Tag Archives: deficit

For the millionth time, Social Security adds to the deficit

 

In a bit of new old news, Social Security adds to the federal deficit.  This non-shocking piece of news continues to be either ignored or underreported since the political class is petrified of having the geriatric brigade occupying the front lawns of their homes.  The current unfunded liability of Social Security is $8.6 trillion over the next 75 years.  It adds $165 billion to the budget deficit. This is all due to the payroll tac cut, a dismal economy, and an incremental number of Americans entering retirement age.  So, the real question, which has been asked 576432 times, is when will we do something about this.

When Social Security was instituted the average time between retirement and death was two years.  With advancements in medical fields and pharmacology, we have been able to increase American life, and retirement age, by two decades.  If such developments were factored into the methodology of how benefits were distributed – and on an incremental scale – then this wouldn’t have been such an issue.  That is the pain would have been felt to a lesser degree.

However, Democrats aren’t going to budge.  Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise institute and former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administrationwrote on Real Clear Markets on October 3 that “in late September, 29 Senate Democrats signed a letter opposing Social Security benefit cuts, for either current or future retirees, as part of any budget deal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, ‘Social Security has contributed not a single penny to the deficit. So we can talk about entitlements as long as you eliminate Social Security.’ The AARP is nine cents less hardline, with CEO Barry Rand merely claiming, ‘The fact is, Americans pay for Social Security, and it hasn’t added one dime to the deficit.’

Concerning the AARP claims, Biggs wrote that:

Budget wonks use two main measures of the budget deficit: the “on-budget” balance, which includes everything except Social Security and the postal service, and the “unified budget,” which merges the on- and off-budgets together. If, for example, the on-budget was running a deficit of $100 billion while the off-budget ran a surplus of $100 billion, the unified budget would be in balance.

The unified budget approach is by far the most common for both budget wonks and the media. As a 2005 AARP policy analysis stated, “The [Congressional Budget Office], the U.S. General Accounting Office, and other agencies that produce budget documents and analyses think that the unified budget concept gives the most complete picture of total federal revenues, spending, surpluses, and deficits.” When you read that the Obama White House projects a 2013 budget deficit of $901 billion, that’s the unified budget deficit they’re referring to.

And on a unified budget basis, when Social Security’s financial position worsens the budget deficit grows. Social Security today contributes about $53 billion to the budget deficit-$165 billion if we include the temporary payroll tax cut designed to stimulate the economy-rising to $100 billion by 2020 and never looking back. It’s as simple as that. Is Social Security the main driver of today’s $1.3 trillion unified budget deficit? Of course not, and no one said it is. But it’s not pennies or dimes either, as the left would have you believe.

By the way, AARP is the lobbying group that swindled the taxpayers out of $2.8 billion dollars and blocked health care reforms that would’ve save their members $415 in premiums.  Stay classy folks.

However, for the executive leadership at the AARP and the Democratic Party, it’s time to face facts.  It’s not 1940.  A time where there was 42 workers for every retiree.  Now, it’s a paltry 3.1 worker per retiree.  By 2030, when all the baby boomers are retired, it’ll be 2.1 workers per retiree.  As George Will noted in a lecture at the U.S. Naval War College in Providence Rhode Island in February of 2011, those numbers, especially the 2030 figure, is based on the assumption that our country will maintain a healthy level of immigration – both legal and illegal.  Today, tomorrow, and every day for the next two decades 10,000 baby boomers will became eligible to receive Social Security and Medicare  benefits in their respective states.  The population that is classified as “very elderly,” people who are 85 or older, are the fastest growing demographic in the country  as a percentage of the population.  That also spells trouble for Medicare, but that’s a different story.

Biggs wrote that “in the end, Social Security is similar to other federal programs-the government collects money in a given year and it pays it out the same year… Congress shouldn’t change Social Security rules precipitously -after all, older Americans have made their retirement plans and reform shouldn’t pull the rug out from under them. But most reforms would be implemented only gradually.”

We can start by raising the retirement age to at least 69 and, as George Will has advocated, “change the indexation of benefits from wages to inflation and half of the unfunded liability disappears.”

Voices Without A Vote

These are the voices of our future.

Their future hangs in the balance.

They can’t vote. But you can.

Liberty is never more than one generation from extinction. And they are that generation!

YouTube Description:

The teenagers who speak in this video belong to http://www.im2moro.org. These young people realize that if they don’t stand up and speak out for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness today, they will be living in a very different America tomorrow.

ObamaStamp: The Rising Food Stamp Crisis

As unemployment continues to rise, which has held steady above 8 percent during most of President Obama’s term.  While consumers are spending more of their shrinking income on food, gas, and energy that also continue to rise, the government continues to increase their food stamp dependency.  This temporary safety net created by the government, continues to be a lifestyle for many Americans. In addition to the economy continuing to flounder, and teeter on the edge of another recession, the government continues to support millions of Americans through what is suppose to be temporary safety net programs.  The participation rate of the food stamp program increased by 3.3 percent in June, which is higher than it was over a year ago at this time, increasing the total number of participants to 46.7 Americans.

Bloomberg is reporting;

Food-stamp spending, which more than doubled in four years to a record $75.7 billion in the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2011, is the U.S. Department of Agriulture’s biggest annual expense.

The increase in the usage of food stamps during the Obama Presidency has been criticized by republicans, and specifically that famous quote from Newt Gingrich, “food stamp president” which he used in a debate during the republican presidential primary.  Republicans continue to hammer President Obama over his massive deficit and debt, which is set to top 16 trillion dollars during the Democratic National Convention.  In addition to the republicans stressing the importance of reducing spending, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are also on the campaign trail telling the American people how important it is to reform Medicare in order to save it for those who are currently on it, and those will will receive the benefits in a decade from now.

However, the opposition party, the Democrats, have suggested during the Obama presidency that President Obama has done a great job handling the economy that he was “handed.”  Democrats have also said that the stimulus package that was passed in 2009, was not large enough and that is why the economy is still growing at such an anemic rate.  On Sunday, President Obama’s surrogates were on the talks shows, stressing the importance of the job growth that President Obama has done, and that without his leadership the economy would be in a much worse situation than it current is, if it was not for his choice decisions.  Democrats also believe that one reason why there are so many Americans on the food stamp and welfare programs, is because of the past “failed” policies that the republicans used, and are currently offering to move the country in.

Bloomberg has also reported that;

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke is betting the new U.S. economy is the same as the old one as he lays out arguments for more stimulus to revive it.

One thing is clear, both parties agree that 8.3% unemployment is unacceptable.  23 million Americans unemployed and under-employed is something that both parties are completely happy with.  The current economic situation frustrates both republicans and democrats and each party realizes they must deal with.  This election cycle is about a choice, and both parties believe that their economic policies will be the best choice for America.  November 7th 2012, will be tell us which party the American people agree with, but for now, there are still many Americans without jobs, and living off of the government support systems.  The problem remains many Americans are hurting and America’s national debt is now over 16 trillion dollars and climbing, and America is still looking for an answer to the fiscal crisis at hand, and America will make that choice November 6th 2012.

 

 

Why the Federal Debt and Deficit Matter

In 2007 while he was campaigning for President, Barack Obama called George W. Bush irresponsible and un-patriotic for adding $4,000,000,000,000.00 to the US debt during his eight years in office.

President Obama was correct in his estimation. That has not prevented him, however, from increasing the debt by $5,000,000,000,000.00 in less than half the time it took George W. Bush.

Why does it matter? Why all the gloom and doom about ever increasing debt and deficits? The government can just print more money, so why does it matter?

The problem goes to the definition of the word inflation.

in·fla·tion
   [in-fley-shuhn] noun
1. Economics . a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency ( opposed to deflation).

By definition, increasing the money supply (printing money, now called quantitative easing) is inflation. It is inflating the money supply. Anytime the money supply is increased, the value of each dollar is lessened, causing prices to increase.

Suppose instead of dollars, we traded in slices of pizza. You get paid at the end of the week in slices, and when you go to buy gas at the service station, you pay with slices of pizza.

Now consider the term value. Suppose the value of a whole pizza cut into six slices is what a tank of gasoline costs for your car.




= One tank of gas






All of the sudden, suppose the government decides that pizzas will be now cut into eight slices instead of six. You get paid in slices, remember, not pizzas. The value of things has not changed, however. A tank of gas still costs a whole pie, meaning you now have to earn two more slices to fill up your tank.





= One tank of gas

Each slice is smaller now, and buys less. This also means that if you have loaned the government pizza slices, by buying treasury bonds, the slices you get back when you cash in your bonds are worth less than the ones you lent them. With interest rates kept artificially low, as they are now, it may even mean that the slices you get back including interest will buy less than the slices you lent them.

Since the dollar is no longer tied to anything of physical value, like gold, its value is purely arbitrary. It depends only on the total number of dollars in circulation. As our government continues to spend money it doesn’t have, it has to borrow the difference, either by selling treasury bonds to it’s citizens, to other countries or to the federal reserve. In order for the federal reserve to purchase enough debt to keep the country going without interest rates going up and greatly increasing taxes on everyone, it has to print more money. At some point, price inflation will start to increase rapidly, what is known as hyperinflation. Prices will skyrocket as in the case of Brazil in the early 1990’s. At its peak, Brazil’s inflation rate was somewhere around 4,000%.

In America, we are already seeing prices on food and energy rise rapidly. There is no question that a fair portion of the rise in energy prices is due to the decreasing value of the dollar. As energy prices rise so does the cost of everything else, especially food.

This relation to quantitative easing (printing money) and price inflation can be illustrated quite easily by comparing the value of silver to the value of gasoline. In 1907 an ounce of silver would buy about 3 gallons of gasoline. In 1984 gasoline was about $1.20 per gallon and silver sold for about $8.14 per ounce meaning that 1 ounce of silver would buy about 6.8 gallons of gas. Today gasoline sells for about $3.83 per gallon and silver for $30.27 per ounce meaning that 1 ounce of silver today will buy 7.9 gallons of gas.

By the gasoline example we see that if silver were used as money, the cost of a gallon of gas today would actually be less than HALF of what it cost in 1907!

In a report titled “The Realities of Modern Hyperinflation” produced by the International Monetary Fund, authors Carmen M . Reinhart and Miguel A. Savastano point out;

“Chronic high inflation does not necessarily degenerate into hyperinflation. But, in the five countries reviewed here, hyperinflation did ensue, triggered by an uncontrolled expansion in the money supply that was fueled by endemic fiscal imbalances.”

One of the reasons for Ron Paul’s insistence on a return to sound money is to avoid a hyperinflation cycle brought about by an ever expanding money supply. If we continue to spend money that we do not have at the federal level, we are headed for exactly the kind of hyperinflation which is devastating to the poor and middle class. Simply taxing the rich will not fix our debt and deficit problem. The rich only have enough money to keep our government spending at its voracious rate for several months at best, even if we confiscate ALL their money.

Currently all revenue the federal government receives is spent on mandatory programs, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare and debt service. All discretionary spending including defense, is borrowed money. If we do not deal with the entitlement programs we are doomed to an inflationary spiral that will quickly spin out of control.

The IMF report leaves us with seven lessons to remember about hyperinflation.

Policymakers would do well to bear in mind the seven lessons that emerge from this overview of modern hyperinflations.

1. Hyperinflations seldom materialize overnight and are usually preceded by a protracted period of high and variable inflation.
2. Stabilization may take years if fiscal policies are not adjusted appropriately. Even when fiscal adjustment is implemented, it takes time to achieve low inflation, especially when money is used as the nominal anchor.
3. Sharp reductions in fiscal deficits are always a critical element of a stabilization program, regardless of the choice of monetary anchor.
4. Unifying exchange markets and establishing currency convertibility are often essential ingredients of stabilization, irrespective of the choice of main nominal anchor.
5. Output collapses during, and sometimes in the run-up to, hyperinflation. Although stabilization measures cap the implosion in economic activity, there is little evidence to suggest that they kindle a robust rebound in economic activity.
6. Hyperinflations are accompanied by an abrupt reduction in financial intermediation.
7. Stopping a hyperinflation does not restore demand for domestic money and domestic currency assets to the levels that prevailed before the hyperinflation began. Capital returns to the country when high inflation stops, but dollarization and other forms of indexation dominate financial intermediation for many years.

Paul Ryan’s Defense Of 2008-2009 Votes

One of the big questions since Mitt Romney selected Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan as is running mate is whether it would bring in small government conservatives and libertarians on the Romney bandwagon. Ryan is well-liked by people due to his “Roadmap For America’s Future” and his 2009 verbal destruction of Obamacare to the President’s face.

There are still a few questions regarding Ryan’s voting record in the House. He supported TARP, the auto bailout and the taxes on AIG bonuses. He also supported the NDAA and the PATRIOT Act. These are things conservatives and libertarians don’t support because they expand government power and ended up supporting crony capitalism.

Ryan’s defense of the some of these votes are very interesting. In a 2010 interview with The Daily Caller, Ryan points out voted against the original auto bailout because he didn’t want them to get the money. His reasoning for eventually voting for the bailout was because it was limited money at $17.4 billion.  As Ryan put it, he was concerned it would become a “slush fund” with no limit if it were connected to TARP. It’s a strange reason, considering that Ryan eventually voted for TARP, however he deserves a bit a credit for his original no vote.

The vote Ryan probably regrets the most, is the one to put a tax on the AIG bonuses. It’s a key example of politicians reacting to a situation, instead of responding to it.  Ryan himself admits he was angry and made a “snap judgement” on the bill. He makes a good point at saying TARP was becoming a new avenue of crony capitalism. This has been pointed out several times in Peter Schweizer’s book, “Throw Them All Out,” which everyone should read. It’s nice Ryan says he made a mistake, even if hindsight is 20/20.

The decision to vote for TARP is one of the most interesting, and logical, defenses out there.  Ryan says it was to keep an even bigger government agenda from sweeping the nation, as well as, preventing a Depression. His key worry was to keep from happening, “a complete evisceration of the free market system we have…” This argument is actually something not many politicians have used.

In fact, it sounds a bit like the justification behind the Louisiana Purchase.

According to Harlow Unger’s book on President James Monroe called “The Last Founding Father,” President Thomas Jefferson wanted Monroe to tell the Spanish and French what American traders believe about New Orleans and Louisiana. As Jefferson said, “They have a natural…right to trade freely through the Mississippi,” and authorized $9 million to buy New Orleans. Congress authorized only $2 million. Monroe ended up paying $15 million.

Jefferson wasn’t sure whether to approve the purchase because he believed it violated the Constitution. As Unger writes, he apparently had problems the Constitution, “did not grant the government authority to acquire foreign territory…” Jefferson decided to approve the measure because Napoleon was going to back out of the sale.

Ryan’s defense of the TARP bill sounds a bit Jefferson’s defense of the Louisiana Purchase. Both sacrificed their constitutional beliefs to make sure something worse didn’t happen. In Jefferson’s case it was losing out on Louisiana and New Orleans and possibly never getting a shot at it again. In Ryan’s case, it sounds he was worried about another New Deal coming which would have increased the government even more.

It’s not an argument most of the Tea Party would agree with, but Ryan does a better job at saying why TARP should have been passed than John Boehner does.

Someone should ask Ryan about his votes for the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA. This type of information is important and we need to hear why Ryan did what he did.

To steal a line from Dan McLaughlin, Paul Ryan is a good pick for Mitt Romney because, while he’s not a complete Tea Party pick, he does hold more Tea Party values than Chris Christie. He’s also got a defined budget which isn’t perfect, but better than what the Democrats have. Which is nothing.

3 Strikes: Why Paul Ryan Is A Bad Choice For Veep

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”
~Albert Einstein~

.

The buzz is deafening.

Social Media, the Mainstream Media, and seemingly everyone in-between is buzzing with excitement at Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan being named as Mitt Romney’s possible selection for the Vice Presidential nominee on the GOP ballot this November.

Sure, Paul Ryan is young, handsome, and intelligent.  However, his voting record is not as appealing.

Ryan’s voting record is pock-marked with questionable votes, but there are three major “YES” votes that should concern every voter.  Moreover, the selection of Paul Ryan should further call into question the decision-making abilities of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
.

STRIKE 1
The USA Patriot Act of 2001 – http://t-j.cc/TqrWJb

– Eleven years after The Patriot Act was passed, the controversy and stigma has not diminished.  The Patriot Act was a gross attack on the 1st and 4th Amendment protections of all Americans.  A number of the provisions included the original bill signed by President Bush were overturned by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional, while most of the remaining statutes have been extended multiple times by Congress.

 

STRIKE 2
Medicare Part D (Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement & Modernization Act of 2003) –  http://t-j.cc/Tqscry

– Medicare Part D – which has existed for less than a decade – is already one of the greatest unfunded liabilities on the government’s ledger, as it will surpass $21,000,000,000,000 ($21 Trillion) within a matter of weeks from the date of this article.  This means that Medicare Part D is currently $5 Trillion more than our National Debt ($15.9 Trillion), and $5.1 Trillion larger than the liability of the 77 year-old Social Security program – which stands at $15.8 Trillion.

 

STRIKE 3
Iraq War (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002) – http://t-j.cc/TqsA9C

– Nearly 4,500 American soldiers dead in a “war” that was initiated on lies and/or faulty intelligence.  Enough said.

 

Three strikes and you’re out, right?

Apparently, that rule only applies in baseball.

 

“I hope they don’t look at my voting record”

Only in the toxic, sulfuric political atmosphere that currently resides in America, can these votes be rewarded with an appointment as the Vice Presidential candidate.

We aren’t even taking into account the abysmal “Ryan Plan” that was released to be a “blueprint for American renewal”, which had the US Government racking up large annual deficits until the year 2040.

The “Ryan Plan” wasn’t only about the budget, but it also included plans to reform the Medicare program.  Due to this, many people believe that as VP Candidate, Paul Ryan would bring entitlement reform to the table.

Wait.  Do people actually expect the same man who voted for the $21 Trillion Medicare Part D catastrophe to discuss or propose reforms that will improve Medicare itself, as well as cut costs?

Is that not akin to entrusting a known burglar to install your home security system?

With the track record that Paul Ryan brings with him, how can this be viewed as positive for America – much less the GOP and the Romney campaign?  The record shows that Paul Ryan is unable to be trusted to make proper decisions on important issues that affect the lives of the American public, and the forthcoming generations.

 

 

___

This post is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of CDN, Anomalous Media, its staff or other contributors.

Obama’s Budget- Better than 4 Years Ago?

For all the accreditations given to Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest contribution he made to the political arena was a simple appeal to the logical minds of voters- Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? During the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan’s strategy was simple. Let people look at the facts, the result of Carter’s policies, and see if they were really benefiting them.

Many people have compared Obama to Carter, and draw parallels between this election and the 1980 election. So, what could be more apt than to look at the Obama economy and ask, are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

The simple answer, based on Obama’s own economic numbers, is no.

Obama once promised that by the middle of this decade annual spending would match annual revenue and the government would not be adding to the federal deficit.

Yet, under his own budget, the Obama Plan for America, his best and smallest month of spending would add 608 billion dollars to the debt. That projection stays the same even if Obama serves a second term. That’s 33% worse than Bush’s worst month, where he added 458 billion dollars to the deficit.

And after 2015, Obama’s stated end of increases to the federal debt, the debt continues to grow. It continues to increase until 2021 when projections stop, to an estimated deficit of over 700 billion. Again, these numbers are according to Obama’s budget.

These numbers don’t even include the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for Obamacare. Obama claimed the cost of his healthcare plan would be 900 billion dollars over ten years. But the CBO estimates that the first full decade of implementation for Obamacare will cost 2.6 trillion dollars, nearly 3 times as much as Obama stated.

So, according to Obama’s own projected deficit numbers, the American people are not better off than they were 4 years ago, and based on the CBO’s projected cost of Obamacare and Obama’s own projected spending levels, it’s unlikely they’ll be better off in another 4 years.

 

American Energy Means American Recovery

There is widespread consensus that America needs to become energy independent. America’s ever growing dependence on foreign energy putsher at ever-greater risk in a world that is increasingly unstable. Given the current political upheavals in the Middle East, this reality is slapping America in the face with increasing costs at the pump, which are contributing to the cost of goods and services to consumers.

“progressives” feel a compulsive obsessive need to force Americans into accepting their “green energy” fantasy. Three plus years of actions taken by the current administration and fellow “progressives” show a willingness to achieve this end at all costs, come what may. Stiffer standards on auto emissions and mileage, crushing EPA regulations on energy providers, opposing development of domestic energy resources, copious deficit spending on inefficient and noncompetitive solar, wind, tide and bio-fuel technologies litter the landscape of the White House’s failed energy policy.

While such “progressive” measures theoretically “promote” development of “green” energies, they dictate a highly impatient, frantic pace that is crippling the American economy at a time of tremendous fragility. They force the issue at the worst possible time.  During a stubborn, recovery resistant recession that is quite possibly teetering on the brink of a full-blown depression.

America’s public and industrial infrastructures are based on the use of petroleum, natural gas and coal, as well as limited nuclear power. Nearly every vehicle that is driven on American roads burns gasoline or diesel fuel. Public transportation relies on fossil fuels as well. Natural gas, heating oil and coal are used in furnaces to heat homes and places of business. Coal and nuclear power generate electricity, which powers countless devices; the uses of which are taken for granted every day. Coal, natural gas and petroleum products power American’s industrial complex, the base of the economic engine. America’s economy depends heavily on existing energy. The methods of providing and consuming energy are deeply ingrained into American business, industry, home life and recreation.

Expecting to change the methods of powering a society of over 300 million people overnight is impractical. It will take time to finish such a task. More time than most of the general public realizes. While whatever conversions that make sense are taking place, what energy is going power manufacturing, delivering and installing windmills, solar panels, turbines, generators and the power grid needed to provide “green” energy to the public? Will it be the “green” energy that is still under development? No. The energy that’s going to be used will be traditional fuels.

Why does America continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign energy while there is undeveloped energy in its own country? Why doesn’t America keep those billions of dollars at home, in its own cash starved economy?

At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work and its economy is starving for liquid capital, why doesn’t America take advantage of its own wealth of natural resources? Why aren’t Americans drilling for oil and natural gas or digging for coal? Why aren’t people working building refineries and power plants? Why aren’t people delivering gas, coal and natural gas to consumers? How many peripheral jobs will be created in the process? For every new oil well, power plant, refinery or mine there will be new roads built, followed by restaurants, stores and housing. All generated by the only force capable of powering America’s economic recovery: the private sector.

In the interest of national security and job creation, America should put Americans back to work delivering American energy to Americans. This is the best way to become energy independent. Forcing “green energy” on America overnight will only lead to economic destruction.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/american-energy-means-american-recovery/

Understanding The Debt Crisis, But Simplified

I am 60 years old, but I remember when I was a kid we all dreamed of becoming millionaires. Back then a millionaire was the ultimate goal even though we had no concept of what a million dollars actually was. I remember sitting with a bunch of my friends describing to each other what we would do if we had a million dollars to spend.

Now a million dollars seems like nothing, all I hear being tossed around are billions, trillions, gazillions and who knows what is coming next. The majority of people like myself, have no grasp of these type of numbers, so when we hear politicians talk about the deficit and the countries debt problem, many people just do not grasp the severity of the situation. We as a country are headed for a disaster if we do not stop all this out of control spending. I do not understand the people of this country, our future is staring us in the face, but we ignore what the future holds for us. We choose to close our eyes to what is going on in Greece, France, Italy and Spain, not to mention the rest of Europe. We watch all the time on T.V. rioting in the streets, unemployment as high as 25% and we feel safe living in America, thinking that will never happen here. Well 10 years ago, those countries never thought it would happen to them either. Well, now look at them.

This is one of the best explanations of this country’s economic condition made simple.

Lesson #1:

* U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000

* Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000

* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000

* National debt: $15,271,000,000,000

* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000

Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700

* Money the family spent: $38,200

* New debt on the credit card: $16,500

* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $152,710

* Total budget cuts: $385

Got It ??? OK now…

Lesson #2:

Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:

You come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood….and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do…Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming November 2012

I’m for pumping out the crap…

This is one man’s opinion.

obamacare: Tip of the Iceberg

Since the ruling by the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, June 28, 2012, the big news in America has been how the obama administration, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid misrepresented the legislation to Congress, the Senate and the public.

It was consistently presented as a cost saving measure that would reduce the size of U.S. national deficits, thus helping pay down the debt, while improving the quality and lowering the costs of healthcare. Insurance premiums would be reduced.  It would provide coverage for uninsured millions.  If you liked the doctor and healthcare plan you had, you would be able to keep them.

Regrettably for American Citizens, with the exception of covering additional people, none of the rest was ever true.  It will add to the deficit and to the debt.  The quality and availability of healthcare will go down.  Existing doctors will retire and fewer prospective doctors will enter medical practice since the rewards will be outstripped by the costs of a medical education.  Insurance premiums have been will continue to rise, leading employers to drop coverage for employees, thereby adding to the likelihood that both your doctor and your plan will change.

It was never explained how a system cited as being too expensive was going to fund a new federal bureaucracy, start covering more people with the same number of facilities and personnel at a lower cost, while saving the nation trillions of dollars.

Now, we  know – Obama, Pelosi, Reid and company all lied. 

Especially President Obama, who repeatedly pledged to Americans making less than $250,000 that their taxes would never go up.  Not their income tax, not their payroll tax, not their capital gains tax.  None of those taxes would go up, not by one single dime, ever.

The truth is revealed: obamacare: Seven New Taxes on Citizens Earning Less than $250,000

It doesn’t stop there.  Attacks have been made on religious liberties. See healthcare mandate on contraception in religious affiliated institutions:

There have been assaults on freedom of the press. See White House and Media Matters coordinate attacks on FOX News:

Egregious though these examples may be, in the big picture they are only the tip of the iceberg.

•He has violated the individual liberties of all Americans by imposing forced participation in a government healthcare regulatory system without their consent.

•He has collaborated with his Attorney General to ignore equal protection under the law in favor of selective protections based upon arbitrary factors.

•He has violated American bankruptcy laws by willfully denying secured bond holders first payment, in favor of unsecured political supporters.

•He has violated the Constitution by accepting the position of Chairmanship of the UN Security Council.

•He has ignored the Constitutional separation of power by appointing “czars” to oversee matters that are intended to be handled by the legislative branch of the government.

•He has violated the First Amendment right to freedom of the press, by attacking television and radio networks, stations and broadcasters while attempting censorship.

•He has violated the individual’s right to free speech through creation of an email address to report Citizens in a blatant attempt to silence dissent through intimidation.

•He has violated the Law by ignoring the War Powers Act and engaging the United States military in overseas hostilities without the consent of Congress.

•He has violated the First Amendment by attempting to impose restrictions on free speech through implementation of Net Neutrality by the FCC.

•He has endeavored to interfere in the free market through the imposition of The Clean Energy and Security Act, which mandates carbon emissions be reduced to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, 42 percent by 2030, and 84 percent by 2050. By 2020, this tax will extract an estimated $160 billion from the economy, or an average $1,870 per family.

•He has violated the Constitution by having the government offer $4,500 rebates to people for turning in older motor vehicles for newer vehicles

•He has interfered in America’s free market by having the National Labor Relations Board sue a privately owned company for planning to open for business in a State that protects an employee’s ability to work free of forced union membership.

•He has interfered in the free market by imposing restrictions and regulations on petroleum, natural gas and coal production in the United States.

•He has abandoned enforcing the security of American borders and protected illegal immigrants from prosecution for violation of immigration laws:

•He has abandoned and insulted our most enduring and faithful allies through speech and action, the most glaring among these being placing the State of Israel on the list of nations that foster terrorism.

•He has sought to impose additional taxes on America without the people’s Consent.

•For depriving American Citizens in some cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury.

•For transferring billions of dollars to enemies of the United States through Foreign Aid.

•For ignoring the Constitutional separation of powers by publicly attacking the Supreme Court of the United States.

•For attacking America’s bedrock family values by ordering the Department of Justice to not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

•For repeated attacks upon America’s Christian foundation.

•For repeatedly slandering American Citizens with false accusations of racism, violent tendencies and hatred.

•For grossly accelerating and increasing the amount of America’s debt through passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, which had negligible effect on unemployment, sent billions of dollars overseas and wasted billions domestically by lining the pockets of political cronies while bailing out States guilty of practicing irresponsible budgetary policies.

•For putting America and America’s allies at greater risk through cancellation of missile defense systems.

•For expanding the need for enormous increases in government borrowing,

•For collaborating with his Attorney General to try enemy combatants in civilian Courts.

•For collaborating with his Attorney General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the implementation of operation Fast and Furious, which has been implicated in the murder of American Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

•For devaluing America’s currency by engaging in the practice of Quantitative Easing, allowing the Federal Reserve to purchase trillions of dollars of our national debt.

The list could continue.

A president, whose character is thus marked by acts which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to govern a free people.

Remember.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/obamacare-tip-of-the-iceberg/

Adieu France, So Long Stability

French Socialist President Francois Hollande’s newly elected government is planning to raise taxes on big companies while deterring businesses from engaging in layoffs by making that process more costly.

Hoping to nudge companies into investing rather than paying profits to shareholders, the government plans to impose a new 3% tax on dividends. Other plans include raising levies on capital gains, a special tax on banks and on energy companies, as well as imposition of government policies requiring the sale of profitable businesses in lieu of closure.

France’s Socialist government will dictate that it is illegal for a profitable, privately owned business to close its own doors.

So much for having the French people engaged in business activity. This less business-friendly government is going about the business of smothering France’s economy.

The prospects of trying to do business in France’s new economic environment resulted in margins tumbling, cash flow dwindling and orders collapsing. The uncertain outlook has postponed or cancelled investment and hiring.

Medef President Laurence Parisot told a news conference “The first source of financing for companies’ projects comes from private investors. Increasing tax on dividends runs the risk that private investors either invest less or elsewhere. We’ve had many meetings with the staff in ministries to explain what’s happening, but we are becoming deeply distressed. We fear a systematic strangling. Let’s be careful not to transform our country into a super-rigid enclave completely out of touch with the functioning of market economies as found everywhere else.” Parisot said.

Statistical data from the INSEE agency shows that business confidence fell in June to the lowest level since 2009, when France’s economy first showed signs of emerging from the nation’s worst post-war recession.

Hollande was elected last month after pledging to fight unemployment and revive growth. What he and his government are planning is not the way to go about achieving those goals. Attempting to resolve an economic dilemma that nanny state entitlement spending caused by destroying the tax base through imposition of business strangling regulations and taxes, while increasing the amount of spending done on entitlement programs is like trying to get a drunk sober by giving him a case of champagne. It’s going to have an effect opposite to the one desired. It is only going to make matters worse.

The way to balance a government budget is to stimulate private sector economic growth. That is what creates the tax base required to fund the government. Making it more difficult and more expensive to conduct business in the private sector is counter-productive to balancing any government budget.

By following economic policies similar to those Hollande plans for France, the United States is currently experiencing 1.8% economic growth. At this same point in President Ronald Reagan’s first term in office, his economic policies had stimulated the private sector U.S. economy to a 7.2% growth rate.

Can you say duh?

Both America and France could learn a thing or two from the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. In the case of the current White House occupant, that does not include hollow, unfounded, meaningless claims that you are much like President Reagan. It makes no difference whether those claims are made by you or your eager, obedient lapdogs in the institutionalized “progressive” left’s smear machine, referred to by your dumbed down, ill informed “progressive” congregation as the mainstream media.

France has the second biggest economy in the European Union. If this is the best the French can come up with, it is time to bid adieu to France and to European Union stability.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/adieu-france-so-long-stability/

NEWS FLASH: Lindsey Graham is a “top conservative”!

Jonathan Karl, Richard Coolidge, Gregory Lemos and Sherisse Pham, part of the collective, useful spokes-tools employed by ABC News and the “progressive” Party Pravda’s online misinformation outlet known as Yahoo News are at it again.

To begin with, this “progressive” misinformation’s “headline” is pure, pre-fabricated nonsense that reads:

“Top conservative says read my lips: Don’t sign ‘no new tax’ pledge”.

This “headline” is garbage.

First of all, save for his consistently patriotic support for the United States military and for American troops, Senator Lindsey Graham is about as moderate as Republicans come. Some Conservatives might characterize him as a “progressive” Republican. Even more may openly label him a RINO. The thought of his being a “top conservative” comes from the minds of institutionalized “progressive” leftists, not reality. Secondly, not once in the interview does Graham ever utter the words “read my lips”. Again, readers are witnessing fabricated “progressive” wishful fiction, not fact. Furthermore, never did he say “don’t sign the ‘no new tax’ pledge. Not even once. Not ever.

The entire headline is a total lie. It’s a complete falsehood. The “news” presented in this “headline” is “progressive” fabrication that goes light years beyond the outer limits of “spin”.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

Thanks to a “headline” that’s contains not one ounce of truth, the article is automatically discredited in the minds of informed voters, those who are obviously not the target audience of Karl, Coolidge, Lemos and Pham.

What Graham did say is that he is willing to be flexible on applying one fourth of revenue collected by the IRS through elimination of tax loopholes and subsidies towards reducing the nations nearly $16 trillion in debt. The other three fourths would continue to follow the No New Tax Pledge’s formula for applying such revenues solely towards tax cuts. For Graham to accept this compromise, Democrats would be required to respond in kind to work in a bipartisan fashion towards reducing the national debt via “entitlement” program reforms.

That such inaccurate “reporting” could be considered, even for a fleeting moment, as real journalism, that these liars are actually getting paid to propagandize pure fiction as fact shows how low are today’s standards for journalistic integrity. This “headline” is going to give a large number of low-information, “sound bite news voters” a completely incorrect image of reality. It’s not even close to being true. All visible evidence points to clear intent to mislead misinform and indoctrinate masses of online readers.

How about giving this story a more objective headline, a headline that reflects the truth while accurately respects the content of the story? One more like: Graham Willing to Discuss Tax, Entitlement Compromise.

How difficult was that?

Perhaps for self imagined, self-appointed members of the “progressive” intellectual elite, it’s just too simple for their brilliant minds.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/news-flash-lindsey-graham-is-a-top-conservative/

Was “The Private Sector is Doing Fine” Really a Gaffe?

When obama uttered the words “the private sector is doing fine” speculation ran rampant, declarations occurred and questions abounded.

Obedient spokes-fools within the “progressive” Party Pravda remained largely mum, dutifully neglecting or downplaying the story. Conservatives pounced on the statement, speculating aggressively about obama’s lack of perceptive abilities while declaring it to be the biggest gaffe in his presidency. Questions were asked as to why standard operating procedure had been abandoned and a presidential press conference was being held in the White House when no major announcement was being made.

That obama followed up the initial remark by saying the problem with America’s economy is a loss of government jobs at the state and local level suggests various possible explanations. One is that it’s a sign of his commitment to growing government as the sole solution to each and every one of the world’s problems. Another is that he is so out of touch with economic reality that the remark really was a gaffe.

But there is at least one other possibility to consider.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is coming under heavy congressional scrutiny for his role in the failed Fast and Furious gun running scandal. Hard questions are being raised on both sides of the aisle about the risks posed to the country through national security leaks possibly emanating from the White House. obama’s been accused of allowing the leaks to occur for personal political gain. There are ongoing discussions and mounting evidence regarding obama’s membership in Chicago’s extremist “New Party”, coupled with continuing avoidance of or denials about it among obama’s political apparatus. There is major embarrassment about obama’s “entire grassroots machinery” being resoundingly drubbed in the Wisconsin recall election. There is growing “progressive” left wing extremist frustration with obama’s perceived inability to deliver on his pledge to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”.

Go back to the question: Why was a presidential new conference being held when there was no major announcement being made? Even given that there was only the remotest possibility that the “progressive” Party Pravda might actually uncover a hitherto undiscovered ounce of journalistic integrity within itself and ask hard questions on a myriad of topics, why was this press conference being held?

Is it possible that the biggest gaffe in obama’s presidency was committed on purpose? That it was an intentional diversion? A coldly calculated politically driven distraction away from other bad news that had been dominating the weekly news cycle?

Was it an accident that it occurred on a Friday morning, contributing to the likelihood that the weekend political talk show discussions will focus on this rather than the myriad of other, more damaging news about obama’s failed attempt to be the nation’s Chief Executive?

If so, it was an extreme abuse of the power of the presidency.

Given that this “gaffe” originated from a once humming along firing on all cylinders well oiled political machine that has repeatedly engaged in “the art” of misrepresentation, distortion, distraction, diversion and smoke and mirror parlor trickery, is pondering such questions an unreasonable activity?

With obama in the White House, do you now consider such a line of questioning to be unpatriotic?

Do you really?

You may wish to reconsider come November 6th.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/was-the-private-sector-is-doing-fine-really-a-gaffe/

« Older Entries Recent Entries »