FT89: “Liars lie.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 28th, 2011

Fundamental Truth

Keynesian Tax and Spend Big Government Liberals don’t Win Elections

No one shops at the store with the highest prices.  Not if we can buy the same for less elsewhere.  That’s why stores can’t just raise their prices to make their owners rich.  Because most stores sell something that can be bought elsewhere.  We call it competition.  It’s what keeps prices fair.  And the ‘fair’ price is exactly what both buyer and seller agree on.  Too high and the buyer won’t buy.  Too low and the seller won’t sell.  Just right and buyer and seller happily make the sales transaction.

So people don’t willingly choose to pay higher prices.  Because they want to keep their hard-earned money.  And rightly so.  Because they earned it.  And the same goes for paying taxes.  Just as they don’t willingly choose to pay higher prices they don’t willingly choose to pay more taxes.  Which presents quite the quandary for the tax and spend liberal.  Because to tax and spend you must first tax.  And telling the people that you want to raise their taxes doesn’t really go over well at election time.

So they lie.  Because that’s what liars do.  Liberals never run as Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals.   Because they’ve learned from experience that Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals don’t win elections.  (Unless you’re Nancy Pelosi in uber liberal San Francisco.  But that’s a whole other story.)  So they lie and run as conservatives.  Reagan Democrats.  New Democrats.  Or they just launch withering personal attacks on their opponents.

About 40% of the Electorate are Limited-Government Conservatives

Of course, not everyone is against higher taxes.  Those who don’t pay taxes rarely oppose higher taxes.  Or those with generous pay and benefit packages courtesy of the taxpayer.  They’re always in favor of new taxes.  Because more taxes means more free stuff.  And better salary and benefit packages.

These two groups of people are rather large.  Nearly half of the electorate doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.  And there are a lot of people in the public sector.  Because government keeps growing.  So these are a lot of people to vote for Keynesian tax and spend Big Government liberals.   But it’s not enough.  About 40% of the electorate are limited-government conservatives.  And about 40% are moderates.  Who can swing either way.  And that’s a lot of votes.  If only 10% of the moderates vote conservative, government will have a lot of trouble growing.

The problem with that moderate 40% is that they have jobs.  They pay taxes.  And are none too keen on paying any more.  So what is a liberal to do?  Well, lie, of course.  Liberals don’t want to raise taxes to go on a spending orgy to buy more votes.  No.  They want to make the rich pay their fair share.  Which has a nice sound to it at election time.  Because most people don’t consider themselves rich.  But when nearly half of the electorate doesn’t pay federal income taxes, guess what?  A lot of people are richer than they thought.  Because ‘taxes on the rich’ will ultimately include anyone with a job.  Because half of the people aren’t paying them now.  And that pilloried 1% just doesn’t earn enough to pay all of the taxes.  Even if we take all of their earnings.

Liberals lie because Voters don’t Willingly Vote for Candidates who say they will Raise your Taxes

When liberals are talking you can be certain of one thing.  They’re lying.  Because that’s what they do.  Liars lie.  Because if they told you they were going to raise your taxes and pass job-killing regulations, chances are that you wouldn’t vote for them.  Unless you’re part of that 50% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.  Or collect your pay from the private sector taxpayer.  In which case you’ll say, “Tax on!  Tax those private sector tax-paying suckers.  Just give me more free stuff.”

They may not say it in these exact same words.  But you get the gist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If Taxing the Rich won’t Reduce the Deficit then it’s not Tax Reform, it’s Class Warfare

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 25th, 2011

The Rich are Paying Far More in Taxes than People like Warren Buffet’s Secretary

It’s tax reform.  It’s not tax reform.  They may not have their story straight.  But this much we know.  Obama’s Warren Buffett tax will do nothing for deficit reduction.  But it sure will fan the flames of class warfare (see WH self-contradicts, admits tax hikes arent reform by Joel Gehrke posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

President Obama and White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe have adopted contradictory rhetoric regarding  President Obama’s proposed tax increases, which the president has touted as “tax reform…”

Plouffe responded that “the president would like to do tax reform . . . But absent tax reform,  the president believes the right way to get our fiscal house in order is to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share.”

So according to Plouffe, raising taxes isn’t tax reform.  It’s to punish the rich.  That’s what making them ‘pay their fair share’ means.  Even though, right now, they’re paying more than their fair share.  Far more.  (More on that later.)  Obama, though, sees it differently.  And the way he sees it punishing the rich is reforming the tax code.

When two people can’t get their story street it typically means one thing.  They’re lying.  And can’t keep their stories straight.

Now, the Republicans say they’re in favor of tax reform.  Let’s go.  Let’s reform this tax code.  And let’s reform it based on a very simple principle:  Warren Buffett’s secretary should not be paying a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. It’s a simple principle.

Why not?  Warren Buffett is still paying more tax dollars.  The rich are paying far more in taxes than people like Warren Buffet’s secretary.  So why keep saying this?  Can be for only one reason.  To punish the rich.  And to show the people that you want to vote for you that you’re punishing the rich.

Wallace pointed out to Plouffe that “the top 10 percent pay 70 percent of federal income taxes. Meanwhile, 46 percent of households pay no federal income tax at all.” Plouffe countered that “you can manipulate the statistics in any way you want,” and also said that “they are making a ton of money” while “we have inequities,” presumably in the tax code. And then Plouffe offered what would qualify as an argument for tax reform, except that Plouffe is admittedly not pushing for tax reform:

The American people are screaming out saying it’s unfair that the wealthiest, the largest corporations who can afford the best attorneys, the best accountants, take advantage of these special tax treatments that the lobbyist have, along with lawmakers, have cooked in the books here. So, the question is: how are we going to move forward as a country?

Wallace interjected, “Because 70% isn’t enough?”

For tax revenue?  Yes.  That 70% should be enough.  Perhaps too much.  But for class warfare?  No.  Because there’s a lot more money they can take from the rich.  And the more they take the more votes they gain from that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

It’s not that the President is Losing White Independents.  It’s just that Blacks Refuse to Give Up on Obama.

So why the class warfare?  Because it’s election time.  And when you don’t have a good record you don’t win reelections running on that record.  So you don’t.  Instead, you go class warfare.  Pit one group against the other.  Find narrow slices of the population that you can turn against your political opposition.  And, if you get enough of these slivers, you may just have a chance at reelection.  Despite your horrible record while in office (see Obama 2012 campaign’s Operation Vote focuses on ethnic minorities, core liberals by Peter Wallsten posted 9/25/2011 on The Washington Post).

President Obama’s campaign is developing an aggressive new program to expand support from ethnic minority groups and other traditional Democratic voters as his team studies an increasingly narrow path to victory in next year’s reelection effort.

The program, called “Operation Vote,” underscores how the tide has turned for Obama, whose 2008 brand was built on calls to unite “red and blue America.” Then, he presented himself as a politician who could transcend traditional partisan divisions, and many white centrists were drawn to the coalition that helped elect the country’s first black president.

The problem is that Obama is about as partisan as they come.  That’s why the tide has turned against him.  A lot of people hated George W. Bush.  And thought Obama was going to bring in the love.  Make the country as a whole link arms and sing Kumbaya.  But that hasn’t happened.

He spent more than George W. Bush.  Giving us record deficits.  And he keeps blaming his spending on the rich not paying their fair share of taxes.  The people see what’s going on, though.  They’re not blind.  It’s his spending.  Not a lack of taxes.  And all that spending hasn’t done a thing to help the economy.  The economy was, after all, far better under George W. Bush.  So they’re seeing the same old tax and spend liberal.  Not the candidate that was going to get us all to link arms and sing Kumbaya.

But not everyone is turning against this president.  The blacks haven’t turn on him.  They would have but for one reason.  He’s black.  The black community is furious with him.  But they still can’t abandon him.  As the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Maxine Waters, said in Detroit.  “If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us. When you tell us it’s all right and you unleash us and you’re ready to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation,” Waters said.

Today, the political realities of a sputtering economy, a more polarized Washington and fast-sinking presidential job approval ratings, particularly among white independents, are forcing the Obama campaign to adjust its tactics.

Operation Vote will function as a large, centralized department in the Chicago campaign office for reaching ethnic, religious and other voter groups. It will coordinate recruitment of an ethnic volunteer base and push out targeted messages online and through the media to groups such as blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, seniors, young people, gays and Asian Americans.

It’s not that the president is losing white independents.  It’s just that blacks refuse to give up on Obama and join the exodus from him.

When you’ve been a poor president.  When your policies have made things worse.  There’s only one thing you can do.  You do everything to divide the American people.  Drive wedges.  Find reasons.  Why blacks should hate Republicans.  Why Hispanics should hate Republicans.  Why women should hate Republicans.  Why seniors should hate Republicans.  Why young people should hate Republicans.  Why gays should hate Republicans.  Why Asians should hate Republicans.

When you have failed you become what you said you weren’t.  Or stop pretending to be something you never were.  And you incite hatred.  Fan the fires of class warfare.  You pursue policies that further divide the American people.  Even if those policies hinder the economic recovery.

The campaign officials say they have not given up on wooing independents, and the 2012 presidential election will certainly involve a fierce fight for the college-educated whites and suburbanites who were more likely to back Obama in 2008 than the working-class whites who have always been more skeptical.

By ‘college-educated’ they mean ‘favorably-educated’.  Universities lean left.  Continuing the work of the public school teachers.  Both of who depend on government funding.  And growing tax rates.  So they need government to grow.  And will always vote for the party that will grow government.  And will ‘teach’ their young students to do the same.

Working-class people, on the other hand, have spent more time in the real world.  They’ve had a chance to get deprogrammed from their public school indoctrination.  That’s why it’s harder to fool the working-class.

When you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered’ the Economy you can’t Run on your Record

It’s election season.  Little more than a year to go before the 2012 election.  So candidate Obama is back.  Running like he wasn’t the president for the last 3 years or so.  Somehow trying to explain to his most loyal base that he’s made things better than his predecessor.  George W. Bush.

But he hasn’t.  However you measure it.  GDP.  Unemployment rate.  Consumer confidence.  Whatever.  And the kicker is that the cause for the Subprime Mortgage Crisis that started under Bush wasn’t caused by Bush.  Putting people into houses they couldn’t afford was a liberal Democrat policy.  So housing wasn’t exclusive to only those who could afford a house.  Policies the Obama administration favors.  And policies that they want to implement again.  Despite having just suffered the Subprime Mortgage Crisis because of those policies.  Why?  Because it gets you more votes at election time.

So when you’ve ‘Jimmy Cartered‘ the economy you can’t run on your record.  The best you can hope for is to paint your political opponent as being everything the slivers of your most loyal base hate.  Attack the rich.  And promise more free stuff to that 46% that doesn’t pay any federal income taxes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #76: “You know they’re governing against the will of the people when they play with the meaning of words to fool the people.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2011

When is a Spending Cut an Increase in Spending? 

I have a riddle for you.  When is a spending cut an increase in spending?  “Well, that’s when…, hey, wait minute,” you say.  “That’s not a riddle.  That’s a paradox.  It’s like saying draw a square circle.  Or a name an objective journalist.  You just can’t do these things.  Just as a ‘cut’ can’t be an ‘increase’.  They are the very opposite of each other.”

Yeah, you would think.  Not that much of a riddle, then, is it?  For a true riddle is solvable.  Or should be.  Like, say, I have two coins that add up to thirty cents.  One of them isn’t a nickel.  What are they?  You’re a bit stymied, aren’t you.  Because a quarter and a nickel are the only two coins that add up to thirty cents.  So what’s the answer?  A quarter and a nickel.  “But you said one of them wasn’t a nickel,” you say.  “Right,” I say.  “One of them isn’t a nickel.  But the other one is.”

Now that’s a riddle.  Clever.  But solvable.  So now back to my first riddle.  When is a spending cut an increase in spending?  The answer is when you use baseline budgeting.

The Power of Baseline Budgeting

Politicians lie.  And they love to spend our money.  Put the two together and what do you get?  Baseline budgeting.   Which in a nutshell is government spending on autopilot.  Next year’s spending is this year’s spending plus a little extra.  That ‘little extra’ is the amount in all budget negotiations. 

For example, let’s say there is an item in the budget with a billion dollar budget amount this year.  That’s the baseline.  That’s where we start budgeting for next year.  Next year’s budget will be one billion dollars plus or minus that ‘extra amount’.

Typically they set this ‘extra amount’ to be equal to or greater than the rate of inflation.  And/or changes in legislation for that budgetary item.  Let’s say there is no change in the program legislation.  And they set the program’s budget so that next year’s budget equals this year’s budget plus 10%.  So this budget item will be $1 billion this year.  And $1.1 billion next year.  Projecting this out for 10 years, this will automatically add $1.36 billion to this budgetary item.

In Baseline Budgeting a Spending Cut is an Increase in Spending

A couple of things should jump out at you.  For one you see why government programs never die.  Once they add them to the budget they stay in the budget.  And grow.  Always.  Forever.  And the bigger the starting budget amount the bigger the program will grow over time.  Again, automatically.  So you can see why baseline budgeting has been a godsend to Big Government.  It guarantees the growth of government.  Now.  And forever.

Now let’s look at a spending cut.  Let’s say spending is getting out of control.  Deficits are growing.  (As hard as that is to imagine.)  So there’s a budget deal to ‘cut’ the budget by 2%.  But this is a 2% cut in baseline budgeting.  So we’re not reducing the budget amount.  We’re only reducing the amount above the baseline.  Spending was going to increase 10% the following year.  But with this 2% cut, that 10% increase becomes only an 8% increase. 

This is where the language play comes in.  The budget is increased by 8%.  But in baseline budgeting it is a 2% decrease.  Instead of increasing the budget by $100 million, they only increase it by $80 million.  The budget is increased by $80 million but they count it as a $20 million cut.  Because future spending was cut $20 million.  So it’s a cut even though no spending was actually cut.  Spending still increases.  Just not as much as previously budgeted.  And that’s the wonderful world of baseline budgeting.  Where a spending cut increases spending.

The Government Shutdown of 1995 and 1996 

When CBO takes these projections out to 10 years it makes these spending ‘cuts’ look draconian.  As originally budgeted, this item would have been increased by $1.36 billion over 10 years.  Because of the reduction in the size of future spending, it will only increase $1 billion over 10 years.  But instead of calling this a $1 billion increase (which it is), they will call it a draconian cut of $359 million (which it isn’t).  Instead of saying this budget item will increase by 99.9% (which it will), they say it will be cut by 26.4% (which it obviously won’t).  Now politicians understand this baseline doublespeak.  But the average American doesn’t.  They hear ‘26.4%’ cut in some program for single mothers or hungry children and think what vicious, heartless bastards Republicans are.

And this was the stage for the government shutdown of 1995 and 1996Bill Clinton campaigned as a moderate in the 1992 presidential election.  After winning, though, he governed as a tax and spend liberal.  The people expressed their disapproval and gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the 1994 midterm electionsNewt Gingrich became Speaker of the House.  Gingrich and the Republicans saw their election as a mandate to stop the out of control government spending.  And that’s what they were trying to do in the budget battles beginning in 1995.

The Republicans were trying to reduce the rate of growth of government spending per the will of the people.  Spending would still increase.  But at a slower rate.  Clinton, though, fought against the will of the people.  Using baseline budgeting newspeak to mislead the people.  Clinton called these reductions in growth rates draconian spending cuts.  Even though there were no real cuts in spending.  But being a tax and spend liberal, he wasn’t about to cut the rate of growth.  So they squared off in budget battle.  It all came to a head when the government hit its borrowing limit.  The Republicans tried to get some spending cuts in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling.  Clinton refused.  Unable to pay its bills, the government shutdown.  And the United States collapsed.

Baseline Budgeting helps you Govern against the Will of the People

Not really.  Few people even noticed the shutdown.  Everyone still went to work.  Collected their pay (unless you worked in a national park).  And life went on.  Social Security checks went out.  Interest on the national debt was paid.  The credit rating on U.S. sovereign debt remained AAA.  So there was little damage.  Clinton came out okay from the crisis.  Newt Gingrich not so well.  Many believe that this helped Clinton’s reelection in 1996.  Of course a lot of that had to do with Dick Morris.  Who pulled Clinton to the center.  And became the moderate the people thought they elected.

Clinton may have won reelection, but he paid a price.   Republicans still held both houses of Congress.  Who ultimately won in the long-run.  Their Balanced Budget Act of 1997 did cut the growth rate of government spending.  And then the dot-com boom of the late Nineties produced a windfall of tax revenue that, with the ‘spending cuts’ of the Balanced Budget Act, actually balanced the budget.  For a few years.  But it turned out that the dot-com boom was actually a dot-com bubble.  Thanks to a lot of irrational exuberance.  And the bubble popped.  With the resulting recession tax revenue fell.  And those balanced budgets were no more.

Unwilling to concede to the will of the people, Clinton played with the meaning of words.  Called a spending increase a spending cut.  Because he knew the average American didn’t understand baseline budgeting.  And politicians continue to this day scaring people about draconian spending cuts where there are no spending cuts.  Not in the world of baseline budgeting.  Which makes it easy for them to continue to govern against the will of the people.  As they continue to do.  As they always have done.  Because nothing is more important than growing government.  And spending as much of our money as possible before we get a chance to spend it ourselves.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #76: “You know they’re governing against the will of the people when they play with the meaning of words to fool the people.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 26th, 2011

The More they Trust You the Easier it is to Lie to Them

People lie for one reason.  They don’t want you to hear the truth. Sometimes it’s done with good intentions.  “No, those jeans don’t make your butt look big.”  Most times it’s not.  “I am not having an affair.  And I can explain those earrings you found in the backseat.  And the underwear that’s not yours.  Just give me a minute.”

The truth about lying is the truth.  And someone’s attempt to hide it.  A husband doesn’t tell his wife about an affair.  Because he doesn’t want his wife to know about the affair.  For a variety of reasons.  But mostly so he can keep having the affair.

And this is why people lie.  To continue doing something they couldn’t otherwise do.  By misleading those people who know them.  Who love them.  Who trust them.  And the funny thing is, the more they trust you the easier it is to lie to them.  “Look, honey, I didn’t want to say anything before.  But the rumor at work was that John and Mary were having an affair.  I didn’t believe it at first.  I mean, they’re both married.  And they’re more than just my coworkers.  They’re my friends.  Then one day John had to borrow my car.  So I lent it to him.  The next thing Bill tells me is that he sees John and Mary in my car turning into an alley.  Guess I know what they were doing in that alley.”

See?  Easy.

Good Lying is about Creative Language and Class Warfare

So if you’re into lying it’s best to get yourself into a position where lots of people trust you.  Like elected office.  Because for some reason people tend to trust anyone in government.  Far more than those evil greedy people in corporate America.  Or rich people in general.  Even though it’s a given that politicians lie.  It is an interesting dynamic.  How this inherently dishonest institution is trusted first then questioned about their honesty later.  Long after the scandals that follow them.  So how do they do it?  How do these liars get to be so trusted?

It’s all about creative language.  And class warfare.  You need to get people to hate each other.  And then you stoke those passions.  Keep them burning hot.  So they feel more than think.  For the less they think the more they’ll fall for your soaring rhetoric.  You say the rich should pay their fair share (even though they pay a disproportionate high percentage of taxes).  And that rich CEOs shouldn’t get tax breaks to fly around in their private jets (even though they use them for legitimate business purposes).  You cast yourself as the protector of the little guy against rich and corporate interests.  Even though you’re anything but.  But that’s how it’s done.  And no one does it better than liberal Democrats.

For they are the king of liars.  Ivy League educated.  Arrogant.  Pompous.  Filled with an air of all-knowing condescension.  They just brim with loathing and self-confidence.  They loath you and I who are not their equals.  And they believe that there is nothing that they can’t do.  And what do they want to do?  Tax and spend.  Control the economy.  And tell us how we should live.  In the enlightened world they envision.  Of course, this has not proven to be a successful political platform.  People don’t want to elect people like this.  So they lie about what they want.  And who they are.  With a creative use of language.

Twisting the Meanings of Words

No one likes paying taxes.  No one will vote for someone who says they’re going to raise their taxes.  Which is a bit of a problem for a tax and spend liberal.  So they don’t use the ‘T’ word.  No.  Instead, taxes are called ‘contributions’.  Or simply ‘revenue’.  Because contributions sound voluntary.  And revenue sounds kind of warm and fuzzy.  In the business world, raising revenue is a good thing.  And they hate taxes in the business world.  Just like you.  So you feel less threatened about talks to raise revenue than you do about talks to raise taxes.  Even though they are the same thing.

With ever growing deficits, some people are growing a little skittish about excessive government spending.  At least, the people paying the taxes.  Those people with jobs.  They don’t want to pay more in taxes.  And they’re getting a little nervous about the huge federal debt.  So the responsible side in them tells them to say ‘no’ to more spending.  So the tax and spend liberal uses the word ‘investment’ instead.  They say we need to invest in infrastructure to rebuild our aging roads and bridges (even though gasoline taxes already pay for this work).  That we need to invest in education and research to keep America on the forefront of technology (even though we already spend a fortune on these already).  Investing in our future?  Well, yes, that sounds good.  And perhaps we should.  So we agree not to cut these investments.  But we’ll still resist excessive government spending.  Even though these are the same thing.

You see, the tax and spend liberal looks at the economy differently.  They see all money belonging to them.  Including ours.  They let us work.  Earn a paycheck.  But your net pay is only the portion of their money they begrudgingly let you keep.  In fact, what they don’t tax away from you they call government spending.  Or tax expenditures.  They’ll say things like, “We can’t afford to pay for these tax cuts.”  Of course, you don’t pay for ‘tax cuts’.  A tax cut is when the rightful owner of the money gets to keep it.  Instead of the government taking it away.  But calling this ‘government spending’ makes it easier to cut.  For cutting spending is a responsible thing to do.  But when they cut this spending they are actually raising taxes.  Clever, eh?  Talk about twisting the meaning of words.

Here are some other words and phrases they use and their translation:

  • Bipartisan = Republicans giving Democrats everything they want
  • Compromise = see bipartisan
  • Future spending cuts = no spending cuts
  • A balanced budget approach = higher taxes now and future spending cuts later (see future spending cuts above)
  • Get serious about deficit reduction = increase both spending and taxes
  • Blue ribbon panel/special commission = where you place an issue that you’re afraid to address
  • Failed policies of the past = the very successful policies of Reaganomics
  • Radical right wing = any Republican that doesn’t vote for more Democrat spending

 Republicans have Less to Hide

Liberal Democrats lie because no one wants what they’re selling.  But because they’re so much smarter than we are they’ve come up with a way to fool us.  By lying.  And using Orwellian language.  To make us accept things that we would normally not accept.

Just look at their campaigns.  And their language.  They campaign as moderates.  Then govern as liberals.  They want to raise our taxes.  But they don’t tell us that they want to raise our taxes.  Why?  Because taxpayers don’t share their Orwellian vision.  For if the people believed as they believed they would be honest.  But they don’t.  So they are less than honest.

Republicans, on the other hand, call ‘tax cuts’ tax cuts.  And ‘tax hikes’ tax hikes.  They run as conservatives.  And govern as conservatives.  Until they’re corrupted by Washington, at least.  But based on language usage alone even the most partisan hack would have to admit that the Republicans have less to hide.  And, therefore, govern more according to the will of the people.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only Obama can make the U.S. Default on its Debt Obligations

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2011

$172.4 Billion is a lot of Money

Still no closer to a budget agreement to raise the debt limit.  Obama wants more taxes and more borrowing.  The Republicans want a little fiscal sanity.  Because something is definitely wrong in Washington when $172.4 billion a month isn’t enough (see August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury’s Limited Choices by David Rapp posted 7/12/2011 on Bloomberg Government).

The U.S. government, whose legal authority to borrow money expires on or about Aug. 2, expects to take in $172.4 billion next month — enough to cover little more than half of its bills due then, according to a study for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a research organization.

The U.S. may not have to default on outstanding debts or withhold interest payments for that month; it may be able to cover $29 billion in anticipated interest due on Treasury securities with its cash receipts…

Jay Powell, undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, calculated for the policy center that $306.7 billion in bills will come due after Aug. 2. They include Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments and military active duty pay, along with federal pay for every department and agency, in addition to the interest payments.

I think we’re missing the bigger picture here.  The government collects $172.4 billion but spends $306.7 billion.  That is, for every dollar it collects it spends $1.78.  In other words, the government’s spending is 78% over their cash budget.  Managers in the corporate world get fired for performances like this. 

That is either a big spending problem.  Or a big revenue problem.  So are taxes too low?  I don’t think so.  I mean, $172,400,000,000 is a lot of money.  How much?  It’ll buy 542 of the new Boeing 747-8 jetliners.  Or 149 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums.  Or 27 nuclear powered aircraft carriers.  It’ll even pay for the Apollo moon program with $41.3 billion left over.  $172.4 billion is an enormous amount of money.  You couldn’t spend this much money if you tried.  Even if you bought the best houses, cars, jewelry, clothes, island, etc.  And if you had the mother of all drug addictions.  It’s just a staggering amount of money.  And if you’re collecting in taxes more money than the cost of the Apollo moon program each month, guess what?  You don’t have a revenue problem.  You have a spending problem.

Bloomberg has a nifty little calculator on their website.  You can put checks on the things you want to pay.  And leave the things you don’t unchecked.  It’s an interesting list of bills coming due this month.  There’s a lot of stuff we can cut easily to save $47.1 billion.  Federal salaries & benefits ($14.2 billion).  Small Business Administration ($0.3 billion).  Education Department ($20.2 billion).  Department of Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion).  Energy Department ($3.5 billion).  Labor Department ($1.3 billion).  Environmental Protection Agency ($0.9 billion).  What taxpayer would miss any of these?  Cuts to Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, will be a little more difficult.  For they actually do something.  And people will miss them.

Incidentally, interest on the debt is $29 billion.  Though a lot of money, it’s not too high for the $172.4 billion to cover.  So if the Obama administration doesn’t pay this and causes a downgrade in our credit rating, President Obama will have some ‘splaining to do.

Monthly Spending Equivalent to 1.3 Apollo Programs should be Enough

The president has no intention of cutting spending.  Their goal is to make Republicans look bad.  And to better position themselves for the 2012 election.  So the president will lie and spin misinformation in hopes that this stuff is just too complicated for the layperson to follow.  And that they only remember one thing.  That Republicans stopped Social Security checks going out because they’d rather give tax breaks to the rich.  And that they miss the fact that Obama and his Democrats gave us this crisis to begin with.  With the greatest spending orgy of any peacetime president.  So he threatens that if the Republicans don’t pay for his reckless spending, he’s going to tell everyone it’s their fault that the country defaulted (see Obama: Chance for ‘something big’ to calm economy by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, posted 7/15/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Obama urged Republican lawmakers to make tough calls, too. He attempted to turn their opposition to any tax increases back against them, warning that a government default caused by failure to raise the debt ceiling would increase interest rates, “effectively a tax increase for everybody.”

No, a failure to raise the debt ceiling won’t cause a government default.  Barack Obama will.  If and when he decides to pay something he thinks is more important than the interest on the debt.

Obama sternly rejected any plan of that size that did not include increases in tax revenue.

Apparently spending the equivalent of 1.3 Apollo programs a month just isn’t enough.  Obama gives new meaning to tax and spend liberal.  Pity Ted Kennedy didn’t live long enough to work with his kind of liberal in the White House.  Or see his pet cause, national health care, signed into law.  Then they both could have seen their policies destroy this country.  Don’t believe me?

Spending/Debt so bad it’s bringing back the Gold Standard

Then ask the Chinese communists.  Though their economy is rife with cronyism and will no doubt collapse as the Japanese economy did in the Nineties, they know too much debt when they see it (see Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels by James Quinn and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard posted 7/16/2011 on The Telegraph).

Xia Bin, an adviser to China’s central bank, said in June that the country’s reserve strategy needs an “urgent” overhaul. Instead of buying paper IOU’s from a prostrate West, China should invest in strategic assets and accumulate gold by “buying the dips”.

Step by step, the world is edging towards a revived Gold Standard as it becomes clearer that Japan and the West have reached debt saturation. World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said it was time to “consider employing gold as an international reference point.” The Swiss parliament is to hold hearings on a parallel “Gold Franc”. Utah has recognised gold as legal tender for tax payments.

A new Gold Standard would probably be based on a variant of the ‘Bancor’ proposed by Keynes in the late 1940s. This was a basket of 30 commodities intended to be less deflationary than pure gold, which had compounded in the Great Depression. The idea was revived by China’s central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan two years ago as a way of curbing the “credit-based” excess.

So the Chinese, the World Bank, the Swiss, Utahans and a dead John Maynard Keynes agree that the U.S. has a spending problem.  A spending problem that is racking up debt to saturation.  So bad that the once invincible U.S. dollar should no longer serve as the world’s reserve currency.  A sad development indeed.  And painful to hear.  Especially coming from a commie.

Tax Hikes First, then Broken Spending Cuts Promises

And yet the president is in denial.  He doesn’t see a spending/debt problem.  He sees a revenue problem.  Because high taxes and high debt are okay in his world.  As long as they pay for liberal government spending.  That’s why he’s dead set against spending cuts only.  He wants those tax hikes.  He needs those tax hikes.  And will promise almost anything to get those tax hikes.  Because once he does, and mark these words well, he will break every spending cuts promise he made to get them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Battle to Raise the Debt Limit Begins

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 11th, 2011

Like Sumter, the Budget Compromise is only the Beginning

The next big congressional battle will be over the debt ceiling.  Which will set the stage for entitlement reform.  And being that this is the sesquicentennial of the opening shot of the Civil War, how about a little Civil War analogy?  About 150 years ago today General Beauregard ordered his canon to open fire on Fort Sumter.  The Union surrendered the fort.  There were about 10 casualties.

The first major land battle of the Civil War was the First Battle of Bull Run (aka, the First Battle of Manassas).  The military then still used Napoleonic tactics.  Armies formed in line, fired and advanced with bayonets amidst cannon fire, drums and regimental colors.  It was quite the spectacle.  The good people of Washington DC planned to make a picnic of it.  They would watch a couple of musket volleys and charges, see one army retire from the field of battle and then go home.  The battle did not progress quite that way.

Though we were still using Napoleonic tactics, we were not using Napoleonic smooth bore muskets any longer.  The effective range of the new rifled muskets was almost three times that of the smooth bores.  So as these men marched to close ranks with the enemy with their bayonets at the ready, the enemy fired accurate volleys into their lines.  The picnickers were shocked by the carnage.   When the Union Army was driven from the field of battle, the roads back to Washington were jammed with picnickers and soldiers alike fleeing for their lives.  There were just under 5,000 total casualties.  A pall hung over the nation.  No one expected the war to be this bad.  Then, about 9 months later, the Battle of Shiloh (aka, the Battle of Pittsburg Landing) saw just over 23,000 total casualties in two days of fighting.  Three months later, the Battle of Antietam (aka, the Battle of Sharpsburg) saw just over 22,000 casualties in a single day of fighting.  About a year later the Battle of Gettysburg saw close to 50,000 in total casualties over three days.

Now comparing political debates with Civil War battles dishonors those who fought those battles.  But because it’s the sesquicentennial, I will do so just for history’s sake.  Besides, politicians like to use war metaphors all of the time.  Even those opposed to the military.  The budget deal recently passed is like the Battle of Fort Sumter.  The battle over the debt ceiling will be like the Battle of Shiloh.  And entitlement reform will be like the three days of Gettysburg.  In other words, though they act like they just went to hell and back over this budget compromise, they ain’t seen nothing yet.

You Fix a Spending Problem by Spending Less, not More

House Speaker John Boehner pulled off a miracle of compromise.  Or some are saying.  While others are saying he caved (see John Boehner’s real tea party test by Chris Cillizza posted 4/11/2011 on The Washington Post).

House Speaker John Boehner is being widely credited as having emerged victorious from last week’s budget showdown — receiving kudos for extracting nearly $40 billion in budget cuts and uniting a fractious tea party behind the compromise bill.

But, the real test of Boehner’s abilities as a party leader will come next month when Congress begins debate on raising the federal debt ceiling.

Because of a fractious Republican Party.  The Tea Party wants serious cuts.  Because that’s why they got elected.  Meanwhile, the old guard doesn’t.  They may disagree with the liberals in theory but they want to be part of the same Washington establishment.  The liberals have the best parties.  With the best celebrities.  And the old guard wants to enjoy that life.

On this issue, at least, the American people side with the Tea Party.

In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released last week, just 16 percent of people said the government should raise the ceiling while 46 percent opposed the idea and 38 percent said they didn’t know enough about it to offer an opinion.

Probing deeper, just 32 percent agreed with the statement that the debt limit increase was necessary to avoid the country being “unable to pay the nation’s bills” while 62 percent said that [they] agreed with the statement that such a vote would “make it harder to get the government’s financiaol [sic] house in order”.

Some may not understand the intricacies of the federal budget.  But they do seem to know that when you have a spending problem, you don’t solve it by asking the credit card companies to raise your credit limit.  People know that you fix a spending problem by spending less.  Not more.

But, judging from the concessions people like Rubio have laid out for a deal to be done — tax reform, regulatory reform, a balanced-budget amendment and entitlement reform — it’s hard to imagine the White House being able to give enough to make that sort of compromise possible.

And, all of that means that the burden will presumably be on Boehner to cut a deal that can garner 218 votes in the House while also avoiding a potential filibuster in the Senate from the likes of Rubio or South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.

President Obama is a tax and spend liberal.  He’s not going to cede any ground on big cuts.  So Boehner will have to see how little in cuts the Tea Party will accept to vote to increase the debt ceiling.  And that will be a tough sell.  Because they want meaningful cuts.  But that’s something a tax and spend liberal just can’t do.

So as the nation is jubilant over the budget compromise that kept the federal government open, a longer, more bitter and far more partisan battle awaits them.  Which means the sides will entrench.  They will refuse to give ground.  And the compromise we’ll probably get will be similar to the many ones reached over slavery.  Which made the ultimate day of reckoning on that issue far more costly than anyone had ever imagined.

A History of Kicking the can down the Road

With sesquicentennial fever in the air, a 4th grade teacher tries to bring to life the issue that caused the nation to go to war (see Va. teacher holds mock slave auction by Kevin Sieff posted 4/33/2011 on The Washington Post).

Trying to bring a Civil War history lesson to life, [a] teacher…turned her fourth grade Norfolk classroom into a slave auction: She ordered black and mixed race students to one side of the classroom. Then, the white students took turns buying them…

Sewells Point’s fourth grade class is about 40 percent black and 40 percent white.

Though an interesting experiment, she unfortunately made it purely a racial issue.  Which is historically wrong.  There were a lot of whites in the south.  But only a few of them owned the big plantations where the majority of slavery existed.  She should have had only a few of the white children buying slaves.  And she should have identified them as the rich planter elite.  Who was also the driving force behind southern politics.  The other whites should have been identified as poor southerners working on small family farms without any slaves.

Then she could have pointed to the planter elite and said their wealth and political power depended on slavery.  Because all that cotton wasn’t going to pick itself.  Which is why they cited the North’s hostile attitude toward the institution of slavery in their secession documents.  They told everyone else it was about states’ rights.  But it wasn’t.  For the planter elite didn’t respect states’ rights in the North.  The North didn’t want to return fugitive slaves.  So the planter elite demanded the federal government pass the Fugitive Slave Act to override states’ rights in the North.  And force them to return their slaves. 

The debate over slavery was always controversial.  The Southern economy was entrenched in it.  The only way they’d join the Union was with their slaves.  So the issue was tabled for 20 years.  The Founding Fathers hoped the institution would just go away.  And it might have.  If it hadn’t been for Eli Whitney‘s cotton gin.  Because of the amount of cotton it could process, the southern plantations grew.  As did the number of slaves.  And the problem just continued to grow.  The cost to reimburse the plantation owners for the slaves they purchased legally grew too great to even consider.  The North didn’t want to pay that cost.  Slavery was a Southern problem.  And the slave population grew so large that no one wanted to address a post-slavery biracial society.  Because there were none then.  But there were slave uprisings.  And the South feared that a freed slave may try to exact a little revenge on their former master.  So the problem was kicked down the road for someone else to solve.  Until it couldn’t be kicked anymore.

This is where we are in our budget debate.  We’ve kicked that can down the road so many times that federal spending has grown out of control.  Now we’re entering European sovereign debt crisis territory.  And we’ve seen what has happened over there.  It’s a little different over here, though.  Germany and the other financially strong members of the European Union can bail out a Greece, an Ireland, a Portugal, etc.  But who is going to bail out the world’s largest economy?  Don’t spend too much time on that question.  Because there isn’t anyone big enough to bail us out.

Unfortunately, you win Elections with Spending, not with Spending Cuts

History often shows us that the longer we wait to address a problem, the harder and more costly it is to fix that problem.  And yet here we are.  With far too many people in Washington willing to just keep kicking that can down the road.

Interestingly, two who support raising the debt ceiling now were dead set against it at an earlier time.  When George W. Bush was in the White House.  Of course, then Senator Barack Obama was playing pure partisan politics and attacked George W. Bush on everything.  He regrets that vote now.  Because his hypocrisy makes him look partisan and naïve.  Harry Reid also had a hypocritical partisan position on this issue.  Bush spent irresponsibly and it was wrong to raise the debt ceiling.  Obama has spent even more in less time.  But now raising the debt ceiling is the right thing to do.  Go figure.

That recent budget compromise?  It was but a minor skirmish in a long war to come.  And though there was a lot of nasty political rhetoric, the battles to come won’t be as nice.  The Republicans will try to make meaningful cuts.  And Democrats will say that they just want to kill women, children and the elderly.  Knowing full well that the cuts being requested by the Republicans are necessary.  But you don’t win elections with cuts.  You win them by spending money.  So they will resist those cuts.  And try their damnedest to kick this can down the road.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax and Spend and Raise Your Taxes: The Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 7th, 2010

Fiscal Extortion Responsibility:  Approve Our Millage to Raise Your Taxes or Else

Whenever the government wants to raise your taxes, they use fear.  What does the typical family in suburbia hear?  “If the city doesn’t get this millage approved, the city will have no choice but to lay off police officers and fire fighters.”  It’s never, “If we don’t get this millage approved, the city will have to cut pay and benefits of our bloated and overpaid city bureaucracy.  Or lay off some of the deadwood.”  No.  It’s always the cops and the fire fighters.  Because it’s more scary.  Mothers worry about the safety of their children.  And will do anything for them.  Even pay more taxes.  If it was anyone else talking like this, we’d call it extortion.  But when our government shakes us down for protection money, they call it fiscal responsibility.

The federal government works much in the same way.  Of course, there are no federal police officers or fire fighters protecting our communities day in and day out.  So they go for the jugular.  That third rail.  Social Security.  When the White House and Capitol Hill were staring each other off into a government shutdown in the 1990s, what did Bill Clinton do?  He threatened Social Security (see GOP to Use Debt Cap to Push Spending Cuts by Damian Paletta posted on The Wall Street Journal).

Eventually, the debt ceiling was raised, but only after a brief government shutdown and warnings from the Clinton administration that the government might temporarily stop mailing Social Security checks.

One thing not on the table was lawmaker pay and benefits.  Little old ladies would lose their Social Security checks before they would ever let that happen.  Fast forward to today.  Federal deficits and the debt have never been higher.  In the discussion of spending cuts, that discussion included the other third rail of politics.  Lawmaker pay and benefits.  There’s talk now about cutting their pay.  Of course, that will never happen.  Even though they could afford it (see Boehner under fire: First cut should be lawmakers’ salaries by Jordy Yager posted on The Hill).

Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year.

And this doesn’t include any of their benefits or graft.  How does this make you feel?  These are the people that are bankrupting our country.  Destroying our jobs with their anti-business policies.  And forcing us to get by on less.  While they live the good life.  Yes, let’s cut their pay.  If we slash it by $100,000, they’d still be making more than the majority of their constituents.  Something just wrong with that.  Our servants living better than us.

President Obama:  Typical Tax and Spend Liberal Who Hates Tax Cuts

With the loss of the House in the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama’s FDR/LBJ spending has hit a snag.  Nancy Pelosi is not there to rubberstamp his ultra-left liberal agenda.  In fact, the new House leadership is talking about repealing some of that ultra-left liberal legislation to reduce that projected annual deficit of $4,125 billion (see Barack Obama Outspends George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan Combined from this same website). 

Front and center in this debate are the George W. Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire at the end of this year.  And all of a sudden, President Obama is concerned about deficit spending (see Obama calls for compromise, won’t budge on tax cuts by Kevin Cullum posted on The Hill).

“At a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, I don’t see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the Bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans,” the president said. “We’d be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children.”

Oh, he’s concerned now.  He wasn’t with his bailouts to help fund union pensions.  Or the biggest explosion in federal spending ever.  The trillion dollar+ per annum Obamacare.  But he’s being a little devious here.  Earlier, he said that $700 billion cost of the Bush tax cuts was over ten years (see the above link to this same website).  That comes to $70 billion annually.  Compared that to his projected $4,125 billion annual deficit and he loses all credibility.  He doesn’t care about $4,125 billion in deficit spending but will put his foot down about a paltry annual $70 billion in tax savings.  Why?  He’s a tax and spend liberal.  Any spending (other than defense) is okay.  But any tax cut is simply irresponsible.

We Rejected Obama’s Ultra-Left Liberal Agenda on Tuesday

The message on Tuesday was that the people have rejected Obama’s ultra-left liberal agenda.  America is a center-right country.  That center-right is made up of conservatives, moderates and independents.  Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, belong to that far left minority called liberal.  The clear message is that the 80% rejected the 20%.  Of course, Obama sees it differently. 

The president said that the “message was clear” from voters on Election Day, and that he was also “frustrated” by the sluggish pace of economic recovery. “You’re fed up with partisan politics and want results,” Obama said. “I do too.”

No, we’re not upset that Democrats and Republicans weren’t working together.  We were upset that the liberal Democrats used their majority in Congress to govern against the will of the people.  That is the true message.  It wasn’t the partisanship that bothered us.  It was the lack of it to stop the far-left liberal agenda that did.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,