The Blue State

Iraq war makes US police departments wait longer for ammunition

A number of police agencies in the US, such as one in South Dakota, say shipments of bullets that officers rely on for protection have been slowed because they are in high demand in Iraq:

Law enforcement officials in South Dakota say the needfor bullets used by the military in Iraq has made it more difficult toget the ammunition police need for training and patrol work.

It takes more than a year to fill bullet orders for police and gun shops, an ammunition manufacturer in Rapid City confirms.

KristiHoffman, co-owner of Black Hills Ammunition, a mid-sized ammunitioncompany that has contracts with the U.S. Navy, said her firm has anorder backlog of 16-18 months for gun shops and law agencies that wantrifle bullets.

Black Hills Ammunition specializes in.223-caliber rifle rounds, and the need to meet deadlines in militarycontracts means other customers must wait, she said. The company isrunning at capacity to fill orders, Hoffman added.

"It's notgetting any better. It's not getting any worse," she said. "We've beenrunning the same amount of backlog time for the past six months."

Similar to how war in Iraq hurt the Kansas wildfire rescue effort last May because so much of the needed equipment was oversees.

It's a re-occurring theme: while unsuccessfully trying to spread "freedom" around the world, we're leaving our country to rot.  When weighing the opportunity cost, how is it economically sound to outsource $227,000 of our treasury each minute on a failed foreign affair, when we could for once invest in the country we actually live in?

Editorial: Bush and media playing "deficit" games again

All this week, President Bush, his advisers and conservative news organizations have touted numbers that project the federal deficit to be less this year than in 2006.  Again, these are just projections, which the White House has had a reputation of over-hyping.  For example, the Administration projected a deficit in July of $35 billion, even though figures released this morning put the actual number an entire $1.4 billion higher.

But the real issue is the Administration's reluctance to inform Americans about what the word "deficit" actually means.  When they say the deficit is shrinking, many people think, "Oh great, all that money we owe will soon be erased."  That is not at all the case.

The words "deficit" and "debt" have two different meanings.  "Deficit" refers to the amount of liabilities over assets over a certain period of time.  "Debt" is the all-time remainder of liabilities over assets.  So when Bush says the deficit is shrinking, that does not mean our debt is shrinking as well.  Instead, it means the rate of increase to the debt is shrinking, but the debt itself is still growing.

In 2004, President Bush said he would cut the deficit in half by 2009.  What that really means, if that actually happens, is the National Debt will still rise, but just by half as much that year. 

So now that we all have this clear, no matter how much the annual deficit decreases, it is impossible for President Bush to cut the National Debt in half.   He will still preside over the largest debt increase in our nation's history.

(Click chart for larger image)

Federal spending increased 23% under Republican Congress

President Bush is threatening to veto at least nine out of twelve appropriations bills that were passed by Congressional Democrats before the August recess.  On Thursday, Bush slammed Democrats for what he called reckless spending:

"That's a lot of money -- even for career politicians in Washington."

Maybe the President and his party forget that when they had control of the Executive and Legislative branches, spending was significantly out of control.  In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation -- a conservative think tank -- spending after inflation increased by 23% between 2001 and 2006:

Some conservatives have questioned Bush's commitment to fiscaldiscipline, noting — as the Heritage Foundation did in a March report —that federal spending increased 23% after inflation from 2001 to 2006.Bush did not veto any appropriations bills passed by RepublicanCongresses, which included hikes for defense, homeland security,entitlements, education and thousands of special-interest items calledearmarks that are tacked onto spending bills at lawmakers' requests.

And now suddenly Bush pretends to be shocked when Democrats try to pass appropriations bills, which must be signed into law or else the government cannot function.

The Republican House and Senate campaigns will attempt to make this a big issue in 2008.  They will say that spending has increased even more under the Democratic Congress.  That might turn out to be true -- but only because in the waining weeks before Democrats took the gavel, Republicans decided not to pass 11 appropriations bills and instead leave them for the Democrats to deal with.  Because these burdens were given to the Democrats, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were left with two options:

• Don't pass the appropriations bills, and let funding for federal agencies run out.
• Pass the appropriations bills, but get unfairly blamed for spending increases in Washington.

They picked the second option, and are getting blamed even though the government must get funding in order to function.

Our infrastructure is deteriorating

The bridge collapse in Minneapolis was just one of a few recent examples where our inability to invest in our homeland backfired.  The Christian Science Monitor cited three other cases:

"One of America's great assets is its  infrastructure, but if you don't invest it deteriorates," says Patrick Natale, executive director of ASCE.       

Among scores of recent examples:

•Last month, a 100-year-old steam pipe erupted in midtown Manhattan, killing one man and causing millions of dollars in lost business.

•The inadequacies of levees in New Orleans became horrifyingly clear in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. The city is still recovering.      

•In 2003, the Silver Lake Dam in Michigan failed, causing $100 million in damage.

In 2005, authorities listed the Minneapolis bridge as structurally deficient.  So many bridges around the United States have a lifespan of about 40 years.  Currently, 75,611 bridges all across the country, many built in the 1950s, are structurally deficient.  One in ten US bridges are in poor condition.

Are we going to do something about it, or are we going to continue spending $12 billion each week in Iraq?

Letting our infrastructure go to waste

I was appalled, along with everyone else, to learn about the Minneapolis bridge collapse yesterday.  It reminded me of another bridge just seven miles from where I live that is on its last leg.  Seattle city officials warn it could collapse at any time.

So why is this happening?  After all, we are supposed to be in the 21st century.  Our country is in need of an infrastructural upgrade to the extent of what transpired when the freeways were first built more than forty years ago.

Even though local municipalities across the country need more funding, the money is supposedly hard to come by.  The prices of steel and concrete are much higher than earlier this decade.  As one expert said, "we're buying a lot less repairs than we did five years ago" for the same amount of money.  It would cost roughly $1.6 trillion over the next five years to bring our country's infrastructure up to speed.

But wait a minute.  $1.6 trillion over five years?  We are paying $12 billion each month in Iraq, and possibly one trillion by the time it is over.  Maybe we just need to get our priorities straight.

Bush to veto 6 million children out of health coverage

The House of Representatives voted along partisan lines to pass a health care bill that would cover 6 million more children.  That would mean six million more kids getting regular physicals, immunizations and other preventative care so that down the road many of them won't require pricey emergency procedures that taxpayers usually end up paying for.

To President Bush and most Republicans, this is a horrible idea.  Since the measure passed the House, it heads to the Senate for debate.  In a statement, the White House issued a veto threat, saying the plan "clearly favors government-run health care over private health insurance."

This bill will likely not make it through the Senate.  Instead, a bipartisan group of Senators support a more scaled back proposal, which increases funding for the program by $35 billion.  It doesn't beat the $47 billion in the House bill -- but it's still not bad.  Bush says he would veto either bill.

What the President wants instead is a bill that only increases federal funding for the program by $5 billion.  But according to columnist Art Levine, Bush's plan guts states of resources:

Bush’s proposed $5 billion increase in funding to the program would still leave nearly 20 stateswithout sufficient funds to cover all those now enrolled. Bush opposesmajor expanded funding for SCHIP because he’d like to link the programwith his dead-in-the-water proposals to offer tax credits or deductionsto help people pay for high-cost, often exclusionary private insuranceon their own.

It is interesting how the Republican Party brags about being for states rights, yet their policies of unfunded mandates actually hurt states and empower the federal government.  No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act are two perfect examples.

Democrats' new spending rule would balance budget by 2012

House Democrats recently passed a budget bill that institutes a 'pay as you go' rule.  In other words, no spending unless there is budget money available to pay for it.  Similar rules led to surpluses during the Clinton years, but were allowed to expire in 2001 after Republicans took control of both the Congress and White house:

Balancing the budget "is an urgent national priority," Rep. DennisCardoza, D-Calif., said during the debate, and "now is the time" tobring back the rules.

The House budget rules, approved 280-152, bar spending increases forany new program unless spending is simultaneously cut elsewhere ortaxes are raised to offset the cost.

Likewise, any reduction in tax revenues must beoffset by spending cuts or tax hikes in other areas. That change coulddoom Republican efforts to permanently extend tax cuts passed duringBush's first term, most of which expire at the end of 2010.

Some Republicans will complain that this bill raises taxes.  Don't let them fool you.  Nowhere in this bill does it say anything about a tax increase.  The bill simply specifies that spending cannot happen unless money is available to pay for it.

The good news is that Bush is not expected to veto it.  The only question is what will the Senate do with it?  If this thing makes it through, expect for there to be a crackdown on the pork and other wasteful spending that both parties have been getting away with for so long.

The only other obstacle is the farm bill, which will end up being rather expensive.  There are some that want to wave the pay-as-you-go rule in order to get the farm bill through -- but it is unlikely that will happen.

National Debt at $59.1 trillion

If the government implements the same accounting standards that corporations use, the national debt would be much higher than the approximate $8.8 trillion in red ink that the Treasury Department currently reports.

Dennis Cauchon explains that we are not reporting our finances correctly:

Modern accounting requires thatcorporations, state governments and local governments count expensesimmediately when a transaction occurs, even if the payment will be madelater.

The federal government does not follow the rule, sopromises for Social Security and Medicare don't show up when thegovernment reports its financial condition.

Bottom line:Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion inliabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to$516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owean average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and allother debt combined.

Regardless of which method is correct, it is interesting that the government refuses to implement the very same accounting procedures that it forces corporations to follow.

Under Bush, the debt has increased by at least $3 trillion -- and maybe even higher when using corporate accounting procedures.  A lot of that money is being borrowed from banks in countries with corrupt leaders.  That may pose a long-term national security risk:

As anyone who has had to borrow money is well aware, lenders haveleverage. Whether it's your brother-in-law or the Bank of America, acreditor has claims that you can't entirely ignore.

Because of our low national savings, the United States has had toborrow heavily from foreign countries. Foreign ownership of U.S.Treasury bonds alone increased $1.2 trillion in the first five years ofthe Bush administration.

Much of this money belongs to governments whose interests do not always mesh with our own.

So much for being the party that is big on protecting national security!  Hopefully 2004 will be remembered as the last time we bought that nonsense.

46% of your tax dollars go toward military and National Debt interest

National Priorities Project has put together a pie chart that maps out where all our 2006 tax money went (try your best not to punch your computer when you look at this):

Wow!  We are the richest country in the world, and we only spend 3% of our money on education.  Fiscally speaking, we seem to value sticks a lot more than books.

(Note: the chart does not include Trust Funds, which among others include Social Security.)

The Peanut Farmers and The Nuts

We keep hearing the Conservatives talk about the "porkbarrel spending" bythe Democrats  in the recently approved "U.S. Troop Readiness,Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007" bill.

The legislation was for $124 billion. $100 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistanwars, and $24 billion was pork barrel spending?, well not exactly. See, whatwe're not told is everything that's included in the $24 billion worth of"earmarks" included in the bill.

From the Washington Post:

The $124 billion legislation includes more than $100 billion for the wars inIraq and Afghanistan, plus billions more than Bush requested for combatequipment and training, for military housing and health care, to address theflaws in mental health care, brain trauma treatment and other issues thatsurfaced in the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal. Billions more wereadded for veterans' care, agricultural assistance and drought relief, homelandsecurity, and Gulf Coast hurricane recovery

Listening to the"anti pork" conservatives would have you believe that the $24 billionwas for peanut storage and spinach, as you can clearly see that isn't the case(truth) at all. And what about the peanut storage, spinach and the rest of theagriculture earmarks ? To understand is only a click away.

TheSouthwest Farmers Press: There is an abundance of information onthis site about our countries agriculture industry.

John Harrell has grown peanuts on his farm inWhigham, Ga., since 1974. He says, “In 2002, we had just come off severalconsecutive years of drought-plagued poor crops; we were about to lose thepeanut program and things looked bleak. We had to change and we did. Now, we area hiccup away from a different farm crisis that will take many farmers out of  business. 

Florida grower Michael Davis says if farmers are required to pick up the cost ofstorage and handling, it will push prices to $300 or less, and under suchconditions he would not grow peanuts next year. Other members of a grower panel,which presented their input for the 2007 farm bill, offered similar direpredictions for peanut growers.

The peanut farmers were introuble due to drought, growing more peanuts gave them the insurance theyneeded, however in doing so it created a storage problem. As silly as"peanut storage" may sound when presented by a sarcastic conservativecommentator, it becomes a more serious issue when you have an understanding ofwhat it is and why it is needed.

If these earmarks weren't putinto this bill, chances are they never would have passed in a  "standalone" bill. And it is hard to disagree with the need of these additionalfunds for our country's agriculture industry. And lets not forget that peach ofan earmark from the republicans "TheBridge to Nowhere" . $231 million to connect Ketchikan, AL (pop.8,000) to Gravina Island (pop. 50 in 2000).

NewsHounds has a FOX news segment with the video of Hannity being his Fair& Balanced self about the pork spending. It's the dishonesty that isspewed from the conservatives regarding the "pork" that bothers me.There is some interesting information in this post.