by Bart Hall
“The colony will henceforth prepare for its own defence.”
So the government in Rome is said to have written to its colony in Britain in the late 4th century, and so now do I have the somewhat haunting sense that we as individuals may just have been sent a similar message by the US Senate.
It used to be, back in the era before the secret ballot in America, that politicians would purchase votes directly from voters. A ten dollar gold coin was usually quite sufficient, especially if accompanied by a gallon or two of hard cider. In today's equivalent, that was about 200 bucks. The purchasing candidate's agents would merely have to verify that the voter had voted the right way. Unpleasant things could happen when they did not.
These days, politicians buy votes with assorted projects 'delivered' to their states or districts. In the '30s, the vast majority of FDR's relief projects went not to the neediest areas, but to Republican areas whose votes he sought to buy. In the 1936 election only Maine and Vermont voted Republican.
Congress has become quite adept at playing this game, and to avoid competing with each other they’ve developed a cosy little system amongst themselves called the 'earmark.' As in PORK on the hoof. Legislators have agreed for years that they won't go after each other's earmark projects, basically because actually having to debate priorities and hew to a total budget figure as ordinary, real people do would undermine their ability to maintain their $160,000 salaries by getting re-elected.
More than anything else it this system that has become the source of government deficits for the last generation regardless of who's in the White House. It has been especially bad when Democrats controlled Congress (from 1952 to 1994), but after a few years of enthusiastic expenditure control under the Gingrich Republicans, Congress are back to their old ways.
'Katrina' has engendered plans for some $200 Billion of redevelopment spending, and many citizens -- along with a few legislators -- said that Congress should find much of that money by cutting (or merely delaying) assorted pork projects in their districts. However Senator Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) unleashed a firestorm when he actually proposed an amendment that would have taken $220 million from a bridge project in Alaska for use in the reconstruction of a completely destroyed double interstate bridge in Louisiana.
That bridge in Alaska? Oh, it’s supposed to connect Gravina Island to Ketchican, a port and ferry stop with no road to the outside. There are 50 (count 'em, fifty) inhabitants of Gravina, and the proposed expenditure of $220 million for that bridge would buy each and every one of them a fair-sized yacht or a Lear jet. To say nothing of merely using the interest on that money to buy every one of the inhabitants a brand new Lexus every year so they can keep one on the island and one in Ketchican.
And how did the Senate vote on Senator Coburn’s proposal for financial responsibility? 82 to 15 AGAINST the amendment. On "principle." The principle, basically, that they're not going to undermine each other's ability to buy votes with needless projects, most of which are not even in the federal constitutional jurisdiction in the first place. They insist on their 'right' to use taxpayer money (irresponsibly) to reinforce their incumbency. Deficit be damned. Fiscal responsibility be damned. The younger generation be damned. The Constitution be damned.
You can see how your Senators voted here.
Given that any real tax reform will be, essentially, impossible – for only 25% of all tax filers itemise their return, not a viable political constituency for any change – the fact that the Senate has informed us by more than a 5-to-1 margin that they WILL NOT control spending is tremendously discouraging.
Congress is now spending 12% more money than it takes in every year -- $1000 per American. Last year. This year. Next year. The year after. Ad nauseum. Stealing from the future to buy votes. With a Republican-controlled House. A Republican-controlled Senate. A Republican in the White House. It won't get better when Democrats eventually return to power.
America as a nation is also spending $8 per person per day more overseas than we sell there. The national savings rate has, in 13 years, fallen from just over 10% to less than zero. Our one little school district here in Kansas has brought forth over $100 million in new debt since 2002, and is preparing to take on another $125 million of debt next year.
You have, no doubt, plenty of your own examples. Politicians and bureaucrats from the school district level to the US Senate are demonstrating repeatedly and convincingly that they will in no manner give up their power, privilege, and perks in the name of financial responsibility for our common good.
I conclude, consequently, that there is no longer any collective solution to this problem. The entrenched forces of parasitism are simply too powerful, whether it's the US Senate or a wheat farmer in Montana who lives from the farm program, or the personal and corporate welfare entitlement crowd, or the 'activists' living from one government grant to another.
The old system of buying votes was vastly cheaper and did not shred either the Constitution or our collective future, but the institutionalized psycho-sclerosis now prevailing has made meaningful and effective reform of the current irresponsible mess all-but-impossible.
So how then will you look after your family's well-being in a nation that has abandoned all pretence of financial responsibility? It’s certainly time to begin thinking along those lines. Remember, there is no collective solution. Only individual solutions.
"The colony will henceforth prepare for its own defence."
Yup.
It's called "institutional logic". There are basically four outcomes of this situation:
1. Congress controls spending. This is politically impossible.
2. Congress defaults on the national debt. This destroys the economy.
3. Congress raises taxes to try and cover the deficit. This damages the economy, shrinking the tax base. Eventually this leads to option 2.
4. Congress has the Treasury print money to cover the debt. The resulting inflation destroys the economy. Fundamentally the same as option 2 and 3.
When the economy gets destroyed, lots of people end up out of work. These people will expect the government to look after them. When it can't, these people will want to blame somebody. Whichever organizations control the media and other organs of propaganda at that moment will determine who gets blamed. (The Jews in the audience should find this scenario familiar.)
This could get quite ugly.
I'd buy gold and silver once you have completely gotten out of debt. Do it Now! You don't need that new car or the flat screen. Buy only USA Made products (if you can find them) And get to know your neighbors as well as you can. Start to become more self sufficient in every way, from hanging your clothes out on a line instead of using a dryer and canning your own jams, veggies, and stews. Start learning how to garden right quick and talk to the old folk who lived through the depression to find out what they did to get by. We come from a hardy breed. We are just going to have to relearn what our grandparents already knew,
Just at the momment I'm suspecting that the incumbants don't really get the size of the storm heading thier way.
I have long been convinced that neither one of our current parties represent US the people anymore. The only possibility that their will be real change is if a 3rd party rises up the problem with that senerio is simply that the media wont give that person the play they need. Perot was as close to that as we will ever get I still believe that if he didnt puss out in the last minute he would have done or at least had the best chance for quit some time. One thing that I do see as good is the fact of the new media you guys and ones like are really the only hope for a 3rd party canadite will have. Possibly in the future when the new media grows more in power they will be able to shift things to a 3rd party that with real ideas and real change in mind once put before the people and given the play by the new media change may actually happen. Beside this I think our only hope is Newt for pres although I dont know if the Repubs would let that even happen. They love thier Pork just as much as the Dems.
Not so grim just yet. Jon Henke has a few worthwhile ideas, and so do I. TJ is on the right track when he talks about institutional logic, so the point should be to change the institutional framework. Don't treat variables as constants.
Of note: both Allen (R-VA) and Bayh (D-IN) voted for the measure. They're both being mentioned as prospective '08 presidential prospects.
>> so the point should be to change the institutional framework.
Uhh, most of the problematic institutional framework is inherent in that thing called "democracy". "The People" have discovered that they can use this thing called "the goverment" to plunder each other. The rest follows. (See also "No Treason")
IMHO, few things are likely to stop the train wreck. Most "reform" proposals, including attempts to change the tax structure, balance the budget, etc. are doomed. If providing politicians with rational solutions to these sorts of problems was likely to have any effect, the activities of CATO would have solved these problems long ago.
Buying gold is probably a good idea. Buying ammo and solar panels may be an even better idea.
It's the fundamental problem of democracy - legislators bribing electors with their own money, and electors voting themselves state handouts. It's always the same - though the manifestations are enormously different in different countries - and always will be.
I believe that the only way to solve the problem while maintaining democracy is to separate the powers of taxation and general legislation by electing two separate legislatures - one solely to legislate (without the power to tax to pay for it - so the voters can only elect them on their legislative promises and record) and one solely to raise taxes (without the power to spend any of it - so the voters only elect them on their taxing intentions).
How we get there from here, of course, is another question.
Thon, that makes no sense. The power to legislate is inseperable from the power to tax & spend. As we always say in the military acquisition world, 'follow the money.' Lots of bright ideas get started--only the ones that get funded go anywhere.
The solution is not creating another layer of bureaucracy but limiting the one we have, the same way it was done for presidential ambition: term limits. I think 3 for senators (18 years max), 7 for house (14 years max), and 2 for president (already 8 yrs max) would be sufficient to break the incumbency lock. Of course, it would require a constitutional amendment..probably tough to get through congress...
TC: The power to legislate is inseperable from the power to tax & spend.
Sen. Hamhock would certainly agree with you. But I really have to ask you "Why?" As Matt wrote above, Don't treat variables as constants.The idea is just a combination of two thoroughly well-tested constitutional arrangements - bicamerality and the separation of powers. The explicit purpose of the doctrine of separation of powers is to prevent the domination of a single political faction in the government of the nation. It's pretty clear that in almost all Western democracies the tax-and-spend, big government, statist faction dominates and will continue to dominate (Is Old Europe becoming less Socialist, or America less porkalicious?). Separating the powers, so that a politician got elected not on promises of pork to his constituents, but on either his pledge to legislate responsiby or his pledge to tax responsibly (not both - there's the rub) would move the balance of power towards the citizen and away from the state.
There are plenty of suggestion for adjusting the mechanism (yours of term limits, Pappas's of graded priorities, various ideas for tax reform, a hundred others, some of which may have real value in reducing the problem), but they're only addressing the issue at the edges. The ability of power-seekers to make the standard corrupt bargain with the electorate lies at the root of the problem. End that, and you solve the problem.
This isn't just an American problem. I'm British, and though we don't have the spectacular pork-o-rama of American politics, we have the even-more-pernicious aspect of the same problem - the pervasive intrusive welfare state, whose fundamental MO is "Vote for me and I'll get you lots of lovely skools 'n hospitals 'n government jobs. I might have to raise your taxes just a teeny wee bit to help pay for it, but I'm really going to soak those rich stockbroker bastards for most of the money." So I'm interested in looking at this idea wherever it might apply, not just in America.
Very interesting article & posts. I agreem, it is a defect of the Democratic system. Good idea Tom (#9).
Thon (#10)
"Vote for me and I'll get you lots of lovely skools 'n hospitals 'n government jobs. I might have to raise your taxes just a teeny wee bit to help pay for it, but I'm really going to soak those rich stockbroker bastards for most of the money."
Perfect summary of politics in Europe. In my country, Spain, the government continues building schools and hiring teachers though the birth rate is sinking and people prefer non-politized private centers for their children.
There are a few points I'd throw into the mix.
As Mr Brocket states this is not a uniquely American problem. In Canada, for example, the total federal budget increased four-fold from 1971 to 1991, adjusted for inflation. That at a time the Canadian military was being destroyed by defunding and neglect. For eight of those 20 years there was an alleged conservative government. In Europe it is often vastly worse.
The so-called "third party" option so often trotted out by wistful libertarians is a non-starter. Canada has four or five parties -- the Tories still aren't sure whether they're one party or two -- Germany has about a dozen, and so on. In the US at least, politics really is 'grass-roots.' Until the Libertarians (or any other putative national party) control numerous county governments; control several state legislatures and have a strong presence in many of the rest; occupy a few governors' chairs, and have an undeniable influence in Congress -- say perhaps 70 seats in the house and at least 15 in the Senate -- a third party presidential run is quixotic, and doesn't address the issue because presidents aren't really the problem.
That said, as the Democrats have become increasingly marginalised by the growing internal domination of their extremists, they look increasingly like the Whigs of the 1840s and '50s who ended up isolated into a few regions and then disappeared. The Republicans appear poised to split (offically or not) into two parties, one of which looks a lot like the old Truman-Kennedy Democrats, because that's where most of them are these days (see Lieberman and Miller as remnant examples within modern Democrats).
Additionally, the core problem is not unique to Congress. State legislatures can be just as bad, if not worse. And guess what? I've seen the same nonsense repeatedly even at the county and local level. Even more bizarrely, here in Kansas the state Supreme Court ordered the Legislature to appropriate a specific dollar amount to schools, and has stated that next year they (the court) will roughly double that amount.
Courts setting specific budget amounts? If that becomes a trend, the whole mess becomes even more impossible to untangle.
>>That at a time the Canadian military was being destroyed by defunding and neglect.
Isn't Canada surrounded on all sides by ocean and the US? And since those oceans are well-guarded by friendly US subs, the point of the Canadian military is what again exactly?
>>If that becomes a trend, the whole mess becomes even more impossible to untangle.
Luckily, we can still as individuals work to keep our own resources free of the mess to a degree. Send the kids to private school, invest overseas, and maintain mobility.
The bridge is a boondoggle to be sure. But the "there are only 50 people on that island" claim is continually tossed around dishonestly.
The island also has the Ketchikan airport with it's six flights a day.
So to be fair, figure 50 inhabitants, and 300 travellers per day or so.
I suspect we could build a second airport on the mainland, and buy all the Ketchican residents very nice boats, for a lot less than $220 million.
Well, if you want to look at it that way, the US is in fact pretty well-prepared to survive an economic catastrophe.
So, posit an environment where something precipitates a US default. Suddenly the dollar isn't any good anymore, international trade is in chaos, massive disruptions. Does this mean that the US is suddenly unable to obtain the resources it requires? No, not really... because we've built our military up to the point (relative to the other countries of the world, who have mostly neglected theirs) that we really don't... er... have to ask.
Seriously, no nation has the ability to move products or gain the resources it needs in the face of US opposition. Possible exceptions for Britain (which still has a Navy worth the capital letter); also nuclear-armed countries, to an extent (Pakistan can't really blackmail the US with its arsenal, heh.)
Of course, there's no NICE way for the US to play its trump card, but we're assuming an emergency situation as it is. In the face of worldwide global depression, unrest, and imminent destruction of the American economy, a president could do a lot worse than turning conquistador.
If you take that into account, the fact that the US operates under somewhat of an advantage in the international market makes a lot of sense. Given the overwhelming difference in firepower, it makes sense for other countries to make disadvantageous trades in order to keep the US playing the game. (Essentially, if you're playing Monopoly with ten people, and one guy has a gun, if he insist his hotels are worth double, you agree, because paying double for his hotels is a lot better than him resorting to alternative methods of resolving disputes! ;p)
I guess you guys have forgotten that Bill Clinton was a champion at cutting the size of the budget and the size of the federal government, unlike, say, GW Bush or R Reagan.
Don't take my word for it. Go to the U. S. Treasury Department, Bureau of the Public Debt, which has a web page called Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 -2005.
They don't have nice compelling graphs (go figure!), but they've got the numbers, and you can cut and paste them into a spreadsheet and graph them. And weep for our lost fiscal responsibility.
You want a nice compelling graph on the National Debt, but you don't want to do it yourself? You won't find it on a Republican web site, that's for sure. The only site I've found for this is clearly partisan, but their figures are right. (Remember, you can check them yourself against the U. S. Treasury if you are skeptical.)
The problem is that we haven't had genuine, responsible, grown-ups in power for a long time. Clinton was a grown-up as far as fiscal responsibility goes. He knew the difference between spending and investing, and he was willing to knock heads together to cut the budget. He also knew that you had to invest in things that pay off in the future, either by paying large dividends (like scientific research) or preventing future expenses (like trying to nationalize health care). Unfortunately, Clinton was not a grown-up in the sexual part of his life, so he got (politically) screwed.
G. W. Bush is nowhere near grown up from a fiscal responsibility point of view. (The news and the numbers speak for themselves.)
Tax and spend is not so terrible, actually. It's borrow and spend that's criminal, and that's what we're seeing. Republicans (since I can't call them "conservatives" any more) like to say Democrats are worse than they are, but if you look at the figures, the evidence is just not there, and hasn't been for 25 years.
So, take a good hard look in the mirror, guys, and see who's responsible for the financial fix we're in. Then look at the weather reports, and think about how maybe we should hedge our bets a little on the global warming thing, too, maybe?
Beard:
The Bureau of Public Debt is only a subset of the financial picture within the United States. For those really interested in the $$$$(s) and implications of fiscal management I might suggest a review of The Government Accountability Office website. Most of the documents are PDF format but they do contain a lot of the information as well as graphs that you might find interesting.
Before you give any President a lot of credit concerning fiscal responsibility you might want to review the historical information on The Congressional Budget Office website.
It's always useful to revisit old saws in light of current events.
Clinton didn't want to go to Vietnam. Being a rather effusive and educated lad, we got his emotional letters to his ROTC commander about wanting to maintain political viability.
Bush didn't want to go to Vietnam. Having a mediocre mind but a core of political cunning he joined the National Guard, then quit when it wasn't needed any more.
Clinton and an intern got hot. Adult stuff. Why bother with it?
Bush used his connections to steal (sorry, eminant domain-verb) people's land for big wigs and their stadium profits. Reagan's welfare queen writ large.
And look what we got.
Clinton years of responsible gov't.
Bush - disaster.
USMC:
Thanks for the pointers to the GAO and CBO. They have lots of good data. But did you have particular citations within them to support particular arguments?
Specifically, you imply in general terms that CBO information might cast doubt on my claim that Clinton was a fiscally responsible President. What information did you have in mind?
In broad terms, it is clear that Bill Clinton was prepared to veto spending bills that he felt were excessive. George Bush has not done so. In fact, the one bill he seems to be prepared to veto (his first veto as President?) is on the grounds that it reaffirms the ban on torture by our troops. Which of these two Presidents would you consider to be showing (a) fiscal responsibility, and (b) responsible leadership?
Beard
Neither. Presidents are not responsible for the fiscal well being of the nation. Congress is responsible. Specifically the house and neither party has showed any restraint at all.
As far as options within the house one could certainly argue that Congress shut down the government expenditures by failing to pass a budget resolution. President Clinton in turn refused to implement emergency expenditures concerning non-budget resolution. If I recall correctly President Clinton threatened to veto any budget resolution that came before him because it did not have adequate funds and he was unwilling to tackle the issues concerning government expenditures period.
This congress and President Bush have faired no better concerning budgetary restraint. Congress for it's pork and President Bush for not refusing the pork. In one case you have Bush who is caught between a rock and a hard spot in his recognizing such an action on his part places current funding for Department of Homeland Security, military operations (to some extent) and other pet projects (Faith Based Initiatives) in jeopardy. On the other hand Clinton faced no such dilemma. Clinton's thrust was to maintain the status quo and increase social program expenditures.
In both cases neither the congress or the president of either administration reduced the federal deficit or balanced the budget. The stop gap was to increase the Federal Deficit limitation.
Here's a little more information from The Senate Budget Committee and some back ground history. The above statement is quoted from The Congressional Budget Process (PDF file) revised in 1998. It contains enlightening background information for those willing to wade through it. I haven't searched to see if there is anything more current than what I have linked to here. That is not to say that there isn't something more current but I doubt you will find anything that covers the current fiscal year since the aim of the reports are historical in nature.
In short the budget issues we face are by no means an easy and simple task to resolve. They can not be solved by Presidential decree any more than can be solved strictly by congressional mandates.
Insight, your claims about President Bush's national guard service have long ago been debunked.
USMC:
Thanks for the clear reply, and the more specific citations.
You wrote, comparing the Clinton and Bush administrations, "In both cases neither the congress or the president of either administration reduced the federal deficit or balanced the budget."
Unfortunately, that's simply wrong. If you look in the 2005 Federal Budget, Table 1.1 (p.21), specifically column 3, which gives the Surplus or Deficit (-), you will see that there was a surplus for the four budget years 1998 through 2001. After that, things go rapidly back into deficit.
More later.
USMC:
The larger issue is that your post [#21] includes a number of inaccuracies. I don't want to blame just you for these, since they are, I believe, deliberate distortions of reality propagated by the likes of Karl Rove.
Dismissing the fact that Clinton did, in fact, balance the budget and even create a budget surplus for four years, is not just a casual mistake. It's a deliberate attempt to rewrite history, to eliminate the achievements of the opposition and reduce blame for the incumbent. I consider you a victim here, not the perpetrator, but your post is propagating a falsehood. [See the citations in #23.]
To give a second example, you write, "Clinton's thrust was to maintain the status quo and increase social program expenditures." You may have heard this on Fox News, but it's wrong. Consider the massive 1996 Welfare Reform bill, that greatly reduced eligibility for welfare, increased work requirements, and reduced welfare costs. Over five years, it has also greatly reduced the number of people on welfare. The strengths and weaknesses of this approach can be debated, but not its existence. As a matter of fact, it was things like this that drove Newt Gingrich nuts, because Bill Clinton would coopt a traditional Republican priority, implement it successfully, and get the credit, since some Republicans couldn't bring themselves to vote against it!
That's all I have time for. But read George Orwell's 1984, and realize that people who try to change history are not your friends. You have the opportunity to learn from history, if people like Karl Rove don't get the opportunity to change it into a lie.
Whatever they say, the "reality-based community" is the one to bet on for the long term.
PS. If someone wants to argue against me, provide specific citations to respected authorities for your claims. Simply saying something like, "Oh, that's been refuted long ago", doesn't cut it.
Interestingly, Beard, your claim about the Clinton administration surpluses depends on "borrowing" from the Social Security surplus as you are using the "Total" column that includes off-budget items. On budget items were only in surplus for two fiscal years FY 1999 and FY 2000. The last Clinton administration budget FY 2001 was in deficit "on-budget".
I'm sure the irony is lost on you.
Robin:
Sorry to be ad hominem here, not to mention condescending. But you have a consistent track record [#22,#25 recently] of making snarky, elliptical criticisms that almost, but not quite, make sense. Furthermore, you include no citations to authoritative sources that would help the interested reader evaluate what you are trying to say.
In the table I cited, as you say, if you count on-budget items only, then Bill Clinton had only two years of budget surplus, not four. The off-budget items make a difference. How much of those off-budget lines come from "borrowing from Social Security"? I don't know, and I certainly have been given no reason to believe you do. But whatever is actually happening there, it involves a great deal more red ink in the Bush administration than in the Clinton administration.
If you want to discuss the issue, fine. State a clear position and bring evidence to the table to support it. But if all you want to do is sit on the sidelines and snark at people, then you are part of the problem, not the solution.
Beard,
As for my comment in #22, it was CBS' own report on the Rathergate scandal that debunked Insight's false claim about President Bush avoiding Vietnam. The report revealed that Mary Mapes had found a witness to the President's volunteering to be deployed with the air national guard squadron that went to Vietnam.
As for your inability to correctly represent the very data you pointed to, I find your condescension misdirected to say the least. For I do know how much of the off-budget surplus comes from Social Security - Section 13's tables reveal this to anyone who is actually familiar with the report.
Beard
To get those number you have to go to the Actuarial Reports from the Board of Trustees and look at the individual annual reports. Unfortunately I have not found a historical report that details the assets held by OASDI.
According to the reports:
1996 - 70.9 billion was invested in Federal Securities
1997 - 88.6 billion was invested in Federal Securities
1998 - 106.9 billion was invested in Federal Securities
1999 - 133.7 billion was invested in Federal Securities
2000 - 152.3 billion was invested in Federal Securities
2001 - 163.5 billion was invested in Federal Securities
2002 - 165.3 billion was invested in Federal Securities
2003 - 152.2 billion was invested in Federal Securities
2004 - 156.6 billion was invested in Federal Securities
These numbers are based on a calendar year and unfortunately that is as far back as the online reports go. At any rate this is money the OASDI (Social Security Administration) sends to the Federal Treasury and receives a Federal Security Bond for future redemption upon annuity. In essence it is filling the Federal Treasury with money that the government borrowed from itself to spend on other budgetary expenditures and should not be confused with privately held public debt.
Robin,
You say the Social Security borrowing is explained in Table 13.1, where the relevant part starts on p.281. [URL in my previous message] So, connect the dots for me. Where does it explain how much is being borrowed to compensate for deficits elsewhere?
Happily, USMC provides the actual information needed to carry out this discussion. Unless you can clarify where Table 13.1 is hiding that kind of information, I consider it yet another example of providing a justification that almost makes sense, but not quite. You try to leave the implication that of course you know your way around these figures in detail, but if an interested reader follows up in detail, the answers aren't actually there.
[This leaves me skeptical about how solid the "debunking" will turn out to be in that Rathergate report you mention. (Without providing a URL, of course.) I don't have time to follow up on that one.]
I am interested in knowing those figures, but we both know that such borrowing is going on. It was happening during the Clinton administration to some extent, but it's happening just as much during the Bush administration.
My overall point remains: Clinton was far more fiscally responsible than Bush has been. As evidence, I offer that he had a total budget surplus for four years. Even if that depended during two years on a certain amount of off-budget surplus (some of which might have been borrowing from Social Security (don't know for sure, but you're helping me track it down, right?)), the balances and their trends are still a lot better than the balances and trends for Bush.
"Heck of a job, Georgie!"
Beard
Perhaps this report from treasury Bureau of Public Debt will help. At no point in history has the debt to the penny been reduced. This means the government has continually borrowed money over the years and increased the Federal Debt ceiling when needed as mandated by law. Simple question - How do I have a balanced budget or budget surplus if the Federal Debt has never been reduced since 1987?
You might also want to review the Schedules of Federal Debt which breaks down the debt held by the public and debt held by federal entities (money government borrows from itself).
USMC:
I definitely appreciate the way you comment: you provide relevant information with pointers to more, including hard questions. The Office of the Public Debt has a variety of debt-to-the-penny lists. The one I find most useful is the debt by year 1950 to 2005. I recommend people cutting and pasting these numbers into a spreadsheet and graphing them.
You ask: "Simple question - How do I have a balanced budget or budget surplus if the Federal Debt has never been reduced since 1987?"
That's an excellent question. I wish I knew the answer. The answer has got to be some convention about what is counted in some numbers and not counted in others. It would be helpful to know, but I think the overall trends give a pretty good insight into what is going on in terms of fiscal responsibility anyway.
The last several comments miss the point, and the mark, rather profoundly. Presidents have relatively little influence on the spending side of the equation except when they wield the veto pen timidly.
Pete duPont, former governer of Delaware, weighs into the argument:
He has plenty more to say relevant to this discussion.
Presidents can shape broad economic policies for things like tax rates, levels of regulation, and so on, but it is generally the spending side of the equation causing the problem, and that has always been the responsibility of Congress.
The local town has been getting $100,000 per year from the feds to do things like build sidewalks, and our Housemember is very proud of that 'benefit' of his incumbancy. It's not a lot, but it's for local sidewalks for Pete's sake. Add it to $204,000 annually for the Alabama Peanut Queen festival, and on, and on, and next thing you know we've got precisely the problem outlined in my original post.
Beard:
I think you know the answer. It's all a shell game in how the revenues and outlays are reported. Do I place faith in the fiscal budget reports or do I place faith in figures quoted for the National debt?
My money is on the national debt and it isn't decreasing. Truth be known that figure could be distorted as well. I'm sure anyone who is owed by the national government is minding their budget reports of debits and credits much better than we as a nation do.
Bart
You are absolutely correct in that pork is a problem. In the grand scheme of things from a senator's or congressman's / woman's point of view it is peanuts compared to the overall picture. Yet it is these peanuts that continually tend to be a thorn in everyone's side. As to your comment concerning who is responsible you and I are in agreement. Reference my reply to Beard post #21.
As for your link concerning Pete DuPont and his views.
Pete misses the point in that these measures will not reduce the deficit. These measures do nothing more than abate the rate of deficit increase. The real solution to reducing the deficit are in the examples he provides at the end of the article and I would heartily support a candidate that would work towards those ends.
Here's my gripe about the scenario's congress and the senate have created. As an example they collect taxes for federal highways. Then they enact laws that force states to comply or forfeit the federal handout. The 55MPH speed limit was a prime example. Say the state didn't want to participate and elected to forfeit the handout. There is no mechanism to reduce John Doe's taxes of state xyz that doesn't support the mandate. Another example. Most would agree that local law enforcement is a community issue. Either the community supports the local law enforcement structure or it doesn't. Enter the feds to collect taxes and subsidize local law enforcement. Why should Muleshoe Texas pay for an NYC cop? The examples go on and on but these types of taxes put your federal and local representatives at risk when it comes to compliance. Better to comply and get something back even though it may never approach the amount paid by a particular state or community than not comply and suffer the wrath of said community.
Giving credit to Bill Clinton for the federal surplusses from 1998-2001 -- surplusses that he opposed -- just because he was president at the time is silly. In that case you might as well give him credit for the St. Louis Rams' first Superbowl victory.
Bill Clinton opposed the Balanced Budget Amendment. He opposed the line-item veto. He opposed the balanced budgets passed by the Republican Congress and vetoed them -- twice. He vetoed the continuing resolution during the budget standoff in 1995 -- thereby shutting down the federal government -- because it was funded at too low a level. One of his cabinet secretaries (Robert Reich) even went on national TV to say that his administration was opposed to the very principle of a balanced budget, because that was the mechanism they were using to redistribute wealth from the rich (bondpayers) to the poor.
If you want to hold one man responsible for the budget surplusses from 1998-2001, that man is John Kasich (R-OH). He was a long-time budget hawk who became chairman of the House Budget Committee after the Republicans took over the House of Representatives in 1995. Of course that was only possible because of Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America. Both of those men are gone from the House now, and the federal budget has suffered accordingly.
Mike
Michael Kent (like others), repeats the absurd statement that Bill Clinton vetoed the budget in 1995 because it was funded at too low a level.
This is one reason why I insist on authoritative citations. USMC [#21] provided a suitable citation, a news article from CNN.
What it says is that the Republican Congress had passed a huge tax cut that Clinton felt was irresponsible. In order to pay for it, they proposed to zero out the AmeriCorp volunteer service program, a favorite of his. He threatened to veto the budget if they sent him that bill. They did, and he did. AmeriCorp still exists. (And does fine, important work, by the way.)
Enthusiasts on all sides have a strong tendency to spin things their favorite way when telling the story. This means that the intelligent reader should not, in general, be will willing to take your word for a potentially controversial claim. If you know I might disagree with something, and you want to change my mind, then provide evidence.
Having said some things about Bill Clinton that I know to be false, Michael Kent then says some nice things about John Kasich (R-OH). Those claims might or might not be true, but he has used up any credibility he might have had to start with.
Got evidence?
USMC:
You and others have repeated the claim that the President has little responsibility for the fiscal mess we are in. It is all Congress' fault because they, after all, have the Constitutional authority to set the budget and spend money.
[Have I stated your position correctly and fairly?]
What you say about Congress is true, de jure, but de facto, more and more power has drifted from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch over the years. In fact, it is the Administration that prepares the proposed budget, and some loyalist in Congress formally submits it. Furthermore, the President is the leader of his party, typically in practice as well as in theory. If the Republican Party has control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress, who else is in a position to exert control over all those Republicans?
And it is clear that the leadership in the House and the Senate are, in fact, loyal to George Bush. They follow his lead, and they snuffle up to the government trough because he allows and encourages it. Otherwise, why no vetos?
You are certainly right that every Congressman and Senator wants to bring home as much bacon as possible to his/her own district, and needs to if he/she wants to be re-elected. And there is a quiet agreement to let each other eat their fill.
I assume you saw how Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) practically got eaten alive by Ted Stevens (R-AK), for the presumption of threatening the funding for the "bridge to nowhere".
The problem is, legislators are right to be worried that their opponents will take their jobs if they voluntarily give back bacon destined for their own districts.
This is where genuine leadership comes in. The leadership --- the President certainly, plus the leaders in House and Senate --- have to impose limits even-handedly on everyone, so no individual is unduly shafted, compared with the others. If you can be conspicuously even-handed (hard but not impossible, as shown by the base-closing commission), you can make it politically feasible to give some of that pork back. But it takes principles, leadership, and guts.
When it comes to fiscal responsibility, Clinton had it, and Bush doesn't.
[I'm not saying Bush lacks those things in all areas. He has stuck to his guns about Iraq, in the face of all the facts going the wrong way. He appears to be sticking with Harriet Miers all the way. He believes that cutting taxes cures all ills. He may well be wrong, but he's got persistence and guts.]
If you want fiscal responsibility, I have no problem with you putting as much pressure on Congress as you like. I certainly don't want to get them off the hook. But don't treat their share of the responsibility as a reason to let the President off the hook. He's at least as guilty as they are, probably more.
Beard,
With respect to the off-budget items, section 13 in the budget report shows that for each year the Social Security surplus was actually virtually identical to the amount of the off-budget surplus.
Evidently you once again did not read your own linked article closely. The CNN piece does not state that the 1995 budget showdown was about Americorps funding, but that the dispute in '99, when the article was written, was about the zeroing of Americorps and a tax cut.
I guess an "authoritative" source just doesn't improve your reading comprehension.
As for the debunking of the myth that George Bush was avoiding service in Vietnam, and the fact that Mary Mapes had found witnesses that reported on Bush's volunteering to go to Vietnam, that appears in the Thornburgh/Boccardi report on page 130. I would look forward to your apology for your false ad hominems, but I've already figured out your hypocrisy.
Beard
An explanation from the congressional budget office. The ultimate responsibility for budgetary concerns resides in the house and the senate.
USMC:
I agree with you that Congress has the legal authority to set the budget, but in fact, the President has an enormous amount of influence over how it comes out. This is through his initial budget proposal, through his supporters in the House and Senate, and through the threat and exercise of the veto.
I certainly agree that Congress bears significant responsibility for the fiscal irresponsibility that is going on. My major argument is that Congress' responsibility for this does not eliminate Bush's responsibility. Or the credit that Clinton deserves.
Robin,
My mistake. I did misread it as applying to 1995 rather than 1999. That citation was considerately provided by USMC in support of his argument. You have provided no citation at all for the claim that Clinton vetoed the 1995 budget because it was too low.
You did provide one specific citation (though without a URL), to p.130 of the Thornburg/Boccardi report. (Other readers can find the document here.) That does provide some evidence that Bush volunteered to serve in Vietnam, but hardly definitive evidence, so although it would contribute to a fruitful discussion on the topic, I hardly consider the contrary claim to have been "debunked".
You also write, about a separate point:
You make a detailed claim, but you provide almost, but not enough information for independent verification. As you know, the budget is a morass of figures, so specific pointers are necessary.
I've looked for the portions of section 13 that most closely resemble your claim. The best I can find is on p.282, Table 13.1, in the section titled "Hospital Insurance Trust Fund", the line labeled "Invested Balance". If I compare those numbers with the numbers for off-budget surplus [p.22, Table 1.1], for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, what I get are:
year: Table 13.1 (Table 1.1)
1998: 118,236 (99,195)
1999: 153,767 (123,690)
2000: 168,859 (149,819)
2001: 197,137 (160,681)
Those numbers are not "virtually identical". Maybe there are better ones, but I seriously looked for the strongest numbers for your case, and this is the best I found.
Let me tell you, Robin, that when I criticize you, it's not by calling you names. Rather, it's by drawing conclusions from the nature of the arguments you make, and providing evidence for those conclusions.
There's a pattern in your arguments. You like to make claims that allude to some body of knowledge, but never quite point to anything specific there. If I push you (as I have), you provide somewhat more specific pointers, but seldom ones that pan out, if a reader is interested enough to pursue it. (The reference to the Thornburg/Boccardi report is a refreshing exception. Please keep it up.) I haven't seen you providing any URLs, to make it easier for someone to evaluate the truth of your claims.
I'm going to all this trouble partly out of annoyance at you and others who make bogus claims without evidence, or by alluding to non-existent evidence. However, it's partly because I can't help trying to be a teacher, and show you what it actually means to make an argument and back it up. As you see above, I can even apologize if I get something wrong.
I don't mind that we disagree. If you convince me legitimately, I will have learned something. I mind when you waste my time with bogosity. As you have.
To Beard and USMC:
Thanks to you both. I'm getting a great deal out of your parts of the conversation -- not to slight any other contributors on this thread.
At the risk of descending into glittering generality, it seems to me that you're both right about leadership/statesmanship being in short supply due to a kind of "conspiracy of bears to honey".
It is also a truism that fiscal responsibility comes easier when it's raining money (and you're not fighting a war).
Nort
Beard
Re your comments #39
We are both in agreement that the President plays a role in submitting the budget and has final approval concerning adoption. Regardless of what happens and regardless of influence it is still the house and senate that control the strings. Ask yourself what would the President do if he doesn't get what he wants. Veto the proposed budget. Now this can go round and round if the house and senate choose to let it happen. Neither one giving in to the other. What effect would that have on the American populace? What effect would it have on the Federal Government and operations? Bottom line in my opinion is in the end the President would have to buckle.
Here's another take on the budget review from the Public Agenda website. Now I don't know when the article was written because there is no date associated with it but it does have some salient points that require research rather than accepting the statements at face value.
Some questions to ponder:
Discretionary versus Entitlements (Mandatory) - How many programs have been moved into the entitlement category over the years? Keep in mind if you're looking at giving credit to a particular party or President for certain programs pay attention to where the program is funded from. Over the years more programs have been put into the entitlement category versus the discretionary. It didn't happen overnight but today two thirds of the budget is entitlements.
Return of Red Ink:
A projected 10 year budget surplus is drying up? Keep in mind the word projected as we look into the future with a crystal ball. Did the Clinton administration project the downfall of Enron, the bankruptcy of airlines, the bankruptcy of telecommunications giants, the saving and loans debacles and the host of other economic problems that have been a thorn in the American populaces side? Better yet why has the American populace been tasked with bailing these intuitions out? Could anyone predict 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, hurricane damage due to Katrina, Rita and Wilma. The government pay off to victims of these catastrophes alone has set a president that should have never been endorsed in my opinion by the house, senate or executive branch.
The hard questions (caution a PDF file but well worth the read) that must be posed and analyzed are being asked by GAO but I've yet to hear anyone from any party make reference to any of the documents we have paid them to produce.
GAO has also produced a document Understanding the Tax Debate (caution PDF file) another good read in my opinion that provides substantial information as to the constructs of revenues versus expenditures in holistic form.
In my view neither President Clinton or Bush and their respective house and senate counter parts haven't done a damn thing other than gloss over the issues and cherry pick the items that make them look favorable or unfavorable depending on one's point of view and what they are trying to portray.
I'd also point out that the keyword of the day concerning taxes is investment. Seems these two words have now come to mean one and the same. When we say let's make an investment in education that investment turns into taxable allocation. The hard question concerning investments (taxes) is who ultimately benefits. In my opinion - if the nation as whole does not benefit then it is not an investment (tax) allocation worth considering. Bart this is where the damn bridge in Alaska fits.
As a final link July 4th was this year's Tax Payer's Independence day. Think about that for minute. If all things were equal and a flat tax was imposed over half of an American citizen's work pay is taken away in the name of investments (taxes)! Anyone taking bets on what it will be next year?
USMC:
Thanks for your thoughtful message and the pointers to interesting reading. I don't have time tonight to read them, but I will try to get to it soon.
It's a shame that "investment" has become the keyword of the day, since it will then lose its meaning entirely. However, it's an important concept in thinking about taxes.
If you buy a computer for your business, or pay tuition to earn a graduate degree, those are investments, because they pay off for you in the future. If you buy a computer to play video games, or buy a red Corvette to pick up girls, that's spending. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, so you can't move all our financial outgo to investments. You have to spend on some things, like food and clothing.
When we consider taxes, good investments are worth it, while spending may be problematic, especially in large amounts. The Interstate Highway system and the Internet were excellent investments. Funding for NSF and NIH are, by and large, outstanding investments.
When you buy your house, it's an investment. When you fix your roof, it's spending (since it doesn't increase its value), though certainly highly responsible spending, since you avoid a possible catastrophic loss in the future. Let's call this kind of spending "maintenance".
Money the government should have spent improving the levees in New Orleans would have been maintenance. Now we have to spend a larger amount fixing up after the disaster.
Another category is interest. The interest on my mortgage is arguably part of the investment in my house. Interest on my credit cards or auto loan are not justifiable as investments, in general. I could have saved first, spent later. But still, those are my obligations, and I have to pay them.
Same with the federal budget. Whether the money was spent wisely or foolishly, money we've spent in the past is our obligation, and we have to pay it back with interest.
I give a fair amount of money to charity. That's not an investment, or maintenance. It's discretionary spending for no specific benefit to me, except that that's the sort of person I want to be.
Medicare and other entitlements are similar. We as a society decide what kind of people we want to be. We don't want our elderly to die in poverty with poor medical care (as they did in previous decades), so we provide Social Security and Medicare. We might decide that we promised too much, or that we don't really want to be the kind of people that save our elderly, or something in between. But that's the decision we make.
Back to the Federal budget. In my opinion, just like a family, we have some decision about how to spend our money. First, we have legal obligations, and we have to meet them, like it or not. Second, we should be making investments in things that will pay off in the future, and doing maintenance on things that could bite us catastrophically. These kinds of spending are the responsible way to be grown-ups. People who want to cut taxes without thinking about these things are refusing to be grown-ups.
Once we've done the above, we've got some discretionary spending. Some we should spend on being the kind of people we believe we should be: caring for the needy, doing good, within responsible limits. If there is anything left, we can spend it on more discretionary things.
Obviously, different people have different opinions about what is an investment, and what is discretionary. Pretty much no one thinks the "bridge to nowhere" is a sound investment (except that it buys Ted Stevens' vote). Some people would argue that funding the National Endowment for the Arts is a sound investment, while others consider it discretionary spending that they would like to avoid. But that's what democracy is supposed to be about.
Taxpayer's Independence Day is a silly concept. How much you spend on something is only meaningful if you also ask what you got for what you spent.
Furthermore, you aren't paying just for what you got. You are also paying for what your parents bought on time, and you are getting the bills for. And you are doing the same to your kids.
I'll be very happy to discuss fiscal responsibility in detail. But we have to use the real categories of investment, maintenance, interest, and so on. (Not just the buzzwords, but what they really mean in real people's lives.)
Cheers,
PS. [Nortius Maximus] Thanks for the nice words. Fiscal responsibility is especially important when it is not raining money.
Postscript: In the context of the above, let's try to figure out how to categorize the huge cost of the Iraq war. If Saddam had really had nukes ready to deploy within six months or less, then the cost of the war would have been "maintenance" --- money spent to preserve the social order, avoiding vast future costs.
In fact, he didn't have the nukes, and all the evidence suggests that that excuse was fabricated from the beginning. For many people (me included), this means that the Iraq war was discretionary spending --- an avoidable adventure that was vastly expensive, and continues to hemorrhage money (not to mention blood).
Now, a neocon might argue that it was an investment in the New American Century --- an American Empire that would effectively control the resources of the entire world, in practice, if not by holding legal title through conquest. In that view, the payoff was so huge that a large cost, and a substantial risk, might be justifiable. As it happened, we appear to have lost the gamble, and we are left with the cost and not the payoff.
While that is a coherent position to take, I would argue that it is both "ethically challenged", and involved a mistaken assessment of the risks involved. Many cooler heads would not have felt that the probability of victory, even for those stakes, was high enough for the gamble.
So, the biggest piece of discretionary spending that caused our current problems was the Iraq war.
I could go on, but I have work I have to get done tonight.
Beard
I agree whole heartedly the entire budget needs to be looked at when it comes to spending and every funded program needs to be analyzed and reviewed. When you get a chance to read the GAO reports you see that it is totally unbiased which is refreshing to say the least. I also agree that how we spend that money is what is at issue as you have demonstrated in some of your examples concerning personal household budgets and what you can or can not afford.
As for your comment:
Is it really a silly concept. When it comes to personal purchases how many times do you stop to consider the cost in terms of man hours over time. Small item purchases to most are meaningless when it comes to concept of man hours worked. Things like the news paper, 7/11 morning cup of coffee or Starbuck's Latte. The $0.35 newspaper and the $1.05 or $2.50 coffee is of little thought and or consequence to most. If you translate what you are doing into the larger picture of man hours over time these items still factor into the equation.
Now lets take the silly Taxpayer's Independence Day and look at it from this perspective. If I work half of the year to pay for the cost of government (caution PDF file) how much does that leave me to purchase a house or a car for that matter. We can certainly argue as to the necessity of such items as a house versus rent a car versus public transportation. We can certainly argue about new versus used as well. The bottom line when it comes to government expenditures is I've reduced my income by more than half to obtain personal items. A $100 item cost me double the man hours to purchase. Why? You're question about what do I get for my investment (taxes) is a valid one and one that should be weighed against what I'm willing to spend for it. Keep in mind the key subject in the question is "I" not "YOU" or someone else.
As for your other points concerning the merits of how we got into Afghanistan and Iraq and the drain on tax payer resources can certainly be debated. But if I understand you correctly you would be %100 behind the activities if we had found WMD, biological and chemical warfare elements. Hind sight on these issues serve as nothing more than lessons learned but the lesson is only learned if you critically review the entire picture concerning the roles played by the house, senate, executive, and administration departments within our government structure. It is much easier to blame one man and shout he lied people died than it is to review the processes and events that led him to the conclusions and actions he took. During this entire conversation I specifically stayed away from the arguments you brought forth concerning these issues. The main reason being is the topic was the budget and who does what, when, where, how and why. Getting into the arguments and the path you want to go down does not provide one bit of information relevant to the discussion.
I'm surprised this thing is still chugging along almost a week after posting, but it does prove that there are at least five or six people who actually care about this stuff.
The real problem is that our current system makes militates against actually deciding the budget on the basis of priorities. In theory, that's what Congress are elected to do. It wouldn't bother me if a Congress controlled by one party or the other decided priorities in a manner contrary to my own preferences, but the current attidude prevailing on both sides of the aisle that "we can have it all and get the 'people' to pay for it" is tremendously destructive.
I believe that over the long term the only viable solution is a balanced-budget constitutional amendment something along the following lines ...
"Congress shall send to the President a federal budget in balance or in surplus, except in times of Congressionally declared war. The annual federal budget shall not exceed (say) 16% of the previous year's Gross Domestic Product, and may include up to an additional 3% of said GDP for the retirement of existing federal debt."
The chances of getting that through Congress with a two-thirds vote are asymptotically approaching zero, and having the States convene a Constitutional Convention at any time until the 'culture war' is settled would be disastrously divisive.
I think we're just going to have to buckle down as individuals and deal with it. However bad deficit spending by government might be, it is deficit spending by consumers that will be our ultimate undoing.
Bart,
Yes, you get a group of people standing around the water cooler chatting about something interesting, and it just keeps on going.
You raise an important point:
I agree that this is an important problem. Fortunately, it is something that individuals can work on by being individually more responsible. If you live a bit below your means, instead of above it, for a few decades, live in a smaller house and drive an older car, then after a while you can pay off your mortgage, take comfort in your retirement accounts, and be pleased that your kids don't have huge college debts.
I can relax when friends and acquaintances are sweating bullets about the real estate bubble.
But then I see my government squandering money like it is going out of style, piling on debts for my kids and grandkids to pay, but without investing in the things that look to me to be serious risks looming on the horizon.
As a social prediction, I think you're right. There's a hard rain gonna fall, and a lot of people are going to go underwater. Protect yourself and your family.
But once you've done that, start trying to get the government to behave responsibly, too. (And keep in mind, responsibility includes spending money in important investments like scientific research and universal education. And collecting taxes to pay for those expenses, not just deferring them to the kids.)
USMC:
That's exactly the argument I want to criticize as short-sighted.
The "costs me double" claim assumes that you got nothing of value for your taxes. How about the street you live on? The water and sewer system you are hooked up to? The police and fire protection you enjoy? The Interstate Highway system that takes you to the National Parks to enjoy a vacation? The medical research that produced the breakthroughs that keep you healthy and improve your quality of life?
In fact, our peaceful and prosperous way of life depends critically on a working infrastructure, much of which is created and maintained by the government. Much of the rest works together because of inter-operability requirements imposed on the private sector by the government. (Aren't you glad you that trains all run on the same guage of tracks? That wasn't done through cooperation. Some operators were really pissed.)
Yes, I know there's government waste: bridges to nowhere and the like. But no one can seriously argue that we don't get lots of tangible value from government programs.
These "cut taxes at all costs" slogans implicitly assume the position that government is bad, that tax money is wasted or stolen, and that we would live just as well with little or no government. They typically don't come out and say it, in so many words, because its foolishness would become obvious.
The real issue is that, as a large and diverse country, we have to decide which costs we want to bear through taxes, and which costs we will bear as individuals. There are lots of opinions on this, and in a democracy, we often don't get our own personal way. But still, there are sensible and mature ways to discuss these things.
The problem with not being mature and sensible is that sloganeering can end us up with policies that are really lousy. We could decide on investment approaches that are vastly more expensive, or simply don't work, just because they fit someone's ideology.
One of my favorites is basic research funding (at NSF, NIH, NIST, NASA, DARPA, ONR, AFOSR, etc). Some people say that's a waste. Let industry do it. But industry doesn't do the basic research that everything else builds on. And the track record since 1945 clearly demonstrates that these investments pay off amazingly well. Cutting those budgets is completely bone-headed. It's pouring the future prosperity of the country down the drain, and conceding world leadership to other countries.
Is that really what you want to do? I didn't think so.
Beard:
My point is it costs me double the man hours period. This is regardless of the fact that money is spent on items I may or may not ever get to enjoy. The list you provide are items most people would be willing to pay portions of their wages for and in that sense those are not the issue. The fact of the matter is those items alone do not require me to work double the man hours to support them. Who enjoys the public park in NYC? NYC residents right. If a pole were taken in the US as to how many people have been to NYC and visited an NYC park I'd bet a years salary the majority have not. So who benefited? NYC or me? As I said before in my previous note the subject is what do "I" get. This is precisely the kind of stuff that belongs on the backs of NYC residents not on the backs of the nation. Would you not agree?
I've been to Ketchikan how many people here have? I can tell you the entire area is a major tourist attraction weather permitting (which isn't a very long season). I can also tell you that during the tourist season most of the jobs are held by people who travel and work for the tourism industry and not the local residents. I can tell you nearly one in three Alaskan residents have a pilots license. Why? Roads are difficult to maintain and keep open year round. If you think there is an expansive area between Phoenix and California on I-10 that is not inhabited that area is peanuts compared to Alaska. I mean give me a break here. I believe a majority of the American populace is tired and angry about this type of BS.
My major malfunction as some might think with this scenario is I gave you (the government - federal local state) over half of what I worked for and I'm very upset about what "I" have to show for it. Until the government can get it's house in order I have a serious problem donating another dime.
Here's a few more cases for you. Is the Red Cross a charity or not? Does the Red Cross provide a function world wide based on the donations of a world community? The answer to those questions are yes and yes. Explain to me why the government needs to replace the charitable funds (IE refund the Red Cross for hurricane operations). Even worse I understand the President's and this administrations Faith Based initiatives and I agree they should be afforded the same support as any other not for profit charitable organization but I begin to draw the line when we start refunding charitable organizations just so their coffers can be replenished. This type of thinking and action is nothing more than extortion in my opinion. Forcing a populace to donate to charity go figure?
PS - For those in Alaska I'm sorry if this comes across as though you are the only culprits in this scenario. There are many more examples that are similar to this type of federal fiscal irresponsibility across the nation and I oppose them all.
USMC:
Sorry, I don't buy it. You may not approve of how your tax money is spent. But that doesn't "double the cost" of what you buy with the money left over. That's just muddy thinking.
By the time I pay taxes, mortgage, utilities, food, car and home insurance, tuition for my kids, and so on, I have (let's say, because I'm not going to figure it out for real) 5% or 10% of my money left over. Does that mean that when I buy a purely discretionary cup of coffee, that it costs 10-20 times what it seems?
No, that's just silly. If I'm paying too much for something else, say credit card debt (to pick a non-tax example), then I should figure out how to arrange my life to pay less on that, so I have more discretionary money to spend. The cup of coffee costs what it says it costs. The question is how much money I have to spend on it.
If you think you pay too much on taxes because the government spends too much on something you don't approve of, then point the finger at that thing, line up your friends, and vote against it. But saying my cup of coffee costs twice what I think it costs is just confusing the issue.
Beard:
You missed the point. I lost half of my life paying for government costs period. Considering the Tax Independence Day if I'm not free of debt from the government till half the year is over I've worked double the man hours to pay for personal items. Most people don't realize it because they don't pay attention to that pay stub they get every pay period. They don't pay attention to the surtax on purchased items etc...
You are confusing costs with man hours. I said double the man hours not double the cost of a purchased item. The items cost is a fixed expenditure once the price is set. There is nothing magical about the concept of cost compared to man hours. Man hours translates into income. Income spent can be translated into man hours worked. Simple concept and basic math.
Example Joe's income is $20 and hour. Joe wants to buy an item that costs $100. How many hours must Joe work to pay for that item. Five hours right or more than half a work days pay. For simplicities sake the government (local state feds) take 20% of Joe's gross income every time Joe is paid. Joe's net income is now $16 dollars an hour. That is disposable income (net) that Joe can spend as he pleases. The item is still $100 dollars how many hours must Joe work to pay for the item? (6 hrs 15 minutes). Joe still has to work the hours and it cost Joe 20% of his time (man hours) to purchase the item. 5 hours divided by 6.25 hours = 80%. 100% - 80% = 20% of purchasing power that Joe can not touch. Joe still worked those hours for that %20 that he can not avoid.
Now let's look at the cost of a government employee. John makes $20 an hour and is paid by public coffers (tax money). The $20 comes from 5 people in the private sector. Joe paid $4 and must rely on 4 other people to pay $4 each to cover John's pay. John wants to buy a $100 item. How many hours must John work to pay for the item? Using the example I've provided for Joe the same scenario holds true. Wouldn't you agree. Closer observation though is required. Why? John's pay came from 5 people in the private sector. Even though the books are kept in the same manner for John the question is, did John who works for the government which is a cost to the private sector (the government does not make profits to pay their employees) really pay his taxes? The answer is no? All taxes are the burden of the private sector. In effect John has been removed from the tax base and is considered a cost of government. Did John provide a service? Yes he provided the man hours worked that we all agreed to share and pay for John to accomplish a task we want done. In essence the only question that remains concerning federal government expenditures paid to John and the man hours he works is this. Is John providing a service for all of the private sector or is John providing a service for a selected few? Now I use John as federal employee the same process holds true for local and state. However the topic in this case is the federal government and not the state and local levels.
USMC:
I understand the equivalence between earned dollars and hours of work.
You didn't "lose half of your life paying for government costs". You may have paid half of your earnings for taxes, and that may or may not have gotten you corresponding value for your (involuntary) investment. But any other financial obligation you take on has precisely the same structure.
Suppose I buy a house and take on a $200,000 mortgage. For the next 30 or so years, I've got to pay some significant amount to bank for the privilege of living in my house. (Well, the house is partly mine and partly theirs, I guess.) Can I say "I've lost a third of my life paying for this mortgage"? No, you would consider that silliness on my part.
Even if I paid too much for the house, and it's now worth less than I paid for it, it's still a decision I made. I took on a financial obligation, for better or for worse, and I'm living in the house.
Same with living in the USA and paying taxes.
You don't like US taxes? Move to Sweden. (Oh, sorry, they pay a lot more. Try Mexico. Oh, lower quality of life. Hmmm...)
Beard
If I went on the dole and didn't work at all then I would have lost nothing right? Now I don't mind paying taxes for elements we all enjoy. I would mind if the bite is so much that all I can do is satisfy my basic needs. That is the issue at hand and that is exactly why I translated man hours worked.
As for the house people in New Orleans made a decision to live and purchase there did they not?
USMC,
Glad you brought that up. I'd been meaning to get back to that. How do you feel about school taxes? My kids are grown and out of the public schools. Why should I pay school taxes? What about someone who never had kids?
The argument, back to Ben Franklin, is that we are all better off with a better educated population, whether we personally have kids or not. It's reasonable for the majority, via the elected legislature, to decide that we should all pay for public schools even though only some people will receive the direct benefit.
Likewise the Interstate Highway System. I drive on the Interstates in my state, but not in yours (or not very often). Why should I help pay for your interstates? (My state pays out more in highway taxes than it gets back, by the way.) Because having a nationwide Interstate Highway System is a Good Thing for all of us.
I don't want to be a Pollyanna here. Obviously, our taxes pay for bunches of things we consider frivolous, waste, or even downright theft from the people. We have to root those things out. What I'm arguing against is the more systematic rejection of collective investment of money raised through taxes.
Best wishes.
PS. I suspect we've lost everyone else here by now. Would you be interested in continuing this discussion more directly via email? You can reach me at the_beard7@yahoo.com.