Money? We've Got Plenty!

Well, now they've done it. Congress has just proved that not only are they completely incapable of restraining themselves, they are also so full of hypocrisy that it's oozing out of their ridiculously inflated heads. 

Only this time there's plenty of blame to spread around...among both parties.

In case you didn't know, in the words of Genie from Aladdin, just ruminate whilst I illuminate. So the House has just passed a so-called "Omnibus" bill, which basically doles out money to just about everyone but me. Losers. Apparently they didn't think there was a need for researching the effectiveness of dog saliva as a mosquito repellent, a project currently being researched by The Jasonian Institute of Alternative Preventative Restrictionary Annoyances, or JIAPRA. Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? 

Anyway, so it's around $400b and is L-O-A-D-E-D (with a capital oink) with earmarks. To the tune of, I dunno, NINE THOUSAND of them. This time around, nobody is denying they're in there, and there are plenty of earmarks from both sides of the aisle. What's interesting about all these earmarks is that we've all heard Obama say, time and time again, that he was going to remove earmarks from legislation. I say if that's his goal, he's off to a horrible start. Oh, rest assured the powers that be have been cornered about this very hypocrisy. The response? 

Them: "Well, certainly we are going to do that in the future, but this bill actually started last year, so..."

Us: "But it hasn't been signed into law yet, right?"

Them: "Nooo, but..."

Us: "So you could, I dunno, NOT pass it until it was cleared up?"
Them: "But we promised those groups that..."

Us: "What about your promises to us?"
Them: "Yes, but you don't give us mon-- uh, I mean to say.."
Us: "I think I've heard enough. Thanks."

[We walk off.]

Them: "Next one! Promise! You'll see!"

I bet we will.

I'm not going to go into listing all the ridiculous things that are in this bill, you can surely find it online with VERY little effort. What I will do is post a link to the actual bill's PDF file, available at house.gov. This is a scanned document with hand written corrections all over it. I haven't looked at the whole thing (very few probably have, including those in DC), but a few things in the first few pages just jumped out at me. First, go ahead and go to page 3 and start reading the numbers. You'll quickly notice a pattern. Nearly all of the appropriations are larger than the requested amount! So some group requests a sum of money and not only do they get it, they get MORE. This is not on one or two of them - keep reading. I also noticed something else on page 3 (and others). Remember how I said they weren't denying earmarks? Check out that text - Insert Earmarks, which has been scratched out and replaced with "Table". Niiiice.

Here's another little not-very-reported note about this bill. Mr. No-More-Earmarks himself actually was a cosponsor on one of the earmarks in this bill!! Apparently, when he proposed it as a senator, it wasn't an earmark, per se. It was still porkish, so whatever (pork, earmark...all I hear is 'waste'). Apparently, in true Washington fashion the farmers filled up the trough and it in fact became an earmark. However, fret not: he's going to be squeaky clean now, since his name was just removed from it. The amount hasn't changed ($7.7m), but at least he was able to get his name withdrawn so that he can now say he never put an earmark on it. Must be cool to be the boss...

Do you see what's going on here? They don't care about the country or this financial crisis. NONE of this stuff should be in here. It has nothing to do with the government looking out for us. It has to do with legislators wanting federal monies for their own districts back home. And we're ALL paying for it.

But wait - that's not all!

Obama has also released the fiscal budget! Nearly $4 trillion! For years, everyone on the left railed on Bush for expanding our deficit after Clinton had surpluses (which technically weren't surpluses unless you  use Washington accounting 'standards'), and with one fell swoop, Obama will increase the deficit that Bush created by a huge amount, no matter how you look at it. Check out this graph:

So, the budget 'suggestion' to Congress (after all, it still has to be debated/approved) is $3.6 trillion. The deficit portion of it is...wait for it...$1.75 trillion. That's right - HALF of it is deficit spending!! They're basically spending two dollars for every dollar they bring in. Only the government can get away with that. You and I would have to go to credit counseling or something...

For some perspective, Bush's last year in office we had tons of bailouts right? I remember cringing at the thought of bailing out the various companies for billions of dollars. Despite all of that, it "only" produced a somehow-not-so-big-now deficit of $455 billion. 2009's will be nearly 4 times this figure. Amazing. Toward the end of last year (Sept '08), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the deficit to exceed $400b for the next 2 years if current policies remained in place. Well, thank God that the policies were changed! That would have been horrible!! Oh wait...

Don't worry though, Obama said. He still plans to reduce the inherited deficit by half by the end of his term. So he's saying either he or the next president will have a deficit of around $225 billion by 2013. Old Scratch better be buying a parka, cause it's apparently gonna be getting cold down there.

My explanation? Obama is striking quickly while the flames of his fiery stampede to the White House are still burning. He has put just about everything he ever dreamed about in this proposal. I think (hope) much of it will get cut, but you can bet that not all of it will. Perhaps that is a not-so-subtle intent. Throw everything he can knowing that at least some of it will get through. If he does that every year he'll eventually get what he wants.

Just yesterday, Obama said this: "We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now."

No $h!t, Sherlock. 

How's about you start sippin' on some of that medicine you're selling?

Rights...or Wrongs?

As Americans, we have the right to enjoy life; to be happy. We have the right to obtain employ in the service of another. We have the right to decent housing arrangements. We have the right to affordable health care. We have the right to demand accommodation at a place of business of our choice.

Right?

Wrong. They are all wrong. As Americans we have none of these so-called rights.

Huh? But I thought--

No; you thought wrong. You do not have the right to enjoy your life or to be happy. You have the right to pursue happiness. It's an important distinction. Nobody except you can guarantee your happiness. This is a fundamental flaw in some people's minds. They either feel that somebody (usually government, but sometimes individuals or businesses) owes them something in order to appease them. They feel it is their "right", but it is most certainly not.

How about a job? Surely we have the right to work? Wrong again. It ties into the fact that nobody owes anybody anything in regards to happiness. Would a job be nice? Would it help get/keep you on your feet? Sure! But does that mean it's your right to have a job? Certainly not! This country was set up on the principle that if you bust your ass and work hard you may be able to make something of yourself and find employment. You certainly have the right to exercise your free will and attempt to better yourself. If you don't get anything out of doing that (or don't even bother attempting) then that sucks for you, but that's life. Nobody (especially the government) owes you any sort of job. As such, it is most certainly not a right afforded anyone in the Constitution.

So no right to a house? Definitely not. You have the right to not be discriminated against when purchasing a house, but that does NOT mean that if you can't pay the bill, that not selling you the house is some sort of discrimination based on class or poverty level. If you don't have the dough, you shouldn't get the digs. And nobody under any circumstances has the right to own their own home. Nobody has the right to even rent a home. I'm sure most if not all Americans want everyone to have their own home, but that doesn't make it a right.

You don't have the right to affordable health care. You have the right to not be killed, to be sure, but nobody owes you medical treatment unless you pay for it (or have pre-paid through insurance) This can be both unfortunate and sticky. While I don't support government-run health care, I do know that health care costs can quickly skyrocket for someone who is hospitalized. Most of the time, the monetary level of the person is indirectly proportional to the amount of medical costs they run up. The problem is far too complex for me to solve, but it seems to me it needs to be handled from both ends. If there are those reliant on government assistance, then they should be required to abide by certain restrictions which would ensure their health level to be as high as it can be. Otherwise the government is just dropping money down a hole. On the other end of the spectrum, insurance companies screw around with medical practices, not paying on time, refusing payment, underpaying, etc. (Yes, I speak from experience) This causes the doctors to raise prices to compensate, which then causes insurance companies to be even bigger sticklers. To top it off, frivolous lawsuits cause the doctor's malpractice insurance costs to skyrocket, which also forces doctors to raise prices to compensate. In essence, the biggest problem is that it's a continual cycle that just keeps spiraling out of control without check. As an aside - did you know that around the turn of the century (the one before the last), doctor visits cost 25 cents? House calls were 50 cents. Can you believe that? It can't possibly get back to anything close to that with our new expensive technologies, but it was still an amazing factoid.

Sorry - got off topic a bit there. Suffice it to say that while it does suck for a lot of people, it is not their right to have affordable health care. It is (imho) most definitely a privilege. Unless they amend the Constitution, then it will stay that way.

The final one I mentioned was the right to demand accomodation at your desired place of business. This is the one that seems to be most-utilized by those screaming about their rights being infringed. I wrote a post a while ago about eHarmony caving in to gay people who were screaming about their rights being infringed because they couldn't find gay partners on eHarmony's website. It was and is a ridiculous assertion that anyone should be able to demand service in this manner. You can't sue a business for having an American flag in its window just because you're from, say, Croatia, and they don't have a Croatian flag in there too. You can't force a business to sell free-range fed chicken just because you don't like hormone-infused meat. You can't demand a business owner converse with you in English, even when it's clear they cannot. I could go on, but you get the point. You, as the consumer, have the right to go anywhere you please to shop, but you do NOT have the right to have a business cater to your needs. As long as that business owner is not breaking any laws, they are within their full rights to conduct their business how they see fit. You, as the consumer, should just go somewhere else.

Far too often in this country, somebody's presumed rights trounce all over somebody's actual rights. Again, far too often, our judicial and legislative branches allow this trouncing to occur without impedement.

Can you think of any other rights that are...wrong?

Transparency. That's a joke right?

If you looked carefully at the Change.gov site (that's the Obama Administration's transition website), you'd come to the following page. If you take a close look at the content of the page, you'd read:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

Now, pardon me for being cynical, but hasn't this ethical mantra already been violated? I mean, here we are with the absolute biggest piece of legislation (in dollars) to EVER be passed, and they're hammering the details...where? Are they on the floor with all congressional members involved? You know, from both parties (since they're so bipartisan)?

No. They're behind closed doors. Talk about your transparency. Check this out, but here's the important part:

Reid also said he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met yesterday with Obama to discuss a compromise. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Budget Director Peter Orszag met behind closed doors with Democrats about a plan.

Oh wait - I just re-read the statement. It said that Obama will work toward more transparency. Oh ok...I guess we can just do that after this bill, right? Got it.

You're doing a great job of restoring my trust. Keep it up.

The icing on the cake, however, is the so-called compromise that the Democrats have reached. They reduced the overall cost, but I don't know if they think this will appease us or infuriate us. Then again, they probably don't care.

This is how it happened. No, really, it did...

Them: "Hey guys and gals and transgenders and aliens, both legal and illegal! We wanted to let you in on the good news! We reduced the bill by like, $100 billion bucks!"

Us: "Holy crap - that's awesome! What did you get rid of? That ridiculous Smithsonian thing?"

Them: "Huh? Oh-HA! That's a good one..."

Us: "The STD stuff?"

Them: "Dwellings-of-higher-powers-of-various-religions no! Try again."

Us: [dismayed] "Let me guess. All the stuff that Republicans got squeezed in there?"

Them: "BINGO! I knew you'd get it! You know, like the tax credits for homebuyers, the auto interest deductions..."

Us: "Oh, well. I guess that's to be expected."
Them: "Hey there, cheer up. We let Arlen Specter keep his $10 billion for the National Institute of Health in there! HE'S a Republican."

Us: [stares blankly]

Them: "You know...cause he, like, voted with us and stuff."

[crickets begin chirping]

Them: "Sooo..anyway. That's the good news. Later."

Us: "Hang on! Is there any bad news?"

Them: "No! Oh no no nooooo no........Yes."

Us: ?

Them: "The per-worker credit was also reduced and will essentially amount to only $13 bucks extra per paycheck. Toodle-oo!"
[Then they walk off and fist bump each other saying "One ta nuthin!"]

I wish I could say that I hope this succeeds, but I don't. I honestly hope it fails miserably. Luckily, I feel pretty safe in this happening. Don't get me wrong - I want our economy to boom again, but not at the expense of increasing the already size-gazillion government foothold over...practically everything.

We'll see...

Stimulate This

Ahh...the so-called stimulus package. No, it's not a new medical device or even a clever name for someones manhood (though that is clever...[back pat]), but if it were either of those then it might be more worthy of appreciation. How about what it's actually called: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Wow. That just..sounds so impressive.

Only it's not. Well, to be fair, it's price tag is very impressive. Nearly a trillion dollars. Let me show you how many zeroes that is.

1,000,000,000,000

Can you wrap your head around that number? We've gotten so complacent in hearing billions thrown at this economic problem that we're a little numb. Unfortunately, we can't afford to be.

Literally.

Of course, to be honest, the main problem is not its size. If that trillion dollars were spent in such a manner to actually do some stimulating, then far fewer people would be complaining. As an aside, 1 trillion dollars in my wallet would unequivocally stimulate me personally. Just sayin'.

Let's call this bill what it really is: The Take Advantage of the Democratic Majority and Pay Back All Our Interest Groups Act of 2009. On second thought, that might not fit on a T-shirt. How about: The Extremely Naive Imma Get Mine Act of 2009. Even opponents would support the acronym: ENIGMA. Yeah...has a nice ring to it.

You see, the vast majority of the crap in this stinker has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's got money going to just about every special program around, and a hefty dose of new ones for good measure. I'm not saying these groups don't need to be created, or the existing ones don't need to be funded (though I probably would on most of them); what I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in this bill!

You've got Obama at the White House telling Americans, "We need to do something NOW. Something FAST. Here, take a look at what I did. Well, actually, I didn't do it; Nancy Pelosi and Co. did it. But trust me, it's good. Listen, and listen carefully: if we don't do something it will be a CATASTROPHE!" [soundtrack: duhn duhn duhnnnn] Look, man, if it's so dang important and urgent, then why bother putting all this crap in there? Let's do some real stuff that has been PROVEN to provide stimulus. Forgive me, but I don't think that improving STD education (350m) is going to stimulate the economy.

Furthermore, did you catch how the Democrats are so forgiving of their own dissension (i.e. the Democrats who voted against this bill in the House) but so critical of the Republicans who did the same? They say, "We understand that certain members come from conservative districts and have to vote as such", then in regards to Republicans, immediately follow with, "We'll go district by district to hold them accountable." WTF? It's ok for Dems from conservative districts to vote conservatively, but not ok for Repubs to do the same?

So what has been proven to stimulate the economy? Two words: TAX CUTS. Not tax rebates, not temporary discounts, just plain ol' across-the-board cuts. This has been proven throughout history to be very effective at stimulating the economy. When did they work? Bush imposed significant tax cuts right after becoming president in 2000 that brought us out of a recession. In the same vein, in 1964 there was a cut in personal taxes, which created a rise in consumer spending. Don't stop there - what about the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s and of course the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s. In every case, across the board tax cuts immediately spurred growth and cause a rebound of trouble economic times. How about 'across the pond'? Ireland's economy was in dire straits in the mid-80s. They decided to significantly cut government spending and lower taxes on both businesses and individuals. Their per capital income went from being 63% of the UK's average to actually beating it in 2000.

"Hold on," you say, "If you lower taxes you will reduce revenue." Let me respond by saying, "WRONG." Historically, you can actually increase government revenue! After the Reagan tax cuts, for example, income tax revenues went from $244b to $446b throughout the 80s. Holy Hairpulling, Batman! Despite the possibility of increasing government revenue, that's not really something I care about. I'd much rather that revenue was reduced, would would hopefully force shutting down some wasteful spending programs. But regardless of whether or not revenue was increased, it can definitely be shown to stimulate the economy.

How? Well, it's actually rather simple. Like it or not, it's the rich that keep this economy going. They buy big, expensive things. They invest their money. They create businesses. When you reduce their taxes, they have more to spend, and they loooooove doing that for all those things. Additionally, there's a overlooked side-benefit: they don't feel forced to shelter so much of their income from the government. Eh? You mean you didn't know that the more you tax them the less they report as income? Ah, how naive. The rich will always look for loopholes to reduce their tax burden, but if their burden is lower, then they don't feel the urgency to look as hard. Think about it on a personal level - when you made minimum wage you paid taxes and likely deducted nothing. You just did the 1040EZ and went on with your life. Now you're older and make a lot more money, and you probably wouldn't think of using the ol' 1040EZ anymore. It's much more effective to itemize your deductions and minimize your tax burden. I'm not rich at all, but even I do this! It's all a matter of scale. When I was taxed at minimum wage, I paid next to nothing in taxes. 25% of a buck is only a quarter, after all. But 25% of $1000 bucks is a whopping $250!! Big difference, huh? It's when the tax burden becomes great enough to warrant your attention that you start thinking of ways to make it as small as possible. The reverse is true too, if the burden is reduced, then you don't feel the need to invest the time and envergy to reducing it.

What about job loss? We're losing jobs at an incredible rate - how do tax cuts help with that? I'm glad you asked. You did ask, didn't you? Well, it happens at a lot of levels:

• Like I said earlier, rich people buy things. If they want to buy more than they are now, then that increases demand. When you increase demand, supply will naturally creep up to meet that demand. This means that factories have to make more widgets which means they need to hire more people. Result: more jobs.
• Rich people with more money also take that money and invest in companies as anything from stockholders to venture capitalists. This causes the businesses to grow and - you guessed it - hire more people. Result: more jobs.
• Finally, rich people do something else that directly creates a growing work force. They start businesses. A friend of mine heard a good line on the radio the other day, and it pertains to this fact. Think about this - you'll never get a job from a poor person. Poor people don't hire you; rich people do. Result: more jobs.
  

So let's review - tax cuts, while technically only applying to that portion of the population that actually pay taxes, actually dramatically improve the economy on nearly every front and would undoubtedly turn our economy around. History is on the side of tax cuts.

The problem with tax cuts are that they become an emotional issue for people. How can you tell someone who is poor that you're not giving them any money, but instead you are cutting taxes on everybody else; i.e. essentially giving them more money. It's a hard sell, and it's one that Democrats classically use to oppose tax cuts. On the surface, it seems a bit unfair. However, one could equally argue that it was unfair for that same person to not be paying taxes at all. I don't want to veer too far off here, but look at it this way: nobody argues about the sales tax and that's because everybody pays the same amount no matter how much you spend. You'll pay the same percentage if you buy a car or a box of toothpicks. In other words, it's unemotional. Unfortunately our income tax is not structured that way and as such, becomes very emotional for people. The Fair Tax would alleviate this, but that's a topic for another day.

Unfortunately, the people in power don't and will likely never support tax cuts. They will continue to play the poor card and the "economic equality for all" tag line. They will strive to remove every incentive for someone to work out of government dependency and establish themselves financially; in short, to live the American Dream. They will take this nationwide crisis and use a call for a solution as an opportunity to push their own agendas. It's a shame, too, because the right kind of stimulus could do just that: stimulate.

The saving grace in all this is that the American people, so far, arent' standing for it. At last check, the approval rating for this bill was in the 30s. It has plummetted from when it was originally proposed. The American people are thinking: "Hang on. We're not saying we agree or disagree with all this stuff, but shouldn't we be trying to get out of this crisis right now before we, oh I don't know, fix the Smithsonian up ($150m)?"

I know I am. Let's stimulate this economy the tried and true way: tax cuts. We can debate all of this special interest spending through the normal legislative process. Don't sit there and tell me there's a major crisis and the time for action is now and shove this piece of paper (actually several hundred) down my throat yelling, "Sign it! Sign it! We have to do it now!", while putting so much extra crap in the fine print that the thing just stinks. You're like a predatory lender, only you're a predatory spender.

It reminds me of another president not too long ago being criticized for basically using the same emotion, fear, as leverage for his agendas. Actions which were a campaign point for Obama and the Democrats during the past elections.

I guess it's different when it's their agenda...