Tag Archives: federal deficit

What Are You Willing To Believe?

Posted on by

On Tuesday, The Media Research Center posted an article about a recent statement by Heather Long, a columnist for The Washington Post.

The article reports:

Washington Post columnist Heather Long decided to gaslight voters one more time before they head to the polls to decide who will run the White House for the next four years. “As Election Day arrives, the data is clear: Americans are better off economically than they were four years ago,” read Long’s ridiculous opening paragraph for her Nov. 4 item. She must have realized the insanity of her claim because she then resorted to telling voters they were better off whether they knew it or not: “I understand many people aren’t feeling it because of the inflation hangover that has left prices noticeably higher than they were in 2020. But it’s important to step back and assess the full picture.” It’s as if Long is trying her hardest to channel her inner Paul Krugman. 

The article includes the following screenshot:

The article concludes:

Ah, but how about that sexy stock market, says Long! “The stock market has gained about 75 percent since Oct. 30, 2020. (A record share of Americans — nearly 60 percent of households — have money in the market],” she wrote with glee. Not so fast. As Heritage Foundation Senior Research Associate Alexander Frei noted in an Oct. 31 column, “Inflation is also making stock markets appear stronger than they really are and cutting into returns for everyone, including those with retirement accounts.” In other words, as prices rise, “even significant returns lose their purchasing power.” Frie argued that now “[m]ore money is required to buy the same goods and services, eroding the real value of one’s gains. As everything becomes more expensive, higher earnings or investment returns don’t stretch as far, making it harder to keep up with the true cost of living.”

But Long was adamant that “looking at the full picture shows that most Americans are better off financially than they were four years ago.” But a Sept. 25 analysis by the Financial Health Network determined that “the majority of Americans are not financially healthy, with expenses outpacing income, little wiggle room to protect against financial shocks, and diminished hope for the future.”

Long is clearly trying to attempt a pathetic, last-minute effort to smear as much lipstick on the pig of the Biden-Harris economy as she can before Election Day closes out. She even undercut herself by conceding that most of her points matter “little to voters. And I get it. They are focused on high prices.” Uh, duh? 

The economy is bad. If people vote their pocketbooks, President Trump wins.

Saving Money By Enforcing The Law

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about the impact importing the people who are here illegally would have on the federal deficit.

The article reports:

A study by the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel Di Martino finds that mass deportation of the millions of unskilled, uneducated migrants who have flooded this country thanks to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s disastrous border policies would greatly improve the national deficit.

In his study, titled “The Lifetime Fiscal Impact of Immigrants,” Di Martino found that the onslaught of Biden’s unskilled, uneducated migrants is a net loss to the U.S taxpayer, costing up to $130,000 per migrant over the migrant’s lifetime should they choose to stay in the U.S.A., he explained in an op-ed published by Fox News on Friday.

I am perfectly willing to let people come into America if they do it legally and they plan to support themselves, but we can’t support people who are here illegally while we have Americans homeless on our streets.

The article concludes:

As to Trump’s plan to initiate mass deportations of unskilled, uneducated — and often dangerous — illegals, Di Martino says it would absolutely not be the disaster Trump’s critics claim it would be.

“I looked at whether the mass deportation program promised by former President Donald Trump would be the disaster that its critics claim,” Di Martino wrote in his op-ed. “My study shows that mass deportations would actually reduce the debt over the long run by over $1 trillion. But again, selectivity is better: Were a mass deportation policy combined with legalization of college-educated Dreamers, the U.S. could potentially reduce the federal debt by $1.9 trillion — nearly doubling its savings.”

Di Martino concluded, “As the federal debt keeps rising toward unsustainable levels and the border stays wide open, America cannot afford to ignore the fiscal consequences of immigration.”

If you are not familiar with the Cloward-Piven theory, now might be a good time to look it up.

Remove The Income Tax On Social Security? Horrors!

Posted on by

President Trump has suggested that he would like to remove the income tax on Social Security income. Let’s look at the history of taxing Social Security income.

The first time Social Security benefits were subject to federal income taxes was after the passage of the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act, starting in 1984. That law made 50 percent of Social Security benefits taxable for recipients with incomes above $25,000 for an individual and $32,000 for married couples filing jointly. To provide some perspective, $30,000 in 1984 would be approximately $91,000 today. The people supporting the new tax claimed that it would only tax the rich (a claim that is always made when taxes are increased–a claim that was made in 1913 when the personal income tax was introduced).

In 1993, more taxes were placed on Social Security income. A second tier of taxation was introduced under the Clinton administration. Using the same formula as above — i.e., MAGI plus one-half of benefits — single filers and couples filing jointly with more than $34,000 and $44,000, respectively, will be subjected to this second tier. This new tier allows up to 85% of Social Security benefits to be taxed at the federal ordinary income tax rate. The $44,000 in 1993 would be equal to about $96,000 in today’s dollars. These rates have never been adjusted for inflation, so the tax originally intended for ‘the rich’ impacts the middle class. Unfortunately, that is the way it always works.

Now, let’s look at how taxing Social Security has impacted the federal deficit.

In the first year Social Security was taxed, the federal deficit actually went down. After that, Congress simply concluded that they had more money to spend and spent it. When the second taxation of Social Security happened, it coincided with Newt Gingrich’s Contract With America–a tax plan that actually did lower the deficit for a number of years.

Taxing or not taxing Social Security is really NOT the issue. Until the government learns to spend less, the deficits will grow. The problem with asking the government to spend less is that in Washington, control of money equals power. The more money you control, the more powerful you are. It’s the spending–not the income. The only difference not taxing Social Security will make is to give senior citizens more spending power, which might in the long run help the economy.

Targeting Taxpayers

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association is committed to ensuring that citizens receive accurate information about policies that impact taxes. The election in November will have a major impact on federal taxes. It is important to note that 47% of earners paid no federal income tax in 2022 and the top 1% of earners paid a whopping 76% of federal taxes collected. This means that there are a substantial number of people who have no stake in how much federal taxes increase. Also, be aware that the Left’s constant refrain that the top earners do not pay their fair share is a lie.

What can we as taxpayers expect in the future? Let’s take a look. First, if a leftist Democrat, like Kamala Harris, is elected we can expect that Trump’s tax cuts from 2017 will be allowed to expire in 2025 increasing taxes substantially; particularly on middle class wage earners. Second, we can expect an increase in spending on “green new deal” programs, which are not only a hoax, but will destroy this country. Subsidies and mandates for wind, solar, and electric vehicles will increase your tax debt. The war on fossil fuels is the major cause of the increased price of energy and inflation. Third, runaway government spending has increased the federal deficit to over $35 trillion, which amounts to $104,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. This will only get worse, and ultimately must be paid by you the taxpayer. Fourth, the so-called student loan forgiveness scam (which is really a transfer of the debt to you the taxpayer) will be pursued in order to buy votes from those who actually benefited from the loans. Fifth, the open border policy is costing taxpayers billions of dollars in direct payments, housing subsidies, food stamps and free healthcare. Kamala Harris has previously advocated free healthcare and Medicare/Medicaid for all, including illegal immigrants. Since hospitals are not allowed to turn people away, you are actually paying this bill now, and it will get worse.

Of course the biggest tax of all is rampant inflation, which has increased the cost of living for the average American over 23% since Biden/Harris took office. Even though the inflation rate has diminished somewhat, prices continue to increase and will never return to their previous levels. In the meantime, mortgage rates, housing prices and rising rents are an increasing burden on the American people, especially the young. The American Dream is being shattered by excessive government spending.

By contrast, a Republican administration is likely to expand energy production, which will not only ease inflation, but provide revenue from the sale of oil and gas to other countries. Trump’s “Drill, baby, drill” plan needs to be implemented. Tax rate cuts to stimulate economic growth and productivity can be expected and are the only positive way of attacking the federal debt. Shrinking the federal government such as eliminating the federal Department of Education and cutting agency budgets are planned. President Trump’s commitment to closing the border will not only reduce taxes but ensure greater security and protect American jobs. Last, but not least is Trump’s commitment to revoke China’s most favored nation status which would help level the playing field and return manufacturing to this country, as well as provide revenue from equal tariffs as appropriate.

Regardless of other issues, and there are many, the impact on taxpayers of this coming election could not be more profound. As taxpayers this should be of the highest concern.

The Impact Of Bidenomics

Posted on by

On June 18th, Just the News posted an article about the impact of Bidenomics. Essentially Bidenomics is excessive spending creating inflation and rising federal deficits combined with interest rates rising in an attempt to curb inflation without dealing with the spending.

The article reports:

More companies are declaring bankruptcy and shutting down operations, citing inflation and high costs. Inflation and the economy remains a top issue among all voters, according to a recent The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll.

Retailers are closing nearly 3,200 stores this year, according to a recent analysis from CoreSight Research. The closures are a 24% increase from 2023.

U.S. drug stores and pharmacy closures led to 8 million square feet of shuttered retail space this year, the research company said. It also notes that retailers are losing inventory and customers due to retail theft. “Retail shrink” is closely connected to “organized retail crime,” it notes.

Out of the 3,200 being closed, the majority are being closed by roughly 30 retailers, with Family Dollar closing the most of over 600, according to the data, CBS News reported.

The article concludes:

One key indicator of economic health is consumer spending, and while it hasn’t yet slowed, warning signs are there because it’s largely being financed by debt, economists have explained. And consumers are also struggling to pay it off, they add. Earlier this year, economist David Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research warned that as total credit card debt reached a new all-time high of $1.13 trillion, credit card and auto loan delinquencies were also up. “As far as consumer credit is concerned, the default cycle isn’t merely looming, it’s arrived,” he wrote in an economic report.

According to a recent The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll, conducted in conjunction with Noble Predictive Insights, inflation/price increases (45%) and the economy/jobs (24%) are top concerns among voters.

“Inflation is a high-ranking issue among Democrats and Republicans and True Independents,” David Byler of Noble Predictive Insights told The Center Square. “Every political group thinks this matters.”

The rise in retail theft is also a factor in store closings. How much does it cost to put candy behind plastic so that it cannot be stolen? How many extra man hours are needed to help customers access products that are now locked away? These are also things that lead to higher prices and continuing inflation. Curtailing government spending and prosecuting retail theft would be a good first step in lowering prices for consumers.

The Misinformation In The State Of The Union Speech

Posted on by

On Friday, The Federalist posted a list of the thirty lies President Biden told during the State of the Union Speech. For further details, follow the link to the original article, but here are some of the topics of the lies:

1. Sending Money To Ukraine

2. Trump’s NATO Remarks

3. World Security And Ukraine

4. Jan. 6 Demonstrations

5. Alabama IVF Issue

6. Kate Cox

7. Covid Shots And Cancer

8. 15 Million New Jobs

9. U.S. Inflation Rate

10. Consumer Confidence

11. Drug Prices

12. Biden Beat Big Pharma

13. Student Loans

14. Decreasing The Federal Deficit

15. Corporations Aren’t Paying Their Fair Share

You get the picture. Follow the link to find the other lies.

The Results Of Out-Of-Control Spending

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Issues & Insights posted an article about the budget deficit.

The article reports:

Over the weekend, the Washington Post let it slip that all is not well in Bidenomicsville. The deficit, it reports, could end up hitting $2 trillion when the current fiscal year ends in three weeks, which it describes as an “unexpected deficit surge.”

In other words, the deficit will nearly double this year, calling the lie on one of President Joe Biden’s favorite boasts about how he cut the deficit more than any president in history.

But while this apparently comes as a shock to the Post, as well as other liberal news sites that picked up on the Post report, anyone paying attention knew this was happening.

Back in February, for example, we pointed out that Biden’s reckless economic policies had added more than $5 trillion to projected deficits, even as he claimed he’d done more to cut the deficit than “any president in history.”

…Now, households are paying dearly in the form of sharply higher prices for food, energy consumer goods, rents, and just about anything else they buy.

At the same time, Biden pushed through tax hikes and unleashed federal regulators, who are now gleefully writing rules to ban gas stoves, force electric car sales, slap massive new costs on energy producers, with plenty more to come. These are all anti-growth policies that are having their expected effect.

This is what Bidenomics is all about. And now we have a budget crisis that is snowballing.

That’s because while revenues keep coming in “unexpectedly” low (thanks to Biden’s sluggish economy), interest rate hikes are fueling massive increases in the cost of financing the federal government’s $30 trillion debt load.

Shutting down the government to stop the spending may be the only way we even have a possibility of not seeing our economy collapse under the weight of the federal debt.

Why The Citizens United Decision Matters

Posted on by

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning campaign finance. The Supreme Court ruled on January 21, 2010, prevents the government from restricting campaign contributions from corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

National Review posted an article on March 5, 2014, showing political campaign donations from 1989 to 2014. Below is the chart included in the article:

As you can see, unions donate a significant amount of money to political campaigns.

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner reported that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is investing $150 million to defeat President Trump in November.

The article reports:

The get-out-the-vote campaign is the biggest investment that the union has ever made in getting voters to the polls. It will largely focus on Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, according to the Associated Press. It will also focus on urban areas such as Detroit and Milwaukee. And while television ads will be part of the campaign, most of its resources will go to direct contact and online ads targeting minority voters.

Maria Peralta, the union’s political director, said Trump has made inroads with some minority voters who traditionally vote Democratic if they do vote. The Trump campaign plans to open community centers to win the black vote. The offices will feature African Americans who support Trump.

So what is this about? Through deregulation and other policies, the Trump administration has seen record economic growth. In order for the Democrats to stay in power, they need a permanent underclass that is dependent on the government to support them.

On February 15, Breitbart reported:

Approximately 6.1 million individuals dropped off the food stamp rolls since President Donald Trump’s first full month in office in February 2017, according to the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This is a threat to the growth of the Democrat party. If the Democrats can defeat President Trump, reverse his economic policies, and create a failing economy, they can gain more control over the everyday lives of Americans. That is their goal. That is the reason we need corporate money in elections to counter the union money. That is the reason Citizens United was a good decision.

It should also be noted that as the number of people dependent on the government decreases, the size of the administrative state should also decrease. That should also decrease the cost of government. That is a goal that totally frightens those involved in the administrative state. If the administrative state continues at its present size, we will never get federal deficits under control. Eventually the deficit will crash the economy.

The Numbers On The Economy

Posted on by

On March 13th, CNBC posted at article about the impact of President Trump’s economic policies on wages.

The article reports:

The recent jump in paychecks has come with an unusual characteristic, as workers at the lower end of the pay scale are getting the greater benefit.

Average hourly earnings rose 3.4 percent in February from the same period a year ago, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics report last week. That’s the biggest gain since April 2009 and seventh month in a row that compensation has been 3 percent or better.

What has set this rise apart is that it’s the first time during an economic recovery that began in mid-2009 that the bottom half of earners are benefiting more than the top half — in fact, about twice as much, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs. The trend began in 2018 and has continued into this year, and could be signaling a stronger economy than many experts think.

The article concludes:

“Taken together, our findings suggest a relatively optimistic consumption outlook given solid income growth across income levels,” Choi wrote. “Even if employment growth slows as labor supply constraints start to bind, this should be partially offset by the continued firming of wages, particularly among lower income workers with higher marginal propensities to consume.”

One danger is that higher wages could start to eat into corporate profits, which have doubled since the financial crisis.

However, it could take years for that to be a significant factor, according to an analysis by AB Bernstein.

“While pressure on capital share is likely to remain, that doesn’t mean that profits are going to fall – in fact profits can lose share at a rate up to about 100bps per year [1 percentage point] and still expect to have positive profit growth,” Philipp Carlsson-Szlezak, chief U.S. economist at AB Bernstein, said in a note. “In other words, overall expansion of net value add can be strong enough to protect profit growth even in the face of a rising labor share.”

Carlsson-Szlezak said wage pressures more likely would be felt at a sector level in industries where labor takes a bigger share of output. For example, information technology and extraction likely would feel the least effects, while hospitality and retail would be hit hardest.

The piece of the puzzle that is missing to ensure a continuing strong economy is getting the federal deficit under control. Unfortunately Congress has been unwilling to do this. If it is not done fairly quickly, all of the positive economic growth we have seen under President Trump will evaporate.

How Does This Statement Make Sense?

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted an article that included the following:

…Newly-elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) also endorsed impeaching Trump on her first day in office, according to The Nation, which described Tlaib as calling for “immediate steps” to remove the president from the White House.

“Each passing day brings more pain for the people most directly hurt by this president, and these are days we simply cannot get back. The time for impeachment proceedings is now,” Rep. Tlaib declared.

I really am confused about how this president is hurting people. I am further confused by looking at Representative Tlaib’s statement in view of some economic news that was reported today.

For instance, CNN is reporting today:

US employers added 312,000 jobs in December, well above what economists expected and underlining that the American economy remains strong despite recent market turbulence.

The unemployment rate rose to 3.9% as more people were looking for work. It had been at a 50-year low of 3.7% for two of the last three months.

Employers added 2.6 million jobs in 2018, compared to 2.2 million in 2017. Revisions to the October and November estimates added an additional 58,000 jobs to the 2018 total.

…Paychecks grew as employers raised wages to attract new workers. Average hourly pay was up 3.2% compared to a year earlier. The average number of hours people worked also edged up.

…The unemployment rate rose because more than 400,000 people joined the labor force looking for jobs. The percentage of the working-age people in the work force matched a five-year high.

“Yes, the nation’s unemployment rate rose to 3.9%, but for the best of reasons,” said Mark Hamrick, Bankrate.com senior economic analyst. “That’s a deal we’ll take if more people are participating in the workforce.”

The chart that I watch to see how things are going is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is the chart of the Workforce Participation Rate. It indicates how many Americans are actually part of the workforce. This is the chart:

Note that we have reached the 63.1 percent participation rate only three times since 2014. When President Obama took office, the rate was 66.2. By the time President Obama left office, the rate was 62.7. That was after the federal deficit doubled due to the stimulus package that was supposed to create jobs.

The House of Representatives has a choice–they can either join in the efforts of President Trump to improve the American economy and the lives of American workers, or they can do everything they can to slow it down. Unfortunately, the new rules they are putting in place will bring us laws and policies that will slow the economy down. That is unfortunate–Americans deserve better, even though they elected these people.

The Real Numbers

Posted on by

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the federal deficit and federal revenues. The numbers tell a very different story than the one the media would have you believe.

The editorial reports:

The latest monthly budget report from the Congressional Budget Office shows the deficit jumping $102 billion in just the first two months of the new fiscal year.

…A true apples-to-apples comparison, the CBO says, shows that the deficit climbed by just $13 billion.

So, no, the deficit is not soaring.

The editorial explains:

In fact, the CBO report shows that overall tax revenues climbed by $14 billion in the first two months of the year, compared with the same months last year. Which means they continue to hit new highs.

The CBO report shows that combined income and payroll taxes were the same in the first two months of the new fiscal year as they were last year. That’s even though far less money was withheld from paychecks thanks to the Trump tax cuts.

It also found that corporate income taxes went up by $5 billion. That’s despite the “massive corporate tax giveaway” that Democrats want to repeal.

Why are these revenues flat or up? Simple: The tax cuts help spur accelerated economic growth, which create jobs and spark income gains. More workers and higher wages mean more tax revenues. On the corporate side, a bigger economy means more profits, which even when taxed at lower rates can produce more revenue. This is exactly what advocates of Trump’s pro-growth tax cuts said would happen.

Meanwhile, revenue from “other sources” climbed by $8 billion. (To be clear, at least some of that $8 billion came from the re-imposition of ObamaCare’s nefarious tax on insurance premiums, which Congress had suspended the year before.)

But while revenues climbed by $14 billion, spending in the first two months of the new fiscal year climbed by $27 billion.

The obvious solution to the deficit problem is to limit spending. If we can’t agree on that, we could lower taxes again to increase revenue further, but I suspect that would really cause some Congressional heads to explode.

The Numbers Tell The Story

Posted on by

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial about the growing federal deficit. The numbers in the editorial tell the story of what is actually happening:

Each month the Treasury Department releases its tally of federal spending and revenues. The most recent data are through the month of August. Since the federal government starts its fiscal year in October, the latest report includes all but one month of the 2018 fiscal year.

What do the data show?

Through August, the federal deficit topped $898 billion. Over the same period last year the deficit was $674 billion.

So, the deficit is running $224 billion higher this fiscal year compared with last.

But the Treasury data also show that federal revenues through August totaled $2.985 trillion. That’s an increase of $19 billion over the previous year.

In other words, despite Trump’s massive tax cuts, federal revenues are running higher this year than last.

The problem is that federal spending has climbed even faster. Through August, outlays totaled $3.88 trillion. That’s $243 billion more than the prior fiscal year.

…The Treasury data show that while corporate income tax receipts are down, individual income tax revenue is up by $100 billion — a 7% gain — over last year. Payroll taxes are up by $5 billion. Revenues from excise taxes and customs duties are also up.

So, while corporations are paying fewer taxes, they’re hiring more workers and paying them more, which is generating additional income and payroll taxes. This is exactly what advocates of the tax cuts predicted would happen.

As Kudlow explained in his remarks, increased growth has “just about paid for two thirds of the total tax cuts.”

The article goes on to illustrate that government spending is totally out of control. Until the spending drops, the deficit will not decrease. Those of us who voted for Republicans expected them to stop the runaway spending. If they continue to spend like drunken sailors, they will lose their majority.

The Real Numbers About The Budget

Posted on by

This is a picture of the federal budge deficits over the years:

federaldeficitsthrough2016The chart and other related information can be found here.

On Saturday, Conservative Treehouse posted an article about an aspect of the federal budget under President Obama that you may not be aware of.

The article reports:

The last federal budget was signed into law in September of 2007 by President George W Bush for fiscal year 2008.  Since then the entire mechanism of the federal government has been carried out by continuing resolutions, raises in the debt ceiling, and unfettered spending.

Absent of an actual federal budget, all spending falls under a process called base-line budgeting to determine allocation.  Federal distribution of the money within the continuing resolution, is essentially a year-over-year expenditure with a statutory increase based on inflation.  Essentially, whatever was spent in 2009 was respent in 2010 along with a little bit more.   What was spent in 2011 was a little more than ’10, and so forth.

In February 2009  congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, commonly referred to as Obama’s stimulus plan.  The stimulus was just shy of one trillion ($986 billion +/-).

At the time of passage this single stimulus expenditure reflected a growth of approximately 20% in total federal spending.  The spending went directly into the deficit.

Approximately 30% of that “one time” trillion dollar stimulus was spent in 2009, the remaining 70% was spent in 2010.  (*note fiscal years run from October 1st to September 3oth annually).

However, absent a federal budget -and because of baseline budgeting- it became a repeated expenditure in each of the following fiscal years.

The $1 Trillion Stimulus was spent eight more times.

The article points out that most Americans cannot tell you what the stimulus was spent on. President Obama put money into the Department of Education to subsidize state education and teachers’ salaries, keeping the teachers’ union happy.

The article reports:

The key point is the $1 trillion 2009 “stimulus” funds, became a tool for President Obama to use in whatever cabinet office need he saw.

So long as congress never passed an actual budget (and the traditional budget appropriations process kicked in), he would always have this massive amount of extra money to play with.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid ensured there was never going to be a budget.

As the economy somewhat gained footing (2012), for the last several years a lot of the money appears to have been spent on propping up ObamaCare and hiding the structural financial collapse.

If Obama didn’t have this extra $1 trillion at his disposal, ObamaCare would have already collapsed.  If you were wondering why ObamaCare didn’t collapse, well, there’s your answer.

This scheme worked brilliantly so long as Team Obama could kick-the-budget-can into successive years.  They did.

…Remember: #1) Obama’s trillion stimulus was a +20% jump in federal spending which has continued year-over-year since 2009, #2) most of that money is now spent on propping up Obamacare via the insurance corridor reimbursement program.

…That $1 trillion in annual expenditure is what initially kept government at full size when originally passed in ’09.  It then transmogrified into a slush fund two fiscal years later, and ever since about 2012 it’s been a way for Obama to fund his priority list – and the UniParty congress has done nothing about it; because, well, essentially, congress agrees with what it’s being spent on.

It’s a staggering amount of money, $986 billion.  If Trump/Ryan eliminate the worst aspects of ObamaCare they can save a massive amount of that expenditure.  However, beyond that – it shows you just how much money can –and hopefully will– be cut out of government by that elimination alone.

It would be wonderful to have a Congress and a President who want to bring federal spending under control, but I am not convinced yet.

A Reasonable Plan To Balance The Federal Budget

Posted on by

According to the U.S. Constitution, all spending bills originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, constitutionally the House of Representatives controls government spending. In recent years, voters concerned about the amount of government spending and the rapidly increasing federal deficit have sent people to Congress that promised to shrink government and cut spending. Evidently there is something in the water in Washington, D.C., because as soon as those elected representatives get to Washington, they forget why there were elected. There are a few exceptions, but they are few. One Representative may have the answer to this problem.

On Friday, the Daily Caller posted an article about legislation introduced on Friday by Iowa Republican Rep. Rod Blum.

The article states:

Iowa Republican Rep. Rod Blum introduced legislation Friday that would decrease congressional members’ salaries annually until the national budget is balanced.

Lawmakers’ pay would be docked 5 percent the first year and an additional 10 percent each year after, according to the legislation. The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2016 would restore compensation levels upon the closure of the deficit.

Representative Blum explained that there need to be consequences when Congress mismanages resources. In the private sector, there are consequences. Thus far, in Congress there are not consequences. That needs to change.

This Is Pathetic

Posted on by

The graph below is from an article posted today at the Washington Examiner. It illustrates the national deficit over the past few years. Please look at the graph carefully.

So why is this graph posted here? President Obama has stated, “I’m proud that since I took office, we’ve experienced the fastest period of sustained deficit reduction since the end of World War II.”

I would like to quietly point out that he reduced the deficit after he tripled it. (That is somewhat like being against the war after you were for it.) The deficit is still higher than it was when he took office. Statements like the above are one reason Americans cannot afford to be low-information voters. I am sure that there are many people who totally believe that President Obama has reduced the deficit during the time he has been in office. Those people need to see this graph.

Policies Have Consquences

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article detailing some of the impact President Obama’s policies will have on the federal deficit after he leaves office.

The article states that during the remainder of President Obama’s term, the deficit should shrink. That is the good news. However, all of the news is not good.

The article reports:

…The bad news is the deficit begins spiking again in 2017, the year Obama’s successor will be sworn into office, before returning to $1 trillion a year in 2025.

All that red ink comes without another Great Recession, with the country’s biggest wars supposedly ending, without any new big-ticket spending items.

The article explains the reason for the increasing deficit:

Medicaid spending will be double what it was when Obama took office, thanks in part to Obamacare. Spending on the health care exchanges, a mere $15 billion in 2014, will be just under $100 billion annually in only two years.

Between 2016 and 2025, the Obamacare Medicaid expansion will cost $920 billion and $1.1 trillion on health insurance subsidies. That’s a rounding error away from $2 trillion.

…The baby boomers’ retirement isn’t Obama’s fault. The fact that the major federal retirement programs are all still structured the way they were for the baby boomers’ parents and grandparents is partly his fault. And the costs of Obamacare are almost entirely his fault (Congress deserves its share of the blame too).

It is very obvious that the first step to solving this problem should be to abolish ObamaCare and return healthcare and health insurance to the private sector. That will not solve the entire problem, but it would be a big step forward. Let’s see if the new GOP majority in Congress is willing to do that. If not, it’s time to elect a different GOP majority.