SoFi connects students and alumni through a dedicated lending fund and an original social community. SoFi provides an approach where students, alumni and schools all benefit. Alumni earn a compelling double bottom line return, students receive a lower loan rate than their private or federal options, and both sides benefit from the connections formed. Schools access a new, stable, low cost funding source that doesn't cannibalize giving while building accountability to their students and alumni.

SoFi is ‘where social meets finance.’ And we believe we have produced a better student loan – a true student loan solution.

SoFi was founded by a group of Stanford Graduate School of Business students in 2011. The team's motivation is to transform the financial services landscape using social: SoFi defines social as community-oriented, scalable and where participation is commensurate with value.

Just think - private individuals meeting a market need and all without the involvement of government.

Obama's budget, hypocrisy and 'out of the mouths of babes'

As regular readers of my blog know, hypocrisy and double standards are things I abhor.  Sadly, there are too many examples of these two things in the political and media world.

President Barack Obama's budget was recently introduced to Congress and, for the second time received not a single vote.

Despite both Obama and the media blaming the Republican-controlled House of Representatives for the failure, no Democrat cast a 'yes' vote.  And, again, this was the second time his budget got no votes.

Can you imagine the indignant claims of incompetence from the other side of the political aisle if this had been a Republican president who couldn't get even one vote from his own party for his budget?!?

Could you imagine what the media would be doing? 

Every newscast and the top and bottom of every hour would be proclaiming that, for the second time, the Republican President had failed in his budget.  There would be a line of people waiting to issue statements, go on talk shows and shout to the world that any president incapable of getting even one vote from his own party for his budget needed to go.

But we have a biased media who are clearly rooting for Obama, so you hear nothing ... or a mimicking of the spin from the White House.

To me, the issue isn't just the abysmal failure of the President (that's well-documented for anyone who cares to look at his record with an eye to the Constitution), it's the double standard of allowing/condoning/excusing something from your own party while protesting/criticizing/objecting when it is done by your opponent.

Don't get me wrong, Republicans do it, too.  It's human nature, I suppose, but it's wrong and we should all object.

Additionally, it's the media bias.  I don't mind - and, in fact, greatly appreciate - liberal and conservative opinions.  A respectful and fact-based (rather than emotional) discussion of a point from opposite perspectives is educational and allows all of us to learn and understand an issue more completely - even when the result is an agreement to disagree.

But today's media claims to be objective when they are not. 

The left criticizes people like Rush Limbaugh as an example of media bias.  But Limbaugh isn't a newscaster.  He's a talk radio host and makes no qualms about his conservative bias.  I would never use Ed Schultz as an example of media bias for the same reason - he's a talk show host.  But when the bias comes from Katie Couric or in the news sections of your local paper, that's hypocrisy because that is where it's supposed to be not just the facts, but a complete and fair/accurate reporting of both sides of the issue.

There is hope, though, which leads me to the second portion of my headline 'out of the mouths of babes.'

My friend Jason is 14 years old.  He's a tennis aficionado, as his brand new business cards explain.  At the age of two, he informed his mother (and anyone else who would listen) that he wanted to take tennis lessons.  She made him wait until he was five, thinking the interest would quickly turn to something else (or multiple other things) by then.  But on his fifth birthday, he asked if he could finally start tennis lessons.  And he did.

I'm definitely biased, but not so much as to be able to recognized that he is truly skilled in this sport.  And he loves it.  I believe he's even ranked in the boys - 14 & under group.

Jason is not just a good tennis player, he's also a good person, both on and off the court.  He's a stickler for the rules and  exhibits a true Corinthian spirit in his chosen sport.  (Corinthian - someone who plays sport with the highest possible principles, way exceeding normal sportsmanship.)

He recently decided to start a tennis blog, writing about the sport he loves.  JJ's Tennis View is well written and Jason has a good - and unique - perspective on the sport.  He recently predicted an upset in a women's match, and was correct (something he was especially proud of, being 13 at the time, because no one else did).

Jason and his mom are going to her home town of Charleston for spring break where he will be attending the Family Circle Cup.  He plans to write about the matches, but, being 14, wants to support one of his favorite players, get his t-shirt signed by others and generally be a kid.  Good for him!

His mom researched media credentials for him, thinking that might give him better access to the players for his blog.  He would definitely qualify under the guidelines issued by the Family Circle Cup - but Jason declined.

Now why, you might wonder, would a tennis fan like Jason decline special access to his favorite players?

I just thought it would be unprofessional if I was jumping up and down with signs and shirts for players as a media worker. There's already enough media bias!!!

Indeed.

But if a 14-year-old can understand this, why can't the main stream media?

Political Quote of the Year

This is from Guy Benson, Political Editor at Townhall.com, on Treasury Secretay Timothy Geithner's comments to Congress regarding President Barack Obama's FY2013 budget proposal:

In Congressional testimony yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner served up what might just be the political sound-byte of the year. His comment rises to that level because it perfectly encapsulates the Democrat Party's approach to confronting fiscal reality and the real threat of insolvency.
...

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking on behalf of the Obama White House, to Rep. Paul Ryan: "You are right to say we're not coming before you today to say 'we have a definitive solution to that long term problem.' What we do know is, we don't like yours."

Those two sentences speak to a mentality so bereft of intellectual vigor, so stunningly and candidly shallow, so thoroughly irresponsible, so politically myopic, selfish, and cowardly, that it should disqualify this crew from a second term in office. What a disgrace. Remember this moment the next time Democrats accuse the GOP of being the "do nothing," intransigent, "party of no."

Rep. Bob Latta's statement on failure of President Obama to meet budget deadline

Press Release:

Latta Statement on President’s Failure to Meet Budget Deadline

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling) issued the following statement after President Obama failed to submit a budget request today for Fiscal Year 2013. By law, presidents have to submit their budgets no later than the first Monday in February. The White House budget is expected on February 13.

“With trillion-dollar budget deficits, it behooves the President to submit a budget on time. This marks the third time in four years that President Obama has missed his deadline to submit a budget to Congress on time. One of the President’s fundamental duties is to present a budget to Congress, and doing so on time will then give both the House and Senate ample time to pass a budget.”

The House Budget Committee has compiled a chronological review of Presidential budget submissions dating back to 1923. Several key points from the data:

In just one term, President Obama has missed the budget deadline more than any other President.

* In the 90 years covering FY1923 through FY 2013, President Obama is the only President to miss the deadline two years in a row. He is the only President who has missed the deadline in three of the four years of a term.

* All Presidents from Harding through Reagan’s first term met the statutory budget submission deadline in every year. In five of these years, a change in the law was requested and passed to extend the deadline, and the President always met it.

* Since the budget process moved the date of submission to the first Monday in February, the incoming President’s first budget submission has been delayed for practical reasons (the President’s inauguration is less than three weeks before the budget submission’s deadline). Yet President Obama’s first budget in his first year set a new record with a 98-day delay for his FY2010 budget.

* Since the statutory deadline was extended to the first Monday in February, with the exception of the first budget for a new President, this deadline has only been missed three times: Clinton FY1998; Obama FY2012; and Obama FY 2013.

###

1000 days without a budget

Tea Party Debt Commission to present findings

I attended BlogCon11, sponsored by FreedomWorks, and learned quite a bit, including information about the Tea Party Debt Commission - a crowd-sourced document that identifies various cuts in the federal budget.

Today, FreedomWorks and various members of tea parties from across the nation will present the findings of the Debt Commission on Capital Hill before a joint hearing of Senators and Congressmen.

C-SPAN will be streaming live from the Tea Party Debt Commission hearing on Capitol Hill - it can be watched online here beginning at 2 p.m.

The TPDC identified several spending cuts which have been discussed in the past and asked participants to select only one of two options presented. In addition, the TPDC spent the last three months traveling the country asking thousands of grassroots activists to come up with ways to cut the budget. As a result of hundreds of thousands of responses, the TPCD has come up with recommendations for our legislators.

Interestingly, one of the things that I learned at BlogCon11 is that most participants to date did NOT want to cut funding to NASA, despite the fact that Pres. Barack Obama's budget did just that.

If, like me, you're unable to view the hearing, I'm sure there will be a press release and news coverage which I'll link to following the event.

Putting the federal budget into perspective

This was sent to me via email from my friend Tom...I don't know the source, but I think it's pretty telling and really helps people understand the federal budget:

Quote of the Day - unsustainable

Since I'm working on gathering information for filling in on WSPD this afternoon from 3-6 p.m, I though it was a good time for this quote from Sheldon Richman, editor of "The Freeman" and TheFreemanOnline.org (publications of the Foundation for Economic Education), on the federal fiscal situation:

"The current trajectory is unsustainable in the ruling establishment’s own terms. If nothing changes, in perhaps a little more than a decade all the central government’s revenues will be consumed by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the burgeoning debt, which, at more than $14 trillion, is closing in on 100 percent of GDP. The central government now borrows 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Imagine how upset the ruling elite will be when it can spend money on nothing but so-called entitlements and interest? That would leave nothing for the military-industrial complex, nothing for business and farm subsidies, nothing for all the ways that politicians buy off constituents so they can be reelected over and over. Obviously, they don’t want that to happen."

For more, see his complete article, "Had Enough Yet? Thank you, political class."

America's fiscal crisis - a non-political perspective

There are a lot of perspectives on America's financial status these days - mostly political ones. So how is an average person supposed to make heads or tails of the truth considering the claims on both ... well, on ALL ... sides?

TechCrunch had this article which highlights a new study:

So how can we be so apathetic when we see true abysmal fiscal neglect, especially when it’s that of a pseudo-company in which we all essentially own shares?

That pseudo-company is the United States government and in a thorough report issued today, Kleiner Perkins partner Mary Meeker has taken all emotions, politics, spin and manipulation out of the issues, to present a steely-eyed view of just how hosed our financial situation is. Spoiler alert: It’s not pretty. America is gripped by a new red menace and this time, it’s not the commies– it’s a sea of red ink. If politicians reported to voters the way management reports to shareholders, no one would finish out their terms.

If you’re a tax-paying American, you should read the report (embedded below) to see how your money is being spent. If you’re not an American, you should read it too. Far too often blogs like ours trumpet the advantages of living and starting a business in this country, of which there are many. But here’s a sober view of the downside of our wishfully innate belief that we deserve to have it all: We are in a deep financial hole, and there’s not an easy, pain-free or politically palatable way out.

They further explain - and this is the point I like - "the interesting thing is why she wrote it: Because for all the hand-wringing over the cost of health care and the state of our deficit, she had a hard time finding the simplest data for what America’s financial situation was."

Here is the report. Please read it and understand the financial picture minus the spin.

Roundup: Obama's budget and the deficit

There's been a lot of media and blogger coverage of President Barack Obama's budget, which is anything but the 'limit' on spending that he's trying to spin it as, and the impact on the deficit in the short and long term.

So I thought you'd like to see these two excellent posts to add to your knowledge:

1) My friend Steve Eggleston, who blogs at No Runny Eggs, says there is no deficit reduction. He spent hours comparing the budget to the CBO's "Budget and Economic Outlook" released last month, which assumes revenues and mandatory spending increase (or decrease) according to existing laws up until on-schedule expirations, and that discretionary spending increases at the rate of inflation. He said, "As the old Hertz commercials went, there's "deficit reduction", and "'not exactly' deficit reduction", and this is "not exactly"."

I hope you'll read his analysis: Obama’s FY2012 budget – worse than doing nothing.

2) Keith Hennessey is a former Assistant to the U.S. President George Bush for Economic Policy and Director of the U.S. National Economic Council. He has a blog where he posts on economic policy, among other things. His most recent entry, The long term budget problem begins now, has a startling chart, based upon Obama's own budget numbers, that should have us gathering up pitchforks and marching on Washington. But true to his style, he doesn't just give you the data, he explains what it means.

Take the time to read both of these posts and educate yourself about what your 'representatives' are doing on your behalf (and to your children, grandchildren and great grandchildren!).

Finding common ground on U.S. fiscal problems

I received this email from the National Taxpayers Union about a joint effort with U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, where they announce their joint effort to find common ground in addressing the nation's fiscal issues. NTU is a conservative group and U.S. PIRG is a liberal group - but they agree on numerous ideas to cut spending. Below is the email with links to their report. I hope you'll read it and support their efforts to help put our nation back on track when it comes to federal government spending.

NTU joined with the liberal group U.S. PIRG to release a list of $600 billion worth of specific federal spending reductions. It is available online at www.ntu.org/commonground. It can also be found on our blog here: http://www.ntu.org/governmentbytes/ntu-joins-with-liberal-group.html.

With all the talk about debt and deficits, we thought it would be useful to reach across the ideological divide to find spending cuts that the left and right can agree upon. We saw an opportunity to put together a true left-right coalition in order to begin the conversation about the difficult choices we’ll have to make as a nation.

The U.S. PIRG and NTU study identifies 30 specific, actionable items to cut in federal spending, including:

* $62 billion in savings by eliminating wasteful subsidies to farmers and large corporations.
* $354 billion in savings from reforming inefficient contract and acquisition procedures.
* $77 billion in savings by improving execution of existing government programs as well as eliminating unneeded programs.
* $108 billion in savings from ending low-priority or unnecessary weapons systems, along with rightsizing other programs.

We will be submitting this list to the President’s Fiscal Commission for consideration, as serious reductions in spending will no doubt play a large role in their report. Also, keep an eye out for post-election efforts we’ll be engaging in to further raise the profile.

Surprise! (not) More hypocrisy in government

"When times are tough, you tighten your belts," the president said. "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college." - President Barack Obama (source)

This is very true, but the President obviously doesn't believe his own words.

(Side note: and what, exactly, does the President have against Vegas????)

The most recent proposal by Obama is to limit the amount of monthly payments graduates have to make on student loans and forgive them after 20 years - reduced to 10 years if you happen to go into 'public service.'

If you know that you're not going to have to repay all your college loans, why not go to Vegas? If you're not going to be responsible for paying off your debt, you can take out as many loans as possible and then spend your 'other' dollars - well, in Vegas, if you want.

As for buying a boat when you can't pay your mortgage, the message is the same.

While people may not be buying boats, they know that if they just stop making their mortgage payments, the banks, which are being forced by governments to renegotiate loans, will have to do something to relieve homeowners of their contracted obligations. This leaves homeowners free to spend those dollars elsewhere.

The message coming from federal, state and local politicians is that you are not to blame for not being able to meet the obligations you entered into - it's all someone else's fault. It's not your fault you borrowed more than you could repay, you were taken advantage of by evil .... (fill in the blank).

Then those same politicians start allocating other people's money to 'help' you because it 'purchases' your support at the next election. And you, being grateful for their magnanimous behavior, no longer have to honor your obligations. So you have all that extra money for boats or trips to Vegas ...

Think this is just the lunatic rantings of a raving conservative? Look at what one individual had to say about free cell phones from the government:

"If they would give us free phones, that would be fantastic," said Lester Frasier, outside a welfare center in Los Angeles. "It will free up more money for me, that's one less bill for me."

The President's words tell you to spend your money wisely, but his actions tell you that you don't have to worry about doing so because they'll bail you out if you don't.

And what happens inside the logic-free zone of Washington D.C. is completely contrary to those very same words. The new Obama budget is outrageous in terms of spending, despite what he claims are cuts.

In what Obama and many members of Congress claim is the worst economy since the Great Depression, the federal government's payroll is at a record 2.15 million.

And when it comes to those same politicians actually acting in the fiscally responsible manner they tell you that you should adhere to - forget it!

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) says he's not a 'big supporter' of freezing congressional pay until after the budget is balanced. And the worst part about Congressional pay is that increases go into effect automatically, unless Congress votes to freeze them. How convenient!

You all know the joke about how to tell when a politician is lying...(his lips are moving). You also know that actions speak louder than words - so be sure to pay attention to what these politicians actually do while preaching to us and spout off about fiscal accountability.

Is it time to freeze federal wages?

According to The Cato Institute:

"Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent
Posted by Chris Edwards

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on compensation levels by industry (Tables 6.2D, 6.3D, and 6.6D here). The data show that the pay advantage enjoyed by federal civilian workers over private-sector workers continues to expand.

The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector."

The article includes several charts which dramatically highlight the difference between federal and private-sector pay, especially when benefits are included.

"In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909."

No wonder most Americans think our government is out-of-control and has no real understanding of economic realities. As Edwards notes, with pay like this, federal workers are "insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector." Plus they have job security that most in the private sector would never dream is even possible.

With all the talk from politicians (of both parties) in Washington, does anyone find it strange that bemoaning the debt of the nation and talking about 'fiscal responsibility' never extends to doing what many state and local governments are doing - freezing wages, laying off workers and *gasp* actually cutting spending?

Who is exempt from concessions and cutbacks?

This morning I was listening to the Wall Street Journal's morning program on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD and they were talking about some of the cutbacks private industry is making when it comes to employees and benefits.

They mentioned the lack of pay raises, the elimination of bonuses, the decrease in or elimination of pension contributions, charging employees more of their health care costs, and the elimination of direct or matching charitable contributions.

My husband then wondered aloud why it was that government wasn't taking a cue from these private businesses and making similar cuts. My response was that our local governments were endeavoring to do just that, and that Gov. Ted Strickland had ordered many cuts.

But he was referring to the federal government. And I realized that we've not heard a single news story about the federal government doing any of the things that local and state governments are having to do. In fact, we find the federal government increasing spending (bailouts and loans) and considering requests by states to make up their shortfalls.

So I'm wondering - what is the benefit plan for federal employees? Do they pay a portion of the costs for their medical coverage? Have federal unions been asked to make concessions like our local city unions? Are there opportunities for reducing the cost of the federal government by evaluating and tying federal employee total compensation to the marketplace?

If you know, please share the information or provide links. I can't help but believe that there are things the federal government can and should do in this regard.

Federal budget goes electronic

The federal government has entered the new century by deciding NOT to print the federal budget.

On February 4th, President Bush will release his budget for the 2009 fiscal year. Downloads of the document will be available here with an easy to remember web address of www.budget.gov.

According to a press release, this will "save nearly 20 tons of paper, or roughly 480 trees. In terms of fiscal savings, the Office of Management and Budget estimates the e-budget will save nearly a million dollars over the next five years. Individuals and groups may purchase paper copies from the Government Printing Office."

An electronic format is easier to search and will help us better monitor how our government spends our money...so have at it!!!