Looking through historical data, running a deficit isn’t new
or unusual. It is a testament to the failure of our elected representatives to
run the government within its means, like we mere citizens are expected to with
our personal finances. Back in 1857 the national debt was “only” $28,699,831.85,
and from there on it has gotten worse. It crossed the one trillion dollar mark
in 1982.
In recent years, annual operating deficits have increased the
debt roughly 500 billion dollars each year from 2002 until 2008 when the deficit
jumped to a full trillion dollars. In 2009, the deficit jumped to two trillion dollars
and was 1.3 trillion dollars in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The big spenders are so
out of control these days that they routinely spend 40 percent more than the
nation collects in tax revenue.
What on Earth are they spending so much money on?
That list runs the gamut from constitutionally required
government activities to expenditures on questionable and even unconstitutional
activities. It includes using appropriate methods to dispense the money, and
using methods that are politically advantageous, but often questionable or improper.
And, it includes fraud, waste and abuse, aptly illustrated by the 2010 GSA
boondoggle costing taxpayers more than $800,000 dollars.
One controversial method of determining who gets taxpayer
money, but one that is very popular among lawmakers, is the earmarking process.
The Federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as “funds provided
by the Congress for projects, programs, or grants where the purported
congressional direction circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or
competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or
otherwise curtails the ability of the executive branch to manage its statutory
and constitutional responsibilities pertaining to the funds allocation process.”
Some defend it as a more efficient way to get budgeted federal
money where it is most needed than leaving it to administrative agencies to
distribute; others say it is a way for congresspersons to reward friends and
buy votes. As the 112th Congress cranked up in January of 2011 there
was a bipartisan agreement to do away with earmarks. However, Representative
Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) recommended that lawmakers bring back earmarks in a
closed-door Republican Caucus meeting on March 30, 2012. “There was a lot of
applause when I made my comments,” he said. “By and large it was very well
embraced.” For this suggestion, Mr. Rogers won the April “Porker of the Month”
award from Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).
CAGW is at war with pork-barrel spending, which the
organization identifies using seven criteria, any one of which qualifies
spending as pork. They are: spending requested by only one chamber of Congress;
not specifically authorized; not competitively awarded; not requested by the
President; greatly exceeds the President's budget request or the previous
year's funding; not the subject of congressional hearings; or, serves only a
local or special interest.
Evaluating the 111th Congress, the last Congress to have completed both sessions, CAGW said: “In a time of runaway spending and sky-high debt, lawmakers should have supported every opportunity to cut wasteful and unnecessary expenditures. The House and Senate each had 11 opportunities to strike pork, prohibit earmarking, rescind superfluous funds, and reduce overall spending levels. A majority voted against each and every one of these 22 measures, a stunning 100 percent rate of failure to trim the fat and protect taxpayer interests.”
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste analyzed legislators’
voting to support the interests of taxpayers by reducing spending based on party
affiliation and House membership in the Republican Study Committee and Blue Dog
Democrats. “The averages were: Senate Republicans – 90 percent, up nine percentage
points from their 81 percent score in 2009; Senate Democrats – 8 percent, down two
percentage points from their grade of 10 percent in 2009; House Republicans – 86
percent, up 15 percentage points from their 71 percent score in 2009; House Democrats
– 8 percent, up four percentage points from their 4 percent score in 2009; House
Republican Study Committee – 91 percent, up 11 percentage points from their 80 percent
score in 2009; and House Blue Dog Democrats – 18 percent, up seven percentage points
from their 11 percent score in 2009.”
There are also foolish levels of duplication of government programs.
Here are some examples from the Government Accountability Office: Twenty
agencies operate 56 programs dedicated to financial literacy; there are 80
economic development programs at four agencies costing $6.5 billion; the
Department of Transportation spends $58 billion on 100 programs run by five
agencies with 6,000 employees that haven’t changed since 1956; at least five
departments, eight agencies and more than two dozen presidential appointees
oversee $6.48 billion related to bioterrorism.
One searches diligently for some evidence that President Barack
Obama and his party take seriously their obligation to be good stewards of the
public’s finances, but finds none. Their solution is to raise taxes on the most
productive Americans, not to be thrifty with spending.
8 comments:
I think we all agree that spending is out of control, but the solution is a two way street of major spending cuts coupled with taxes increases, or at least closing certain loopholes for tax breaks, incentives, etc... seems you have a one-track mind and are wearing some 'blinders' when it comes to a better solution that would help address this issue...
Also, in regard to the voting patterns you reference since 2009, I would be interested to see how those numbers shake out if you go back to the beginning of the George W. term in office and look at the 21st century votes...
2009 was the year the Tea Party swung all the midterm elections and really forced those they elected to vote in favor of more fiscally responsible policies and dramatic spending cuts...so I would suspect we would see differing percentages from 2000 to 2009...
but i know thats not the picture you are trying to paint...
Spending has been a problem for a long time. However, since 2002 the annual deficits have raised the national debt by $10.4 trillion, double the debt up until that time, and since 2008 it has simply just gotten ridiculous. You cannot justify this at all, and the simple reality is that when you are spending idiotic amounts of money, you have to stop spending so much, not raise taxes to cover your butt.
Raising taxes only relieves Congress of the pressure to get spending under control. Congress needs to face its obligation and do its job by eliminating waste, cutting out ineffective programs and stop throwing money it doesn’t have down the toilet. The few Americans who still pay taxes should not have one more dollar taken from them to pay for this irresponsible behavior.
Congressional voting patterns prior to 2009 don’t matter. Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and 2002, and controlled both housed in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
The point is that now someone actually is trying to do something positive about out-of-control spending, and we see that it isn’t Barack Obama and the Democrats who are trying to restore sanity and responsible behavior to the spending issue. That is the picture I painted, and it just so happens to be quite accurate.
so lets just say we cut 50-75% of federal/state/local government employees and services. This would result in significant job loss for government employees that translates to a major drop in "spending power" for the middle class, which means less revenue for business and corporations as there is no one with money to spend, and that results in lost sales taxes and less profits for companies, then results in company layoffs because products and services are no longer needed. Not to mention unemployment rates and food stamp cost increases, but I'm sure you would like to slash these altogether...
I dont think we need to approach this like you remove a 'band aid' (quick and fast) see how it shakes out and how much we bleed. There needs to be a gradual reduction in services coupled with revenue increases by removing tax loopholes that favor the upper crust.
Government waste is at epidemic proportions and we have to be realistic as how to reduce and cut costs and I think slashing everything at once would cause complete chaos throughout the economy...
and I like how you said prior voting patterns dont matter... where were all the GOP Tea Party folks screaming about budgets and balance when we passed the Patriot Act and Bush tax cuts and then invaded Iraq after giving Bush a blank check... the costs of conducting our "War of Terror" is just as much to blame over the past decade for our deficit... the invasion was well executed vs a 'primitive' army... but poorly planned with no exit strategy and little cost management...
Obviously, you don’t slash jobs and spending indiscriminately; I certainly didn’t suggest that. But we have to start immediately, and we have to make serious, significant reductions.
Many jobs can be eliminated through attrition. When someone retires, don’t replace them, or if their position is important, transfer someone to it and don’t fill that position. Encourage marginal employees or those in positions on the block to move on.
Reduce spending by 10 percent or some amount each year, and more on programs that are duplicated, and maybe cut some outright.
Stop or reduce bonuses for government employees, and increase their contributions to their retirement to the average level that private sector employees pay. Make sure government employees are not paid better than their private sector counterparts are paid.
Also tighten up on contracts and purchasing so that the government gets good deals.
Combine these efforts with a reduction of rules and regs that impeded job creation, and stand back and watch the jobs picture improve rapidly.
You have missed the point of my citing 2009 and thereafter not once, but twice.
Remember that: a) the deficits were “relatively” small until 2008, b) the really stupid spending levels occurred thereafter, and c) 2009 is when the TEA Party movement to impose common sense on the government coalesced, therefore, what happened prior to that is a moot point.
Very few people criticize the decision to go into Afghanistan after 9-11. And even though history has been rewritten to make it seem there were never any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that was a legitimate concern supported by not only George Bush, but also Bill and Hillary Clinton, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, and many other Democrats, and quite a few countries, including Canada, France, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Australia, and Japan. We know that Saddam Hussein had used WMD on his own people in the 90s.
I’m not defending how things have been handled since the initial stages, but quite a lot of money would have – and should have – been spent under the best of circumstances, and I hasten to point out that Barack Obama has not done much that he said he would do on those issues as a candidate.
so lets not raise taxes, but rather just lift many of the loopholes and tax cuts to the big income earners, especially those who make a living from something other than employer wages, like big time investment dividends and other "high class" ways of bringing in capital...
so as we cut government by X% over the next few years, we can help alleviate the "negative" by increasing revenues through the elimination of some unfavorable policies benefiting non-wage earners...and hopefully meet at a "balanced budget" after a decade or so...
and I also support bringing back the "Estate tax"... although the GOP re-framed it as the "Death Tax" to change the scope of the issue...
Agree on no tax increases. Implement a low tax rate on SOME of those who now pay nothing. Remove many/most loopholes and deductions.
Investment income is a different matter. Investment income has already been taxed once at the corporate level, so any tax of that income is unnecessary and punishes people, and retirement and pension plans that collect investment income, which is most every retirement/pension plan. Do away with taxes for investment income.
The inheritance tax is even worse than an investment income tax. Let’s say your parents both have passed away and left you and your siblings their house and other things. Why should you have to pay tax on that house or the other things? The house has already been taxed for years. The parents also paid to insure it and to maintain it, and they should be able to give their estate to their children without penalty to the children.
The reason it’s called the death tax is that it is ghoulish, and conjures images of IRS agents clad in black hanging around the cemetery licking their chops waiting for the service to be over so they can collect money that there is no direct reason they should have a claim on. I know that the death tax applies to amounts above a certain level, but that does not change the principle of the issue. It appeals to the lower instincts of people to envy those better off than they, and to want them to be punished. Some of those “better off” are just lucky, but many, probably most, have worked and helped support their parents in their elder years, and may have worked in the family business that enabled the parents to have accumulated wealth.
I agree that the tax appears rather 'ghoulish' ... but eliminating it makes the playing field even further 'uneven' for many Americans and places ascribed social class as a greater advantage in this land of equal opportunity.
Maybe we should go back to the 'old english' style of inheritance where only the eldest son would get anything and all younger siblings would have to 'fend for themselves'...
and when it comes to tax rates, it seems our congressional aristocracy likes to pad their own pockets too much for my liking, when the wealthy or 'better off' are the same folks as those with legislative power, its no wonder the laws favor their bottom line... and that cuts across both sides of the aisle...
So, it’s ghoulish to tax the dead, but that’s okay, since not taxing the dead gives their heirs an advantage??
We should acknowledge the obvious and common sense chain of property between a person and his or her heirs, and stop this illusion of equalizing the inherently unequal, as if there is some cosmic mandate to make the chronically and inevitably unequal, equal. That is so illogical, but liberal, of you.
At least we can agree that the pols set themselves above the rest of us, and benefit at our expense.
There is now, for the second time, a measure before the House to force Congress to live under the terms of Obamacare, like the rest of us will have to, unless the Supreme Court rules according to Constitutional principles.
Post a Comment