Showing posts with label deficits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficits. Show all posts

Sunday, March 22, 2015

The Watcher's Council Forum: Is America In Decline? Why Or Why Not?



Each week, the Watcher's Council hosts a forum, in addition to holding a weekly contest for best posts among the members of the Council. I have been kindly invited to respond to this week's question. Update: The forum is up, with several different answers to the question, all worth your read.

It is beyond question that our nation is in decline. We stand mired in historic levels of debt, yet massive deficit spending by Congress continues unabated. Regulations are being pumped out by unelected bureaucrats at record pace, working fundamental changes to our nation that could never pass Congress. Yet Congress sits by and the odd Congresscritter only occasionally impotently complains in speeches. Medicare and Social Security threaten to bankrupt our nation in the foreseeable future unless reformed, yet Congress does not just nothing, but manages to compound the problems with Obamacare. We have a tyrannical President who unconstitutionally threatens our country's make up by unilaterally legislating the legalization of millions of illegal aliens, while an utterly supine Congress with the sole Constitutional authority to legislate is allowing this to happen. It appears that elections for either party no longer matter to change our national trajectory.

Our Supreme Court today sits as a sort of unelected Politburo deciding that the Constitution means whatever five of them want it to mean based on their whim of the day. What was supposed to be the least dangerous of our co-equal branches of government is now arguably the most dangerous. The left is using our military as a laboratory for insane social experiments, the worst being to allow women into front line combat units, something that can only be accomplished in any number by lowering the physical standards. And that does not even begin to consider the impact on unit cohesion. Space exploration as well as virtually everything to do with space is without doubt of incredible importance to our future. Moreover, it is vital that we continue to develop space defense technology to protect our many satellites upon which modern life is dependant. Space technology is an area where we have still a distinct advantage, yet Obama has killed our nation's space program. Lastly, our national security posture hasn't been this bad since the 1930's.

I think it would be fair to say we are not merely in decline, but rapidly approaching key tests during our descent that will determine our future. It is hard to say which will be the first key test, whether it will come in the form of severe economic stress as the interest rates rise on our outrageous national debt, or whether it will come in the choking of our economy by ever more far reaching regulations by the EPA and FCC, or whether it will come from foreign countries energized by our growing weakness. The only sure lesson of history is that the tests will come.

Our nation has proven resilient in the past, but in the past, we've been much better positioned to respond to challenges. In the past hundred years, we've faced the Depression and come through. But that was at a time when our massive excess industrial capacity sat untapped and we started from a point with no major deficits. We faced WWII and came through. But that was at a time when the other allied nations had strong militaries of their own, not the empty shells that they now have. We faced down the Soviet Union, but that was at a time when our military was at the pinnacle of its strength, not now when Obama has starved our military for funding, going so far as to change our national security posture from being able to fight two simultaneous wars to one. That was a change not based on any threat assessment, but rather a desire to divert the savings to his various welfare programs. And he has likewise overseen the devolution of our nuclear capacity -- something that has maintained the peace in Europe for 75 years -- because of his insane, utopian vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Somebody, please inform the North Koreans, the Iranians, and the other Middle Eastern nations now initiating their own nuclear weapons programs.

Bookworm Room has added her own cogent thoughts to this list above. To paraphrase, in the past, when challenges faced our nation, we had a fundamental love of country to join us. Our immigrants once came for the freedom to seek wealth. Yet today, "our immigrants come for handouts that they then wire to the tyrannies back home." And worst of all:

Our young people once thought that we brought freedom to the world; our young people now believe that we are evil. When a nation's young people think that they and their country are unworthy, the ink is on the suicide pact. And when they've been trained to think of themselves as fragile victims, you can bet that the first drop of blood spilled will seal that pact.

It is hard for me to believe that America will retain a dominant position in the world beyond another decade or so. Perhaps this would not matter if America was intrinsically evil as the left seems to think, or if those who would replace us were benign. The reality is that no nation is strong enough to take our place at the moment, and those who will vie for influence do not have a history of rule by law or democracy. Nor do I believe there is any leader we could elect in 2016 that could restore the Constitutional systems that have allowed us to flourish for much of the past two centuries.

That said, perhaps in response to the key tests and trials foreseeable on our national horizon, things might change. My pessimism is moderated by the reality that history has few straight lines, and great nations have rarely gone gentle into that good night. But my pessimism is made worse by the knowledge that, with key tests and trials come great costs in gold and in blood. The question is not whether America is in decline, but how low we must fall before we even begin to recover, and at what cost?





Read More...

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Wisconsin - What Is At Stake


What is going on in Wisconsin is the first battle in what is a much larger, existential war for the soul of our country. Such are the stakes that we see, this week, the Obama administration applauding the breakout of democracy in the Middle East, yet at the same time fighting tooth and nail to undermine democracy in Wisconsin. What it boils down to is this - who owns our government? Is it the voters in their exercise of democracy, or is it the unions as part of a permanent Democrat entitlement? Do the voters excise control of the economic future of their locales and states? Or is their vote trumped by the public sector unions and their Democrat Party constituency. That said, for the left, questions of democracy are irrelevant. For Obama, the DNC and the Democrat Party, this is about preserving their single most important cash cow.

The electorate in Wisconsin voted to give Republicans all the levers of power in the state by a substantial margin. And the Republicans in that state have proposed legislation that will:

- Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions - still less than private employees pay for their pensions

- Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums - the national average for the private sector is over 20%

- End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.

- End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

- Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union

Those proposals have Obama and the left interfering in Wisconsin state politics to thwart this legislation. Across the U.S. today, it appears that our politics and democracy itself are deeply distorted by public sector unions. And if Obama, the DNC and the left have their way, public sector unions will trump the democratic process.

There was a time when public service was considered a noble but lower paid calling. While benefits in the public sector were always good, public servants historically could expect to trade some level of wages in exchange for job stability. No more. Today, public sector union workers earn more than their private sector counterparts, they have far more job stability, and their benefits and pensions far outshine the average in the private sector. Looking specifically at Wisconsin, for instance, the "average Milwaukee Public School teacher will be receiving $100,005 in compensation this year – $56,500 of that is in salary, and a whopping $43,505 is in benefits." Note that a teacher's salary only covers a little over 9 months of employment. When adjusted for that, "teachers are among some of the most highly compensated employees in the state." And as far as quality for the tax payer dollars spent, it is notable that, according to Juan Williams on Fox News Sunday today, the reading test scores for black children in Milwaukee are the lowest in the country.

The left may portray this as fighting for a decent living or "for the children." Both are pure bull. For Democrats, what is going on in Wisconsin is about money, power, and, in an existential sense, their national economic foundation. And that is why virtually the entire Democratic Party, from Obama through the DNC and numerous other organizations, have nationalized Wisconsin state politics this past week.

It is impossible to overestimate how important public sector unions are to the Democrats. Public sector unions give Democrats a near inexhaustible source of taxpayer dollars to use for their own purpose, and they have used that money to deeply distort politics in America.

It is no surprise that the most money spent in 2010 federal elections came from a single public sector union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and that it was spent in support of Democrats. Nor is it any surprise to find public sector unions spending the most money in state and local elections. For example, in California, "the California Teachers Association spent $211,849,298 on lobbying and political spending to get its way in California in 2009. Along with the CTA, the Calif. State Council of Service Employees and 13 other organizations spent a total of one billion dollars on political lobbying of the State House at Sacramento."

And lastly, it is no surprise to find the states with a history of democratic control and public sector unions over the past decades today have high tax rates, crushing deficits and massive looming unfunded pension liabilities. The economic basket cases of Illinois and California top the list, though New York, New Jersey and many others are not far behind.

This is how it works. Ms. Jane Doe gets a job as a teacher in, say, Wisconsin. The local Wisconcinites are forced to pay taxes, and those taxes go to pay Doe's salary and benefits and to put funds towards her retirement pension and healthcare benefits. Ms. Doe is automatically enrolled in the existing union, she is not given a choice. The government automatically deducts $750 to $1,000 of taxpayer funding annually from her pay and they send those tax dollars to Doe's public employee union. Neither Ms. Doe nor the taxpayers have a say in that, nor in how the union uses that money. And in fact, the union then takes the money and uses it to stump to get their favored candidates elected - something that they have done with remarkable success.

That newly elected politician then sits across from the union at the negotiating table when it comes time for union and government to negotiate new contracts. Absent from the table are the taxpayers. The politicians are motivated to placate the unions in all of their demands. This becomes particularly insidious in regards to promises regarding pension and retirement benefits that won't come due until long after the politician is gone from office.

That scenario has played out across the country thousands of times. It is why today public sector union employees are, as a group, thriving, in contrast to the average private sector worker. And it is why unfunded pension nightmares threaten the long term fiscal solvency of many of our states. The total of unfunded retirement liabilities now tops $1 trillion among all states. A very large portion of that comes from California, now estimated to be $500 billion.

On the flip side of this unholy alliance, public unions invariably advocate for more government spending and taxes, since that is where their interests lie. Unions in the private sector are limited in what they can ask for by the realities of the marketplace - the need for the business to profit or go bankrupt. Public sector unions face no such limitation on their demands. As we can see happening across the U.S., when states and localities are operating in the red, public sector unions simply agitate for higher taxes to be imposed on the populace. It does not matter what is good for the community, the county or the state - only what is good for the unions.

Public sector unions are a toxin in our society of recent vintage. Many who argue today that public sector workers have a fundamental right to organize into unions are either deeply ignorant of history or lying through their teeth. While all people in this country have a right to free association and to petition the government, none have a right to force others to join their association and then demand payments from our nations tax payers. Whether public sector workers have the right to organize in America is anything but a "fundamental right" that is sacrosanct and beyond the reach of voters to change. Indeed, as a NYC Judge wrote in 1943:

To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.

This sentiment was hardly unique. No less a person than FDR refused to allow collective bargaining for the public sector on similar grounds and, indeed, it "was orthodoxy among Democrats through the '50s that unions didn't belong in government work." It required legislation to allow public sector unions to organize in our country. In the states, ironically, it was Wisconsin that led the way, becoming, in 1959, the first state to allow public sector workers to unionize. At the federal level, it was JFK who gave us the toxic legacy of public sector unions when, in 1962, he signed Executive Order 10988.

This is the defining issue of our era. Do we control our destiny through the democratic process? Or is the ballot box subject to being trumped by public sector unions? The Democrats want the latter, for the economic life blood of their party depends upon it. Our nation's return to economic and political health requires that they be defeated.

Update: According to Ben Smith at Politico:

A new poll from the Washington-based Clarus Group asked:

Do you think government employees should be represented by labor unions that bargain for higher pay, benefits and pensions ... or do you think government employees should not be represented by labor unions?

A full 64% of the respondents said "no."

That includes 42% of Democrats, and an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Only 49% of Democrats think public workers should be in unions at all.

That suggests that the public understands what is at issue with public sector unions. That is very bad news for the left, and suggests that this will be a major issue in 2012 if the left continues to make this a national cause celebre - which they most assuredly will do. (H/T The Coffee Shop)

Good updates on the progress of the left-wing assault on democracy at Nice Deb, Michelle Malkin, and Ann Althouse.

Related Posts:


1. Public Sector Unions: A Toxin, A Crisis & An Opportunity
2. Read'n, Writ'n & Unioniz'n
3. What, Marx Or Lenin Weren't Available?
4. Gov. Chris Christie, What Leadership Looks Like
5. California: From Riches To Public Sector Unions To Ruin
6. Detroit's Public School System, School Board & Teachers' Union
7. Unions & Teachers: The Alpha & Omega
8. Living With Public Sector Unions
9. Public Sector Unions
10. Obama, The Stimulus & Teachers' Unions
11. Yet Another Reason Why Public Sector Unions Should Be Done Away With
12. Grand Theft Democrat
13. Another Win For Teachers Unions, Another Defeat For DC Students
14. Reason 10,001 Why Public Sector Unions Need To Be Outlawed
15. Public Sector Unions Go To War To Prevent Democratic Change In Wisconsin
16. Change You Can't Have: Obama & The DNC Interfere In Wisconsin State Politics
17. Do Public Sector Workers Have A Fundamental Right To Organize?
18. An Instant Classic
19. Boehner, Obama & The DNC: The State Public Sector Union Issues Gets Nationalized

Read More...

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Scary Movie

The video below, from Rep. Whip Eric Cantor, documents our left-led decent into fiscal insanity, from day one of the Obama administration to today.



(H/T Dr. Sanity)

Read More...

Monday, August 23, 2010

A Dose Of Deficit (& Spending) Reality

This from an exceptional post by Randall Hoven at the American Thinker:



Just for grins, use the above chart to dissect Christopher Hayes' statement that our current and future deficits are caused by "three things: the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush tax cuts and the recession."

Two of those three things -- the wars and tax cuts -- were in effect from 2003 through 2007. Do you see alarming deficits or trends from 2003 through 2007 in the above chart? No. In fact, the trend through 2007 is shrinking deficits. What you see is a significant upward tick in 2008, and then an explosion in 2009. Now, what might have happened between 2007 and 2008, and then 2009?

Democrats taking over both houses of Congress, and then the presidency, was what happened. Republicans wrote the budgets for the fiscal years through 2007. Congressional Democrats wrote the budgets for FY 2008 and on. When the Democrats also took over the White House, they immediately passed an $814-billion "stimulus." (The $814 billion figure is from the same CBO report as the Iraq War costs. See sources at end of article.)

The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion.

No one will say that $709 billion is not a lot of money. But first, that was spread over eight years. Secondly, let's put that in some perspective. Below are some figures for those eight years, 2003 through 2010.


•Total federal outlays: $22,296 billion.
•Cumulative deficit: $4,731 billion.
•Medicare spending: $2,932 billion.
•Iraq War spending: $709 billion.
•The Obama stimulus: $572 billion.

Read the whole story.

Read More...

Thursday, June 25, 2009

The Orwell-Obama-Hoyer Pay As You Go Legislation


Democrats won't be the party of deficits.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md), Congress Must Pay for What It Spends, WSJ, 25 June 2009

To see Democrats at their most Orwellian, no need to go further today than Steny Hoyer in the WSJ, shilling for Obama's "pay-go" legislation and blaming all deficits on a combination of profligate Bush spending and "reckless" Bush tax cuts. As the Wall St. Journal's senior economic writer, Stephen Moore, explained in a recent interview:

President Obama can read the opinion polls, and he is seeing what we've been talking about every night, which is the American people are absolutely incensed about the debt that's going on in this country. And so now President Obama is trying to sound like a born-again deficit hawk.

The difference between Obama's words and deeds is a vast and yawning chasm. It is true that the greatest sin of post-Reagan era Republicans has been to jettison fiscal discipline. It is a fundamental failure that has allowed the left to paint Republicans as hypocrites. But for the left to claim the mantle of "fiscal discipline" for themselves is to pass beyond the bounds of any reasonable definition of the word "hypocrisy" and enter into Orwellian space. But that is precisely where Hoyer, on behalf of Obama, takes us today.

The Hoyer article deserves a full roasting, so here goes.

In recent years, America's fiscal story has been one of steady decline -- from record surpluses to record deficits. In 2001, the federal government had a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Today, we are looking at a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion.

"Steady decline?" In other words, today's multi-trillion dollar deficit is the natural evolution of the Bush years? The actual budget deficit in 2006, before Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats took control of the purse strings, was $248 billion. The only way you go from that to a $1.75 trillion deficit in 2009 and describe it as a "steady decline" is to redefine the word "steady" to mean "fell off a cliff."

Further, the Clinton surplus was the function of an accounting gimmick with Social Security enacted during the 90's. Social Security surpluses of those years - and continuing through today - were used to buy government bonds, thus making the annual revenues a part of the general funds of Congress (and that a profligate Congress spent wholesale every year). It was and is a vast Ponzi scheme. Our actual national debt increased every year under Clinton. Social Security is now a time bomb set to blow up because the left in Congress refused to do anything about it. The huge number of baby boomers who gave the government the illusion of surpluses in the Clinton years are starting to make claims on the system that will steadily grow and overwhelm the system in just a few years.

A number of factors have brought us to this cash-strapped point, including reckless tax cuts, the cost of two wars, entitlement programs that have grown on autopilot, and the necessary, though costly, efforts to get our economy out of recession.

Wow. There is not a shred of intellectual honesty in that sentence.

1. Bush's tax cuts not only raised tax revenues because of an expanding tax base, they did so at the greatest rate in our nations history.


That was completely predictable from the historical data we have on the effect of tax cuts on the American economy during the 1920's, 60's and 80's..

2. The cost of the two wars we are fighting added to our deficit, but pale in comparison to real culprit, the growth in domestic spending. To put this in perspective, the total cost of the Iraq War from 2003 to 2008 was $551 billion dollars. Obama quadrupled that in his first hundred days with massive domestic spending - which, as an important aside, he did at the cost of our national defense. His budget reduces defense-related R&D, cuts major weapons systems, cuts missile defense, and holds defense spending below inflation, resulting in an ever-shrinking defense budget. As Michael O'Hanlon wrote in the Washington Post:

After three months of very impressive decisions regarding national security, President Obama made perhaps his first significant mistake. It concerns the defense budget, where his plans are insufficient to support the national security establishment over the next five years.

The truth of our deficits is ever increasing profligate spending above tax receipts on the domestic front - something Obama has just put on steroids.

3. The entitlement programs didn't grow on auto-pilot. "Auto-pilot" suggests that no one has attempted to curb the growth. The truth is that Steny Hoyer and the left beat back every attempt at reforming Social Security. Does this look like "auto-pilot" to you.



4. The massive spending by Obama was not "necessary" to get our economy out of recession. It was a choice the left made to fund every liberal special interest program they could think of under the rubric of Keynesian economics. Other alternatives to stimulate the economy were equally viable, but none offered the left a chance to go hog wild at the public trough.

But by far the worst decision was the abandonment in the Bush years of the principle that our country should pay for what it buys. It's time to learn from that error and establish that principle in law. President Obama has made the pay-as-you-go rule -- a.k.a. "paygo" -- a central part of his campaign for fiscal responsibility. Under paygo, Congress is compelled to find savings for the dollars it spends.

This is a joke, right? True, Bush and the Republican Congress deserve opprobrium for their lack of fiscal discipline. But their lack of discipline is infinitesimal compared to Obama and the far left who control Congress and the purse strings today. In this instance, a WaPo graph is worth nine trillion words:


The truth is that this pay-go legislation is a penultimate act of political cynicism. Its the left trying to cover-up their Obama Gone Wild spending spree by turning reality on its head. There are two truths to this snake oil Steny Hoyer is peddling. The "pay-go" legislation Hoyer is hawking specifically exempts Obama's multi-trillion dollar pet projects from its restrictions. It will provide cover for the largest planned expansion of spending and borrowing in our nation's history. It's only practical effect beyond pure propaganda for Obama will be to make tax cuts a thing of the past.

In the 1990s, paygo proved to be one of our most valuable tools for climbing out of a budgetary hole. As President Obama put it earlier this month, "It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved . . . to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt."

President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress set paygo aside, turning borrowed money into massive tax cuts for the most privileged. Borrowing made those tax cuts politically pain-free as long as Mr. Bush was in office, but it only passed the bill on to the next generation -- along with ever-inflating interest payments.

As I indicated above, a good part of the budget "surpluses" of the 1990's were nothing more than accounting changes that, in essence, made of Social Security a ponzi scheme. To the extent there was any fiscal discipline, it was the discipline imposed by Newt Gingrich and the House on the Clinton administration. As discussed in the quote below, pay-go legislation played little if any role in imposing fiscal discipline during the 90's as it was regularly ignored under House rules.

Pay-go was terminated in 2001 to allow for the Bush tax cuts - and you can see the result in the graph above. We didn't lose revenues, we gained them on a historic scale. Yet under pay-go, the math would have ignored this historical certainty and required massive cuts in spending to enact the tax cuts. Pay-go, since revived by Pelosi as a House rule in 2007, has been equally ineffective. It has been regularly ignored whenever convenient for Democrats - such as, for example, when passing Obama's massive 9,000 ear-mark strong "stimulus" package. This from Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation:

PAYGO has proven to be more of a talking point than an actual tool for budget discipline. During the 1991-2002 round of statutory PAYGO, Congress and the President still added more than $700 billion to the budget deficit and simply cancelled every single sequestration. Since the 2007 creation of the PAYGO rule, Congress has waived it numerous times and added $600 billion to the deficit.

Creating a PAYGO law and then blocking its enforcement is inconsistent and hypocritical. And given their recent waiving of PAYGO to pass a $1.1 trillion stimulus bill, there is no reason to believe the current Congress and the President are any more likely to enforce PAYGO than their predecessors were. And even if it were enforced, PAYGO applies to only a small fraction of federal spending (new entitlements). Consequently, PAYGO is merely a distraction from real budget reforms that could rein in runaway spending and budget deficits.

You can read the rest of Mr. Hoyer's Orwellian scratchings here. Pay-go legislation really is political cynicism taken to its zenith. And neither Steny Hoyer nor Obama display the least bit of intellectual honesty in pushing it as political cover for an experiment in deficit spending that could truly doom our economy.








Read More...