The earmark bandit has still not been caught yet. I am referring to that anonymous member of the Senate who blocked legislation that would that lists the name of each entity that receives appropriations. With the bill now in jeopardy because of that unnamed Senator, one can only guess who that sneaky person was.
If I were in Vegas right now, I would bet my life savings on the likelihood that Ted Stevens had something to do with it.
The current problem stems from the fact that while we know earmarks exist, they all happen under the radar screen. For example, nearly half of the recent $286 million highway bill that was signed into law by President Bush will now apparently go towards . Unfortunately, this new interstate will shadow the path of another freeway that already exists. Unfortunately, we never had a database that showed the public what the bill contained before it passed, so now any debate about Interstate 69 is moot.
Please and tell them to get this database bill passed because pork like the kind in the latest transportation bill is adding to our National Debt, which is nothing more than a birth tax on future generations. ------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , .
So much for the liberal media. The ran a misleading piece in its Friday newspaper about how the federal deficit dropped to only $239 billion so far this year.
But what the USA Today failed to explain was that the Congressional Budget Office's deficit estimates do not include in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also ignored from just last week that explained how the total deficit for this year, with the wars and tax cuts factored into it, would be something more like $3.5 trillion -- not $239 billion. Let's get the numbers right. Future generations are going to have to pay this off.
Bill Frist's estate tax cut for the very rich is a shame. According to a study from , 43% of that tax cut would go to estates with values of $20 million or greater. In total, no one with an estate worth less than $3.5 million would get a dime from this tax cut.
Why is an estate tax cut so much more important to Bill Frist than a minimum wage hike? That was a rhetorical question. Frist is paying back the super lobbyists that have been supporting him all these years, making darn sure they will continue to support him when he run for president. --------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , .
This cartoon refers to the trick Senate Republicans tried to pull this week. After the GOP suddenly reversed its stance on the minimum wage issue, Senate Dems knew there was a catch. Attached to the Republican minimum wage hike bill was a tax cut that will only help the of all American households. When it came time to vote, the Democrats told the Republicans to bite themselves.
()
Oh, and by the way: had the Democrats buckled and supported this GOP bill, it would have added roughly between 2012 and 2021. So if you were wondering which party is more fiscally responsible, now you got your answer! ---------------------------------------------------------- Other sites blogging about this issue: , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
The White House has been bragging a lot about how the deficit is projected to be . And Because it portrays the President in a positive way, Fox News .
Bus as the explained this morning, the deficit in fiscal year 2005 that we thought was only $318 billion was more like $3.5 trillion:
The federal government keeps two sets of books.
The set the government promotes to the public has a healthier bottom line: a $318 billion deficit in 2005.
The set the government doesn't talk about is theaudited financial statement produced by the government's accountantsfollowing standard accounting rules. It reports a more ominousfinancial picture: a $760 billion deficit for 2005. If Social Securityand Medicare were included — as the board that sets accounting rules isconsidering — the federal deficit would have been $3.5 trillion.
Congress has written its own accounting rules —which would be illegal for a corporation to use because they ignoreimportant costs such as the growing expense of retirement benefits forcivil servants and military personnel.
Last year, the audited statement produced by theaccountants said the government ran a deficit equal to $6,700 for everyAmerican household. The number given to the public put the deficit at$2,800 per household.
Republicans like to talk a lot about people that aren't born. Let me take a page from their book then. The children that have not even been born yet can look forward to a wonderful experience trying to pay all this debt off.
As a political writer on this web site, you will often notice a "generation y" bias, especially when it comes to issues involving the deficit. Shortly after September 11th, 2001, I had the naive notion (as did other young Americans entering college) that our goal should be to fight all terrorism regardless of the monetary cost. Well, more than about $1 trillion worth of debt later, most among my generation including myself are worried about how far in the red we are. that are buying shares of our debt now have us by the boot-straps. It's easy for Republicans and some Democrats to just throw money at each military bill for Iraq -- after all, they won't even be alive to pay for it.
Also, just about every economist says the same thing: as GDP-adjusted U.S. debt increases, the greater likelihood that the dollar decreases in value. If banks who invest in the U.S. dollar forecast a long-term decline in its value, then they will start charging more interest. Usually when their rates go up, the U.S. has to raise interest rates as well in order to keep up -- that hurts consumers.
So when it comes to our foreign policy, yes, our monetary ability to wage the war against terrorism is a finite one. alluded to that very point in her article published for this week:
However grand it may be to fight all global terrorists, though, thesimple fact is that we can't: we don't have the troops, the money orthe political will. That means it may make sense to limit our hit listto the groups that actually threaten us.
I completely agree with that statement. It does not mean we should shy away from condemning anti-Semitic groups like Hamas, nor does it mean we can't cut off private U.S. funds that find their way to violent groups. It does mean though that our energies ought to be fixated on making the most of our resources to protect what are true threats, and provide taxpayers with the transparency needed remain in the loop.
When you hear politicians discard the birth tax (National Debt) as just a number, the chances are that they won't even be around in 30 years when the rest of us have to worry about it. -------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about Bush's Foreign Policy: , , , , , , , .
Yes, the violence in Iraq is unbearable. A killed four on Saturday. a few days back in Iraq's unstable Anbar Province. This comes as are expected to be increased by 4,000.
But as bad as the violence is, there is also something that needs to be said about all the corruption. As revealed in , a government audit of a State Department agency showed that the agency deliberately hid cost overruns on projects in Iraq that were being funded by U.S. taxpayers:
The agency hid construction overruns by listing them as overhead oradministrative costs, according to the audit, written by the SpecialInspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent office thatreports to Congress, the Pentagon and the State Department.
Called the United States Agency for International Development, orA.I.D., the agency administers foreign aid projects around the world.It has been working in Iraq on reconstruction since shortly after the2003 invasion.
The report by the inspector general’s office doesnot give a full accounting of all projects financed by the agency’s$1.4 billion budget, but cites several examples.
The findingsappeared in an audit of a children’s hospital in Basra, but theyreferred to the wider reconstruction activities of the developmentagency in Iraq. American and Iraqi officials reported this week thatthe State Department planned to drop Bechtel, its contractor on thatproject, as signs of budget and scheduling problems began to surface.
This kind of recklessness is analogous to the report that surfaced in January of 2005 about how worth of taxpayer dollars in Iraq for some reason vanished.
This is our money! Just imagine if the in Iraq was used in our own country -- rebuilding bridges and roads, fully funding education, keeping Social Security solvent, making communities safer, or even paying down part of our debt. But no, they would rather see our money in the hands of people who can't manage resources properly. Since the Republicans have ignored this problem, if the Democrats take back Congress in November we should all expect them to issue subpoenas and hold hearings in order to get to the bottom of how our money was mismanaged. Each dime we spend in Iraq means more debt -- which is nothing more than a birth tax on future generations.
See, this sort of thing is so typical. Whenever anyone questions Republicans about their fiscal habits, they always point to their tax cuts -- even though those tax cuts add to the National Debt. Now, all of a sudden, the Administration is saying that we have to choose either tax cuts or deficit reduction. In other words, it can't be both -- so and leave it at that:
The economy would get a boost if PresidentBush's first-term tax cuts were made permanent, but only if other taxeswere not raised to pay for the lost revenue, the Treasury Departmentsaid Tuesday.
Thedepartment estimated that the economy's annual output could be boostedby 0.7 percent in the period beyond 2016 if the reductions in tax ratesand other tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 are made permanent.
Toachieve this positive economic benefit, the study assumes thatbeginning in 2017, government spending is reduced to pay for the taxcuts.
Anytime this current Administration runs at the press with their own study, watch out. This during the 2004 presidential election cycle. The Administration released a rosy GDP projection that turned out to be false.
Also, Bush likes to brag about a that the deficit will be smaller than expected this year. Reality check: don't buy into the Bush rhetoric. Even though this year's deficit will be less than the one last year, it still is going to be the .
But back to the point at hand -- and that is tax cuts. Reagan supply-side economists claim that the way to reduce the national debt is through tax cuts. But look at this chart below and tell me if Reaganomics is really working:
Now try to tell me that tax cuts reduce the deficit. I don't think so!
A released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (), the researcharm of the Legislative Branch, indicated this morning just how much we are payingfor the war in Iraq, and how much we should expect to pay for the next decade.
The for us:
The war in Iraq has cost $291 billion so far and would total almosthalf a trillion dollars even if all U.S. troops were withdrawn by theend of 2009, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysisreleased Thursday.
And , that's between 2007 and 2016, the war will cost taxpayers between $202 billion and $406 billion more.
I used to have the opinion (as in right after 9/11) that money should never factor into how we conduct our foreign policy. In other words, we need to do whatever we can, regardless of what it takes, to defend our democracy from terrorism. But other than the fact that you could say the Iraq war is actually increasing terrorism throughout the world, I learned over time that foreign policy, like anything else, has its limits.
When you mortgage the treasury, regardless of the reason, it impacts future generations. The Republicans like to talk about protecting the unborn. They also like to talk about the so called "death tax." These unborn children will literally pay the price for our reckless spending habits. It is like a birth tax on future generations who will shake their heads during 6th grade history class, wondering why their early 21st century ancestors never got it together.
It's time to start redeploying troops to the periphery immediately, as opposed to waiting until 2009, and significantly reduce the amount we are paying for this war per week.
With the birth tax (otherwise known as the National Debt, for those of you scoring at home) at a disturbing $8 trillion, my generation is looking for ways to offer advice so that we can solve this long-term problem that threatens future generations. , the National Debt is the highest it has been since the Reagan-Bush years. And before the Reagan-Bush years, it had not been that high since Eisenhower. Cuts are needed soon so we will not have to pay as much interest on the debt.
But where these cuts ought to come from underscores the honest difference that progressives have with conservatives. As far as fiscal policy is concerned, progressives believe that tax cuts for small businesses and the middle class, coupled with cutbacks on both Pentagon spending and subsidies for oil companies, leads to lower spending and is the best way to assure that consumers will spend more money to keep the economy moving. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe that supply-side economics -- tax cuts for the rich and oil companies -- results in job creation. But growing the economy, even though I believe progressives have the edge on that debate, is very different than solving the debt problem.
If I were president, I would urge Congress to cut back on missile defense spending, bunker buster nuclear weapons, oil subsidies, and . I would also reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq by redeploying them to the periphery, therefore cutting in half the $8 billion we spend per week in Iraq. In all, this plan would reduce the deficit by nearly $300 billion each year. Now you know why I want a Democrat in the White House!
What I would hesitate to do is eliminate farm subsidies. However, when you look at the facts, some of those farm subsidies are going to individuals without farms, :
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence inthe heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphaltcontractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yetunder a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acresuburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," becauseyears ago the land was used to grow rice.
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid atleast $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 toindividuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis ofgovernment records by The Washington Post.
Like I said, I am definitely pro-farming. But farm subsidies for non-farmers is just one example of some of the loopholes in our tax system that add to the National Debt each year.
If you are a conservative reading this blog, you are probably thinking to yourself, "A progressive talking about the deficit? Now that's a new one."
But with the budget nightmare that we have faced ever since President Bush came into office, my generation is very worried about our government's poor spending habits. We need a pay-as-you-go system. And whenever we generate a surplus, we need to reinvest it. Fixing these farm subsidy loopholes is just one part of solving the budget puzzle that we find ourselves in today.
Recent Comments