Blog Catalog

Showing posts with label federal debt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal debt. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

More Screaming Hypocrisy From the "Small Government" Republicans


Republicans always scream about how they want "small government!" and lower government spending and less debt and deficit.

Sure they are.

But guess what states get the most money from Uncle Sugar.


It's all based on this study:


Seems the "red" states suck up most of the Federal dollar, hands down.  Or hands out, anyway:

States-Most-Least-Dependent-on-the-Federal-Government-Blue-vs-Red-Image

And Kansas is number 5, out of 50, of course, for taking the most Federal money:

Rank(1 = least dependent)State NameReturn on Taxpayer Investment(Category Rank)Federal Funding as % of State Revenue(Category Rank)Federal Employees Per Capita(Category Rank)Number of Civilian Non-Defense Federal Employees per Capita(Category Rank)
1New Jersey$0.48
(4)
26.87%
(10)
0.00382
(5)
0.00178
(2)
2Delaware$0.31
(1)
25.61%
(7)
0.00768
(17)
0.00194
(3)
3Illinois$0.45
(3)
26.41%
(8)
0.00550
(14)
0.00272
(11)
4Minnesota$0.54
(7)
26.88%
(11)
0.00353
(4)
0.00295
(16)
5Kansas$0.54
(6)
25.22%
(6)
0.01460
(37)
0.00342
(25)

It's bad enough they want to take money in the form of tax breaks and unemployment payments, etc., etc., away from the middle-, lower- and working-classes, that's bad.

On top of that, they have to keep working to give more and more money in the form of tax credits and deductions to the already-wealthy and corporations. 

Sure, that's all horrible and wicked and devious enough.

But to, on top of all that ugliness, scream and cry and complain about government spending and debt and deficit and then be the ones that suck up the most money, overall, out of all of us?

It would be funny if it weren't insulting.

And even immoral.

Adding even more irony--and hypocrisy--they're also the "Christians" of the bunch, too. Or say they insist.

It's painful.  Just painful.


Monday, September 16, 2013

Notes on our debt limit--and what some Republicans are thinking of doing to us all


 
There is a terrific, simply factual article in yesterday's NY Times Magazine about the nation's debt limit and how several Republicans are considering trashing the nation's debt--and so, economy--just so they can make some points and get their way.
 
 

The most poignant, brief quotes from it:
 
Congress has imposed a strict limit on how much debt the federal government can accumulate, but for nearly 90 years, it has raised the ceiling well before it was reached. But since a large number of Tea Party-aligned Republicans entered the House of Representatives, in 2011, raising that debt ceiling has become a matter of fierce debate. This summer, House Republicans have promised, in Speaker John Boehner’s words, “a whale of a fight” before they raise the debt ceiling — if they even raise it at all.

If the debt ceiling isn’t lifted again this fall, some serious financial decisions will have to be made. Perhaps the government can skimp on its foreign aid or furlough all of NASA, but eventually the big-ticket items, like Social Security and Medicare, will have to be cut. At some point, the government won’t be able to pay interest on its bonds and will enter what’s known as sovereign default, the ultimate national financial disaster achieved by countries like Zimbabwe, Ecuador and Argentina (and now Greece). In the case of the United States, though, it won’t be an isolated national crisis. If the American government can’t stand behind the dollar, the world’s benchmark currency, then the global financial system will very likely enter a new era in which there is much less trade and much less economic growth. It would be, by most accounts, the largest self-imposed financial disaster in history....

...No wealthy country has ever voluntarily decided — in the middle of an economic recovery, no less — to default. And there’s certainly no record of that happening to the country that controls the global reserve currency.

 If the debt ceiling isn’t raised by X-Day, I figured, the world’s investors would begin to see America as an unstable investment and rush to sell their Treasury bonds. The U.S. government, desperate to hold on to investment, would then raise interest rates far higher, hurtling up rates on credit cards, student loans, mortgages and corporate borrowing — which would effectively put a clamp on all trade and spending. The U.S. economy would collapse far worse than anything we’ve seen in the past several years.
 

While this possibility might not sound so bad, it’s really far more damaging than the apocalyptic one I imagined. Rather than resulting in a sudden crisis, failure to raise the debt ceiling would lead to a slow bleed. Scott Mather, head of the global portfolio at Pimco, the world’s largest private bond fund, explained that while governments and institutions might go on a U.S.-bond buying frenzy in the wake of a debt-ceiling panic, they would eventually recognize that the U.S. government was not going through an odd, temporary bit of insanity. They would eventually conclude that it had become permanently less reliable. Mather imagines institutional investors and governments turning to a basket of currencies, putting their savings in a mix of U.S., European, Canadian, Australian and Japanese bonds. Over the course of decades, the U.S. would lose its unique role in the global economy.
      
The U.S. benefits enormously from its status as global reserve currency and safe haven. Our interest and mortgage rates are lower; companies are able to borrow money to finance their new products more cheaply. As a result, there is much more economic activity and more wealth in America than there would be otherwise. If that status erodes, the U.S. economy’s peaks will be lower and recessions deeper; future generations will have fewer job opportunities and suffer more when the economy falters. And, Mather points out, no other country would benefit from America’s diminished status. When you make the base risk-free asset more risky, the entire global economy becomes riskier and costlier.
 
And one final word of caution. Even if the Republicans don't "pull this trigger", so to speak, come October and have us default on our debt, there are still other concerns, thanks to their selfish, self-centered ways, for the rest of us:
 
...if the debate becomes an annual affair, the world’s largest investors probably will one day move toward a mix of other financial reserves. Decades from now, the world would probably be poorer on account of about only 20 people.

--Adam Davidson , co-founder of NPR’s “Planet Money,” a podcast and blog.
 
 

Monday, January 7, 2013

Didn't scream about Dubya' but screaming now



Sure, Dubya'--George W. Bush--took us into an unnecessary and nightmarish, arbitrary war and gave tax cuts to the wealthiest of the nation--the already-wealthy--and made it illegal for our government to negotiate lower drug prices for the nation from the pharmaceuticals and all the rest he did, but get a black man in the White House and all hell breaks loose.

Racist?

Nah.

Perish the thought.

Friday, May 11, 2012

That "hopey-changey thing" is going okay, thanks

In answer to former Alaska Governor, Sarah "The Quitter" Palin's question, "How's that hopey-changey thing goin' for ya'?", I'd like to answer that there is yet one more good indication that it's going pretty well, thank you. And no, it's not him standing up for all American's equality this week. Instead, it's this from The Star and the AP today:

U.S. collected more than it spent in April

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in nearly four years, the U.S. government last month took in more money than it spent.
The surplus for April was a sign that the economy is trudging back to health.


And I'll say the same thing here I say any time I point out an improvement, rather like the President or someone in the administration would--is it where we want to be? Is it where we need to be? Are we finished? Is this good enough? All those answers are no, for sure.

Is there more work that has to be done?

You bet there is.

One thing Congress could and should do to help the nation is to do away with tax deductions and subsidies to companies for offshoring competition, again, as I've said repeatedly. That would, I believe, help bring some of those manufacturing jobs--and maybe some companies--back to the States. That seems like and obvious and terrific, simple idea. It's not happening but it could and again, should. Maybe if we push our Senators and Representatives enough, it will happen.

Anyway, at least there's some good news today.

Let's hope it continues, for all of us.

Link: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/10/3605654/us-collected-more-than-it-spent.html

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Breaking as we slept: Bad news/good news

From the UK and their Daily Mail just last evening: U.S. debt now as big as entire economy America's national debt has reached a worrying milestone - it is now as big as the whole of its economy. The amount owed by the federal government to its creditors, combined with IOUs to government retirement and other schemes, now stands at $15.23 trillion. The government estimated the value of goods and services produced by the economy in a year at $15.17trillion as of September. This is decidedly bad news for President Obama, his administration and his re-election campaign. It's not insurmountable and the election is months away but this is not good, for sure. Then there's this, from the Gallup Poll people: U.S. Economic Confidence Rises to Seven-Month High Americans' outlook for the economy is improving faster than their ratings of current conditions Finally, we're going to heck in a debt handbasket but we're optimistic--how American is that?--just check out the Greek situation: Greek turmoil helps thieves steal a Picasso It seems that, with their debt problems, they had cut staff at the museum. Yikes. Link to original article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084353/Size-U-S-debt-entire-economy--15-23-TRILLION.html; http://www.gallup.com/poll/151958/economic-confidence-rises-seven-month-high.aspx; http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/thieves-steal-picasso-and-mondrian-paintings-in-athens/?ref=greece

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Sen. Claire comes through again

Hoorah for Senator McCaskill. She's going after "earmarks" in Congress again. This out today: Toomey, McCaskill to call for permanent earmark ban Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) will announce their proposal Wednesday morning at a Capitol news conference. The move comes one year after McCaskill and then-Sen.-elect Toomey penned a joint USA Today op-ed supporting a temporary moratorium on earmarks. For a definition: "an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees." The really bad thing about earmarks is that they are so "under the radar" and virtually unaccountable to the legislation process. With all the over-spending we have and debt, this makes far too much sense and is long overdue. Links: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/toomey-mccaskill-to-call-for-permanent-earmark-ban/2011/11/29/gIQAlZAu8N_blog.html; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmark_(politics)

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Quote of the day--still on the debt ceiling mess

"What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy?" --Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, writer and columnist for The New York Times. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=2

Monday, July 18, 2011

Quote of the day--on our national debt

‎"The current debt under discussion is Republican debt, authorized by Congress and signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The debt in question covers bills that have come due from two unfunded wars, from unfunded tax cuts and tax loopholes that have benefited the wealthy and ravaged the middle-class, from gross mismanagement of the nation’s economy under Republican supply-side b*llsh*t." --Fay Esther

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Great spending question for the Senate

Americablog has a great question for our Congress today and that is, why does the Senate Chaplain make $150,000 per year and have staff making $129,000, $86,000 and $52,000 each per year? If you add just those figures up, that comes to nearly one half million dollars a year for four people--one office. The entire article is both brief AND good, I think. I'd like answers. More than that, I'd like to be the Senate Chaplain. Link: http://www.americablog.com/2011/07/why-does-senate-chaplain-make-150k-and.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Americablog+%28AMERICAblog%29

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Someone needs to spank these Republican leaders in Washington

News out today is that, once again, Representative Eric Cantor, number 2 man in the House of Representatives, walked out on the negotiations on our federal debt. Apparently he and fellow Republican Senator John Kyle both did. Their respective mothers should get in there, spank them and tell them to go do the hard work their constituents voted them in to office for. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you walk out. Well, not unless you're a Republican leader in the US Congress, apparently. Link to original story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_debt_cantor

Friday, March 18, 2011

This will have the news tongues wagging all weekend


CBO: Obama understates deficits by $2.3 trillion

WASHINGTON – A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.
The estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years — an average of almost $1 trillion a year.
Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.
Now, all that said, it is a matter of optimism and hope vs. pessimism and skepticism, it could be said:
The difference is chiefly because CBO has a less optimistic estimate of how much the government will collect in tax revenues, partly because the administration has rosier economic projections.
To repeat, maybe giving the $700 billion tax cut to the wealthiest people in the country (thanks, Republicans!) wasn't such a good idea.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

5 Overblown Fears About Healthcare Reform

From US News and World Report and Yahoo! News, earlier today:

Rick Newman, On Monday March 22, 2010, 4:22 pm EDT

In Washington, everybody knows about unintended consequences: the outcomes you fail to anticipate when you change the way something works. But there's another phenomenon that works somewhat in reverse: Preregulatory paranoia, or the fear that new rules meant to make the system better will instead produce mayhem and disaster.

It will be a long time before we know whether the historic healthcare reform finally passed by Congress will make the system better or worse. But the rhetoric surrounding the yearlong ordeal has already set new standards for overwrought fearmongering. There's a long history of pre-emptive hyperbole in Washington, in which the combatants on each side of an issue paint a dismal scenario if things don't go their way. But the dire predictions almost never materialize. Businesses adjust. Lawyers find loopholes. Lobbyists get new rules watered down. Entrepreneurs come up with better ways to make money, regardless of constraints. And if the new rules really do fail, we have this little process called electoral politics to make sure the government responds to voters' concerns.

Still, the overheated claims and counterclaims about healthcare reform have produced widespread confusion about what the new legislation will actually do. Here are a few of the most overblown concerns:

The government will take over one sixth of the economy. That would be alarming if it were true. But government involvement in healthcare will increase gradually over time and remain modest, especially since there's no "public option" in the current plan that would set up a government-run insurer. If you have doubts, consider the attitude of professional investors, who would stand to lose a lot if the government took over healthcare. They don't exactly seem worried. Shares of health insurers like Aetna, UnitedHealth, Wellpoint, and Cigna--subject to the strongest new rules under reform--have outperformed the stock market over the past year. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries also are considered winners because there will be millions of new customers who suddenly have insurance that can pay for treatment. That led the entire stock market higher the day after reform passed. In fact, it's hard to identify any part of the private-sector healthcare industry that stands to lose under reform.

The federal debt will explode. It might, but not because of healthcare reform. The Congressional Budget Office--which is probably the most reliable, nonpartisan number-crunching outfit in Washington--says the reforms will reduce government deficits by $143 billion through 2019, thanks to new taxes and fees and cost savings in government healthcare programs like Medicare. But opponents of the bill and powerful lobbying groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say otherwise, and they seem to have had a stronger influence on public opinion than CBO's methodical analysis. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation, for example, found that 55 percent of Americans mistakenly believe the CBO has said the healthcare legislation will add to the deficit. Only 15 percent know that CBO has said the opposite.

Doctors will revolt. Doctors don't like the current system, in which insurance companies call the shots. But instead of sweeping reform and more government involvement, they prefer gradual reform that puts more control in the hands of ... doctors. In one recent survey, nearly one third of physicians said they'd consider leaving medicine if reform passes, which it now has. Doctors worry that the new rules will cut into their incomes--which may happen, eventually. But it's implausible that thousand of doctors who have dedicated years to a complex profession will simply quit. What will they do? Become accountants? Open a Subway franchise? Besides, with millions of new patients seeking care, the demand for doctors will actually rise, not decline. And if cost controls discourage the docs who are in it to get rich, maybe that will help bring costs down for everybody else. Meanwhile, the American Medical Association and dozens of other physicians' lobbying groups will continue to look out for doctors' interests in Washington.

Businesses will suffer. The new rules will impose fees on businesses with more than 50 employees if their workers receive government subsidies to buy insurance in lieu of employer-provided coverage. Business groups complain that this could stunt economic growth and slow hiring. But businesses are more resourceful than that. It's true that many companies will have to absorb additional costs, which they do every year anyway when health insurance premiums go up. But well-run companies excel at solving problems. That's what makes them successful. Smart entrepreneurs salivate at the chance to outcompete bigger firms that can't manage challenges like this. And companies already pass on the rising costs of healthcare to their employees; there's no reason to expect that will change if they can't manage costs some other way. There's also an outside chance that the new insurance exchanges will make life easier for small businesses, as intended, by giving their workers a way to buy coverage at rates comparable to what big companies are able to negotiate.

Socalized medicine is on the way. In the Kaiser poll, 41 percent of respondents said they believe the new law would require people who already get insurance through their employer to change their coverage. But most people who already have health coverage won't have to change anything, unless they want to. The new rules will have the most direct impact on people who don't have coverage, or who don't get it through an employer. Those who fear the advent of "socialized medicine" mainly seem to worry that the current set of reforms is just Phase 1, to be followed by bigger changes that will replace doctors with bureaucrats and render individual patients even more powerless than they are now. This is supposed to happen despite the likelihood that the Democrats who supported reform will lose seats in the November elections, while Republicans who opposed reform will gain seats. It seems much more likely that after surviving the battles of the last year, the current for-profit healthcare industry will be with us for the foreseeable future.
________________________________________

We need facts right now and calm and patience and intelligence.

We decidedly don't need fear-mongering, demagoguery and patronization of absurdly emotional people and groups.

The fact is, this Health Care Reform Act, though not perfect, was and is a good idea.

Now let's move on and solve more of our nation's problems, as I said earlier.

Have a great day everyone.