It's the SPENDING, Stupid!

Only yesterday (or so it seems) the Republican-dominated Wisconsin Legislature utterly failed to pass TABOR.

As it happens, I am not comfortable with the State's arrogance in making spend/tax decisions on behalf of local Gummints. It's a clear violation of the Principle of Subsidiarity, and that Principle is implicitly endorsed in the text of the 9th/10th Amendments to the Constitution.

That doesn't make the supporters of TABOR (or like legislation) evil; but it does emphatically undermine their position.

Another part of the problem for the Leggies was the question: exactly what do we restrain? Taxes? or Spending?

My answer (when asked by a legislator) was Spending!! By all means, Spending!!

Always nice to know that I'm right, even though it was the Clinton Administration which proved it.

Federal spending declined as a share of national income during President Clinton's two terms in the 1990s. Fiscal responsibility -- the need to curb the budget deficit -- was a consistent theme. The deficits that Clinton inherited, which put the squeeze on spending, were bequeathed by the earlier large tax cuts (and increases in defense spending) of the Reagan administration.

There is NO argument that the Reagan tax cuts were "bad." In fact, we all know that Fed revenues hockey-sticked UP following the tax cuts. The problem was that Fed spending (not only on defense, by the way) ALSO hockey-sticked up--at a rate greater than revenue increases.

A new study [PDF] by Richard Vedder and Jonathan Leirer for the congressional Joint Economic Committee, for instance, found that over the past 60 years every dollar raised in extra taxes has given rise to more than a dollar in extra spending.

Here's a "DOH" for you: in general terms, the "Supply-Side/Republican" people don't care about deficits--they reduce taxes because it's politically popular. This is called "starve the beast" rhetoric. Conversely, the Democrats care about deficits--and figure that the "right thing to do" is to increase taxes. But when they increase taxes, they ALSO increase program expenditures, continuing the deficits. Sometimes (Clinton is an example) they actually reduce the deficits, but leave massive downstream minefields.

"Starve the beast" exponents are not demanding packages of lower taxes and lower spending. They are saying that lower taxes will sooner or later wear spending down anyway. When you look at those cases -- instances where taxes have been cut independently, with no connection to new spending plans -- spending does not fall, say the Romers. In fact, it rises a bit. "Starve the beast" does not work.

The commonality between the "starve/supply-side" gang and the Democrats is easy to spot: they BOTH spend money as though it were going out of style.

And therein, my friends, lies the answer.

No PIG (Party-In-Government) member in his right mind will act on that, of course.

HT: McIlheran

"It's the Spending, Stupid!!", Part 95,684

Besides borrowing my oft-used 'spending' phrase, Henninger makes other very good points.

Back in April, the New York Times/CBS did a poll of tea party supporters. When asked, "What should be the goal of the Tea Party movement," 45% said, "Reduce federal government." That is, cut spending. Everything else was in single digits.

I'm convinced that beneath all the economic turbulence in the land is anxiety that's been building for years as public spending has continued to grow. What was a chronic "concern" has exploded this year into a broad public movement—in Washington, California, New York, New Jersey and indeed across Europe. This isn't "concern," Mr. President. It's a crisis.

And Henninger identifies the cause of the (R) washout in '06: (repeat after me): The SPENDING, Stupid!:

...Rasmussen points out that the only time it recorded a higher shrink-the-government number, at 70%, was in August 2006. That was just ahead of the famous off-year election in which Republican voters withheld support for their party's free-spending members in Congress.

Ron Johnson acknowledges that with his remarks on the Social Security Ponzi scheme. And to prove the point, there's a long, long list of (R) Ruling Class bozos that went down to defeat this year, BEFORE the general elections, Brett Davis among them...

And he has a serious warning for the (R) Boyzzzz.

...the GOP's impending victory is meaningless, a win by default. If the Republican rookies entering Congress next year don't do something identifiably real to stop the federal-spending balloon, voters two years from now will start throwing the GOP under the bus. Absent action, the political rage and cynicism on offer in 2012 could make this year's tea parties look like, well, a tea party.

Which, of course, triggers my next default-tagline:

BUY MORE AMMO!!

(Which tagline I don't expect Hemminger to borrow.)

It's The SPENDING, Stupid!!

Ticker makes the case very well.

You can fill in the blank for "Who's Stupid" after reading this.

First he quotes the news:

The Producer Price Index for final demand rose 1.1 percent in May, seasonally adjusted, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Final demand prices advanced 1.1 percent in April and 0.7 percent in March. (See table A.) On an unadjusted basis, the index for final demand increased 6.5 percent for the 12 months ended in May, the largest 12-month rise since moving up 7.4 percent in November 2022....

Then he launches the artillery:

 

This is not Iran.

It is the monetary expansion from deficit spending which Trump did exactly nothing to curtail and is now presenting severe cost-push pressure into the supply chain across the board.

I pointed this out as a serious problem in January before the first shots were fired and it has only gotten worse since.

On the final demand (closest to the consumer) side removing foods and energy the escalation was 0.8% on the month which, on a 12 month rolling basis is just over 10%.  Again that's excluding food and energy.

What's far worse is unprocessed intermediate which again, less food and energy, is up 2.6% on the month and the 12 month total run rate is 22%!  The monthly increase annualized is 36% and processed goods less foods and energy were up 1.8% on the month which once again annualized comes to 23.9%....

It is true that Trump "did nothing" about the spending.  To be fair, neither did Biden.  It is ALSO true that Congress, led by spineless twits with pretty hair, spends money as though it were tossing confetti during a parade.  

Now comes the announcement that Social Security payments will decrease by 25% or so in about 6 years.  The combination of less money AND more costly EVERYTHING will take care of the "aging Boomers are a pain" problem, alright.  But those Costly Everythings are also going to affect everyone else.

It is the spending.  It always has been the spending.  It always will be the spending. And until we get the Beautiful Hair Twits off their TeeVee vanity shots and back down to earth, it will be a Great Depression-causing problem.

Additional takes on this are available here and here. 

MSM: Colluding With Doyle for 2010

Jimbo Doylie has recently danced with the question "Will you run again?", (while he goes about holding campaign fundraisers.)

That's a stupid question. Doyle was not offered a slot in the O Administration, is not particularly liked by the national Democrat Party bigwigs, and is not even able to be liked by his fellow State Democrats. He's machine politician, and "machine" describes his personality, too.

He's electable as Governor of this State, and that's about it. Even then, it's dicey; he relies on massive "contributions" from special interests (WEAC), vote-fraud, and flat-out lying ("....we cannot, we must not, we should not raise taxes....") for his victories.

It's also helpful to have weak Republican candidates.

But the 2010 election will be different. The State, along with the nation, is in a recession, and it will get worse here even as the country pulls out. (Wisconsin has always been a "last-in, last-out of recessions" State.) Worse, Doylie's Party controls both houses of the Legislature. That means that Doylie will take the brunt of voter unhappiness in 2010.

So. What to do? What to do?

Doyle reached into his playbook (remember, there are only three plays) and pulled out the "LIE LIKE HELL" card.

No problem for Jimbo. He'll invent a $5++Billion dollar "deficit," and then save the day by making cuts in State spending. Mighty Mouse will be proud!

And the damnfool reporters at Channel 12, Channel 4, Channel 6, and the Milwaukee JS will play right along, because it's too difficult to actually mention that Doylie's numbers are fabricated from whole cloth.

Fortunately, Mary Lazich, supported by actual real-live research, brings up the inconvenient facts.

"I have to wonder if the governor isn't purposely sounding like Chicken Little, painting the dire picture of the worst budget crisis in Wisconsin history, whipping state residents into a collective depression of epic proportions," Lazich wrote in her piece.

"Why the bearer of such bad news? Think about it. The governor overstates the budget debacle by a country mile, allowing him to offer dramatic, headline-grabbing spending cuts as solutions.

"If a Republican posed such measures, she stated, the press would label them "draconian."

"Editorial boards would rave, though, about Doyle, calling the governor and his moves, 'courageous,'" Lazich wrote.

"Undoubtedly, the governor and legislative Democrats will also salivate at the opportunity to seek new revenues, i.e., raise taxes. At the end of the day, when the dust clears and the true budget deficit is actually much smaller, the governor and Democrat lawmakers will claim victory and come off as fiscal conservative heroes." (Cited by Berry Laker, HT!!)

What facts underlie this assertion?

Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX) [released a report on] Dec. 4, [attributing] $2.76 billion of Doyle's projected deficit to new spending requests and further said Doyle's numbers were "heavily based on assumptions" that could be misleading.

"[The report] notes that granting those spending requests and funding past state promises (the "structural deficit"), would result in state expenditure growth of 8 percent next year and 3.1 percent the year following," WISTAX said in a statement summarizing the study. "The report questioned that assumption since annual state general fund spending increases have averaged only 3.4 percent over the past decade."

Here's what that means. The Lying Liar's Administration cooked up $2.76Billion in new spending requests ("I wanna buncha new cars, extra buildings, about 60 dozen new employees, and 300 gold rings, no partridges, thanks, but what about More Retirement Bennies??").

In about 60 days, Doylie will "cut" the new cars, buildings, employees, and gold rings, deliver more retirement bennies and fatter AFSCME contracts, enable property-tax increases for school districts, and find "fees" and "taxes" which affect only "the rich." They will be: 1) hospital patients, 2) people who buy gasoline, and 3) smokers who are stupid enough to remain in Wisconsin.

(Of course, those property-tax increases also will only affect "the rich"--like the entire population of the City of Milwaukee.)

"Whatta Fiscal Conservative He Really Is!!" will be the headlines. Ricardo Pimentel will wet his pants repeatedly, ecstatically, and rhythmically. "Reporters" for other MSM media outlets will fall to their knees to......ahhhhhh......worship the Doylie-god-of-restraint, (perhaps a little too closely for cameras to record without 'standards-of-decency' pixellation tricks.)

And the Lying Liar will then advance-auction the rest of the State's assets to WEAC, the AFSCME, and the Trial Lawyers while bussing hundreds of Illinois residents to Milwaukee to same-day register and vote. (They will not be voting for Blago, after all...)

The Republicans will run someone.

And, by the way, actual reporting will be confined to newspapers like this one. Big Hat Tip to Richard Moore, who will never, ever, get a Madistan/Milwaukee journalism slot....

Pro-Business? or Pro-Market?

There IS a difference, of course.

...as America struggles to emerge from a financial crisis, any renewal of the right will require Republicans to rethink their approach to the economy. An agenda focused chiefly on tax cuts, as the Republicans' has been since Ronald Reagan's presidency, is no longer enough.

Agreed. It's the SPENDING, Stupid!!....but that's not the topic of the article.

...Reagan's platform lost its appeal because the Republican Party frequently betrayed it. The size of government increased by 33% during W's first term, the largest increase in federal spending since Lyndon Johnson. Bush's last Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, orchestrated the most massive state intervention in a Western economy since Francois Mitterrand's nationalization of French banks.

Did we mention the SPENDING, Stupid??

The Republican Party has to move from a pro-business strategy that defends the interests of existing companies to a pro- market strategy that fosters open competition and freedom of entry.

Read the rest. Seriously. It's not long, but it's well-thought out.

HT: AmSpec

It's the Spending, Stupid!

Say what you like about "tax cuts;" the elephant in the room is Deficit Spending.

With the economy weakening and spending on the war rising, the federal government's budget deficit is expected to more than double this year compared with last year, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Tuesday. The federal deficit is projected to hit $407 billion in the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30 ... (CBO)

Calculated Risk notes:

...to be accurate, this is the Unified Budget deficit. The General Fund deficit (the responsibility of the President) will be over $600 billion this year. This will put the National Debt close to $10 Trillion when the next President takes office in January 2009 (not counting any impact from the Paulson Plan for Fannie and Freddie).

For practical purposes, SocSec taxation is a large chunk of the $200Bn 'counter-deficit' evident from the above--and SocSec spending is about to go into orbit as the Boomers give up earning a living.

McCain actually has an issue: the Spending. Obamamamamama is proposing a helluvalot MORE spending and it is highly unlikely that he can tax his way to a balanced budget no matter how he spins it. (See below post for the short explanation.)

It remains to be seen if McCain/Palin can pull off the Hat Trick of the century: eliminate the deficit and start gaining on the national debt.

Still "The Stupid Party"? It's The SPENDING!

In the middle of an article about a new (D) 'manufacturing' initiative we find this:

Republicans are pressing their own agenda focused on lower taxes, less regulation and an end to Obama's most ambitious initiatives, such as his overhaul of the health-care system and his plan to tax carbon emissions

The Republicans have been called "the Stupid Party" for at least 20 years.

D'ya think that some national (R) figure will actually come out and say "Forget about taxes, IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!"

No. That would be smart. National (R) types are not smart.

Taxes are caused ONLY by spending. Excessive taxation is the result of excessive spending.

Throw ALL of the idiots out.

It's the SPENDING, Stupid!! Part 147,552

Well, well.

The JS went to West Bend to find a school-budget problem. And the article mentions the US budget problem, the State budget problem, the Milwaukee County budget problem, and the Milwaukee County Transit system budget problem.

They must have run out of space, because it doesn't mention the CITY of Milwaukee's budget problem.

That's it: a space problem.

Give them credit for this:

"In the past we just borrowed more and went on our merry way," said Charles McMillion, head of the MBG Information Services forecasting firm in Washington, D.C. "The consequences of 30 years of living beyond our means are catching up with us at every level."

In other words, IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!

The Larger Picture: It Ain't ONLY the Spending, Stupid!

Zero is staying ahead of the curve.

...Political control is what’s killing us. It is expressed in hundreds of ways: high tax rates with carefully tailored exceptions, massive bailouts, laws rigged to favor government-controlled industries, restrictions on resource development, and a vast poppy field of subsidies and penalties. The Democrats have added thousands of pages of fabulously expensive legislation since Obama took office. Two messages echo through those pages: Obey and be rewarded. Resist and be punished.

...The devilish thing about control is that it blames all of its failures on its absence. The “stimulus” didn’t work because it was too small. The flabby and useless ObamaCare program just needs a few thousand more regulations to achieve perfection. Now that the State controls our health care, it owns our bodies, and the First Lady would like to have a word with us about our diet. The free market withers beneath the strain of its freedom, but politicians assure us they can chain it down and cure its ailments with a hundred more surgeries.

The nexus of High Spending and Complete Control is ironclad--you can't have one without the other, and they are self-perpetuating twin evils.

More and more, that 1992 observation from Grover Norquist emerges as THE issue over the next several years. The "Leave Us Alone" group has now been joined by the "It's the Spending, Stupid!" group.

And it will be almost impossible to stop the movement.

What Paul Ryan Must Overcome

K'hammer (with whom I sometimes disagree...)

There are two ways to run against Barack Obama: stewardship or ideology. You can run against his record, or you can run against his ideas.

The ideological case, on the other hand, is not just appealing to a center-right country with twice as many conservatives as liberals; it is also explanatory. It underpins the stewardship argument. Obama’s ideology — and the program that followed — explains the failure of these four years.

What program? Obama laid it out boldly early in his presidency. The roots of the nation’s crisis, he declared, were systemic. Fundamental change was required. He had come to deliver it.

No need to recite the specifics--but every one of them is a failure.

...given that there’s no good reason whatever for Obama to be leading, one can only presume that Romney’s strategy in July and now in August is not working.

Which is why the “we only talk about the economy” line, while superficially clever, was and is so foolish—stupid, even. Of course Romney wants to focus on that one issue. It’s the one that hurts Obama the most, and the one on which he seems to score the best. He and his team have an idea about the campaign. They need to win independents to win. Independents are less ideological. So don’t press the ideological buttons. Keep it simple. Keep it plain. Obama has hurt you. I’ll help you. Fine.

But that’s not the only reason they’re doing it this way.

Romney and his people prefer this strategy because it’s what is most comfortable to them. He is not, at root, an ideological person. Neither, at root, are they. And the data suggest this is not a time for a sharply ideological campaign. The data suggest Romney needs to run as Mr. Fix-It. That is how Romney prefers to view himself. So the two match perfectly.

Alas for him, that’s not how it works. If conservative ideology is a problem with some independents, it also has the virtue of providing those who use it to discuss the nation’s problems with a pulse. Romney has just learned over the past few weeks that he cannot limit the discussion to the topics he wishes to talk about, especially when his rival is spending $100 million trying to destroy him in the swing states and when the media are largely serving his purposes by acting as though an increase in the unemployment rate and utterly unimpressive jobs-creation numbers are somehow good news.

So here’s why he should be talking about other things, releasing plans, giving speeches on big topics—-because it’s the only way he can control the discussion. If he says the same thing about the economy every single day, he bores. He provides nothing new for anyone to fix on. He has to feed the beast. And it can’t just be that he puts his toe gingerly in the welfare-reform pool one day and then defend himself for three days after. It all has to keep moving.

IOW, Romney either does a "man up" to his campaign--talking about the ideology--or he slowly becomes another John McPain.

Well.

I quibble with K-hammer's worry about the election; Romney's behind because nobody's paying attention to the election now.  They never have.  The focus begins in early October.  Secondly, Obozo has inertia on his side--for the time being.  He IS the President, he seems to be a nice guy, and yes, the MFM has done their kneepad-best.

Nonetheless, Ryan has a lot to do here--and maybe Romney realizes that "the economy" ain't gonna make it; that there is a real, tangible, and very meaningful cultural/ideological divide which must be addressed.  Romney can win that battle, and Ryan will be his C-in-C in that effort.

HT:  ColdFury

Rasmussen: It's the SPENDING, Stupid!

The last of the dry-heaves is working its way through QueenNancy's Pork Palace.

Meantime, actual US citizens think that another $900Bn in spending is a bad idea.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey turns up new evidence of a yawning divide between the nation's Political Class and the rest of the country on what to do about the federal government's fiscal crisis.

The survey found "that 57% of likely U.S. voters think reducing federal government spending is more important than reducing the deficit. Thirty-four percent (34%) put reducing the deficit first," according to Rasmussen

You won't be surprised to learn that the Political Class thinks otherwise, of course.

"It’s telling to note that while 65% of mainstream voters believe cutting spending is more important, 72% of the Political Class say the primary emphasis should be on deficit reduction," Rasmussen said.

Translating, the Political Class wants to spend AND tax.

Seems that elections don't matter to some people.

Klein at AmSpec presents the argument FOR the tax deal here.

In brief: only $140Bn of the ~$900Bn is controversial among conservatives--principally the UC extension (not paid for) and a bunch of tax credits, the most odious of which is the CornAHole $5Bn.

Hinderaker at PowerLine falls into line with Mark Levin, in opposition to the bill.

Look at PPP, not GDP

It's a side-note in a longer essay on the current world war (disguised as a regional conflict) but it's a side-note worth noting.

...I have pointed out for years that all discussions of the Russian economy in terms of nominal GDP are bogus. Nominal GDP is spending within the Russian economy converted through the RUB/USD exchange rate.

But that metric is irrelevant. It doesn’t say anything about what that spending buys the average Russian.

GDP is a stupid metric. It should be called GNS, Gross National Spending. It is a dumb way to measure the ‘output’ of a society. It’s at best a very gross approximation but it is, again, just aggregated spending.

This is the fundamental fallacy of Keynesian demand-side economics and all theories about which economies are expanding or contracting based on spending are literally bogus.

But we have all been trained to believe in GDP as some all-powerful measure of growth and power. It’s not anything of the sort. When you have the ability to print money at will to bid up the cost of the goods purchased with that money, how is that telling you anything about the health of the country, the people… or frankly anything at all?...Luongo quoted at Wauck's place.

He would prefer PPP (purchasing power parity) which is measured based on 'bang for the buck.'  Example:  the ruble.

...Kopylov explained that the strengthening of the ruble is due to the fact that it is now based purely on exports and imports, and its value is determined by its purchasing power parity (PPP). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated the Russian currency’s PPP at the end of 2021 at 29.127 rubles per one dollar. According to the Big Mac Index, that rate stood at 23.24 rubles to the dollar....

Whereas measured by GDP, the ruble is 66 to the dollar.

Hmmmm.

The (R) Hijacking of the "Stop Spending" Mantra

In a series of posts with the headline "It's the Spending, Stupid, Part XXX,XXX" we highlighted a few of the moronic, bloated, and disgusting spend-items in various Gummints.

We weren't alone in mentioning the spending; the TEA Party arose in response to Gummint spend-a-holics, not to mention Gummint regulate-a-holics, Gummint tax-a-holics, and the Gummint ninny-nanny-a-holicism which pervades the modern Statist regimes from top to bottom.

The (R) Party, which on paper was opposed to Gummint spending, taxing, and regulation to varying degrees saw an opportunity, and moved right in.

Sweet, eh?

No.

Which (R) Presidential candidate has mentioned "cutting the Federal payroll"?  Which (R) Presidential candidate has mentioned "reducing staff at EPA, Dep't of Education, Dep't of Labor, Dep't of Commerce", (pick one, pick all, pick more)???

We are happy that the Walker Administration has found a way to cut the gross costs of staffing Wisconsin governments.  But the Walker Administration's budget increases the State's full-time headcount.  Is the Governor telling us that there are no positions which are redundant, or that there are no Departments or Department segments which could be reduced or eliminated?  And, worse, that he must increase the number of State employees to 'get jobs done'?

By their nature, politicians like to eat their cake and have it, too.  That's OK, because we all do.  It's human nature.

But sloganeering doesn't cut jack, and it certainly doesn't cut Statism.

The Mindless Mantra of "Tax Cuts"

 It's dispiriting to have to mention Jay Weber (AM's, 1130 WISN) nearly weekly.

But then, he comes up with a lot of mindless mantras.  Today, he told us 'Tax Cuts Good!!' in arguing that a Pubbie takeover of the Senate, House, and Exec Office could bring a renewal of the Paul Ryan/Trump tax cuts due to expire 2025.

(Since the first name above is "Paul Ryan" you know that these tax cuts didn't hurt any of his friends and donors, right?  And Trump--who knows?)

Anyhow, the "tax cuts" which did not waste a comma on "carried interest...."

What Actual Conservatives REALLY WANT is ...........

SPENDING CUTS!

 JUST CUT THE DAMNED SPENDING!!

Weber is a former teacher, which tells you about the quality of his 'thinking.' (see the headline of this entry.)

Mindless.  The now-$34TRILLION national debt exists because of spending, not a paucity of taxation.  Any 1st-grader can tell you that.

We've often stated that "IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!!!"

But then, why should we care?  Our children and grandchildren will be the ones who cannot purchase any goods from overseas because no one wants the USD.  Our children and grandchildren will not be able to purchase homes due to the interest rates forced by limitless spending with really small tax offsets.  And they will be at risk of not being able to purchase food or fuel due to the inflation.

That's not Jay's problem, either, which accounts for the fact that he simply cannot think things through.

The "R" Word, The "A" Word Again; It's the SPENDING: G Washington

Well, the word comes up again and again. Actually, two: "Alien" and "Revolution".

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

--quoted with approval, by the way...and they have more to say.

George Washington was not the last to warn about "the SPENDING, STUPID!"

"cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ." --G Washington

It's a generally dark paper which acknowledges that Obama, as President, has a lot of power.

What the authors forget is this: a Republican House has the power of the purse. Every Cabinet agency and regulatory body must be funded, and that happens only when the House allocates the money. It cannot happen any other way.

But what they open their essay with is very intriguing, indeed.

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

They're on to something.

More here, picking up on the same essay:

...Our politicians view the people as rubes and subjects, and treat them as such. They imagine themselves a ruling class...

...Republicans and Democrats differ only in how they plan to loot the public coffers. Our present Congress and Administration are merely more transparent in their corruption and disdain than their predecessors....

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Jacobson Nails It: It's the SPENDING, Stupid!

Jacobson's take on ObamaCare?

It's the taxes, debt and deficit. The CBO score was a joke because of the unrealistic assumptions the CBO was required to follow. The news in the coming months will be about higher national deficits and debt. As the "doctor fix" and other unrealistic assumptions play out legislatively, Republicans need to make the public understands that the Democrats lied about the true cost of the legislation.

He has other observations, all equally trenchant.

But the longest-lasting reality will be the ObamaCare deficit, compounded by the Medicare/Medicaid deficit (current unfunded liabilities total $100 TRILLION for them.)

Focus on the abortions, spending, and debt.

White House Crapola

A spade is a spade, Donald. 

Your "Big Beautiful Spend-a-Thon Bill" sucks.  As was the case during your last term, your spending proposal puts drunken sailors to shame.

One wonders if you are playing the same game as you did with your real-estate business:  borrowing so much that bankruptcy was the only option--then forcing the lenders to kiss your ass and eat s**t.

So happens the lenders here are US citizens who indirectly purchase US bonds through their retirement accounts.  Other lenders are foreign countries--Japan is the biggest--who will NOT be happy when you stiff them.

But who needs allies, right?

STOP THE SPENDING, STUPID!!  Moody's agrees.  And please--don't play us for suckers with your "blame the Fed" bullcrap.  It's the spending, stupid.

It's the SPENDING, Stupid!

Mr. Schneider states the obvious (obvious to all except the PIG/Madistan types.)

According to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Wisconsin’s taxpayer burden ranks sixth in the nation relative to income. In 2004, state and local expenditures claimed 21.9 percent of personal incomes, up from 20.2 percent in 1999. Total state and local taxes and fees have increased 47 percent in the past decade, despite a reduction in income tax revenue in 2002 due to the slumping economy. When an economic recession hits and tax revenue declines, the state still manages to spend more and more every year—even when Republicans control both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature.

A great example was the Tommy Thompson experience. But apparently our Leggies are blind to the actual numbers. There seems to be no accountability, nor performance criteria for funded programs:

The way Wisconsin budgets also fails to provide adequate funding oversight. During the budget process, legislators are presented with documents that merely detail changes in funding—they get papers analyzing the governor’s proposals to add three percent here, and four percent there. Rarely are base reviews conducted as to whether programs deserve new funding. Programs about which there are questions receive smaller increases as punishment; nothing is ever actually cut.

And the Pubbies have standards which would make prostitutes blush with shame:

We are told that Republican budgets tax less “than the Governor,” spend less “than the Governor,” bond less “than the Governor,” and have smaller deficits “than the Governor.”

As taxes continue to rise, people will look at Wisconsin, decide the harsh winters and lack of jobs aren’t worth the trouble, and seek more fiscally friendly states. Rumor has it that trash even gets picked up in states below the Mason Dixon line, despite their lower tax burdens (we know that now because of the internet). As people flock from the state, so will businesses—leaving fewer taxpayers to pick up the ever-growing tab.

That is the case in California, where high-end earners are leaving for places like Nevada and Idaho.

By the way, sales-tax revenue is seriously down in many States this year. I've sent an inquiry to a friend about where one can find the numbers on the "informative" State webpage.

This should be interesting...

HT: Charlie Sykes

It's the SPENDING, Stupid!!

The Captain reminds us of Principle # 1:


The Washington Post reports on the anguish of the Democrats in fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), one of the dumbest ongoing fiscal issues over the last several years. Why the anguish? Democrats can't find another tax to replace the AMT revenue this year.

The Democrats in this article act as though they have only one choice in dealing with the AMT, which is to play a shell game and find another way to tax Americans. Even the Republicans in the article, gleeful over forcing Democrats to violate Paygo, seem to forget that other options exist for fiscal responsibility.

At Heading Right, I remind Congress that the budget "hole" supposedly blown by the AMT fix amounts to a whopping 1.67% of the federal spending plan for next year. Congressional anguish over fixing the ludicrously broken AMT apparently has clouded their minds so much that they've forgotten about the option to reduce spending 1.67% instead of jacking up taxes by a much larger percentage.

They didn't forget, Cap'n. It never occurs to them.

It's STILL The Spending, Stupid!!

Paul Ryan's press release on today's CBO report:

...The CBO projects that government spending as a share of the economy will increase by nearly 70 percent between now and 2035, up from its historical average of roughly 20 percent. Taxes are projected to rise to the historical average in the years ahead, yet the unprecedented growth in government spending is projected to rise much faster, driving an unsustainable explosion in debt

...The CBO report states that “Growing debt also would increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates.”

...The CBO report affirms that the massive health-care overhaul fails to address the explosion in health care costs. Mandatory federal spending on health care will increase by 86 percent from 5.6 percent of GDP today to 10.4 percent of GDP over the next 24 years

We've been very happy to buy the line (of BS) from the pols since.......oh.....1964.......that 'spending is wunnerful, and deficits don't matter.'

We were stupid, and they lied.

Now the piper calls.