At Thanksgiving, the poor pay for dumb regulation.
Just another example of excessive government and lack of common sense on the part of public officials.
By WILLIAM MCGURN
This Thursday, in a parish hall not far from the New Jersey town green where George Washington once made his winter headquarters, as many as 300 people will gather for their Thanksgiving meal. Some will be homeless, some will be mentally ill, some will be old, and some will be folks and families who have just hit a hard patch. For all of them, Morristown's Community Soup Kitchen and Outreach Center is one of the few blessings they can count on.
In many ways, this soup kitchen illustrates Tocqueville's point about the American genius for voluntary association. Having started out in a local Episcopal church, it has grown into a network that links restaurants, corporate sponsors and community groups with volunteers from nearly three dozen church congregations, including this reporter's. The result is a hot meal to anyone who comes to the door each noon, no questions asked.
This the men and women of the Community Soup Kitchen have provided for 26 years, not once missing a day. Now comes a challenge greater than any snowstorm or power outage. Earlier this year, the Morristown Division of Health ruled that henceforth the soup kitchen would be considered a "retail" food establishment under New Jersey law.
From that single word far-reaching consequences have flowed. In a column for a local blog, Ray Friant, a volunteer from the Morristown United Methodist Church, called the rule "crazy." Over Sunday breakfast at a local diner, Mr. Friant, his wife, Emmy Lu, and another church couple who also volunteer at the kitchen, Barbara and Jim Morris, spell out what they mean by crazy.
Most obvious is the higher cost: at least $150,000 more a year. To meet this increase, the kitchen is asking each participating church to up its own contribution. Some congregations don't have the money. For those that do, it will mean less for some other need.
Much of this cost results from a new prohibition on people donating food they've prepared at home. For those on the giving end, often this was the only way they could participate, so eliminating their contributions means eliminating volunteers. For those on the receiving end, it means no more homemade meat loaf, lasagna, cakes and so forth.
All, of course, in the name of food safety. Still, one suspects that when a co-worker brings a tin of Christmas cookies to a friend inside Morristown's Division of Health, those cookies are not forbidden because they do not come wrapped from a supermarket or approved restaurant. Yet this is precisely the restriction these officials have imposed on men, women and children whose only hope for a home-baked cookie might be at the soup kitchen.
Finally, there's the utter soullessness of the thing. For example, many of the women would bring their own aprons from home. No more. Now it's all latex gloves, throw-away aprons, and a ban on food servers even entering the kitchen. In short, more institutional cafeteria than Grandma's house.
Teresa Connolly, the soup kitchen's director, did not return phone calls. No doubt her top priority is keeping the kitchen going, and many appear to have concluded that the best option is getting along with the government. The senior pastor of the Friants' church, Neill Tolboom, notes that the soup kitchen appreciates that the town continues to let it do its work right near the main square, and he says his hope is that by adapting to the new government rules the result will be healthier meals for those whom the kitchen feeds.
Mr. Friant and his fellow volunteers say no one opposes reasonable measures to improve cleanliness. The question is whether this is a solution in search of a problem. In the 26 years this kitchen has been open, there seems to be no case of food poisoning. Maybe Morristown officials would do better to seek out those who actually eat there, and put to them this question: Do you feel safer and better off now that we've protected you from home-baked apple pie?
So what's the solution? It may be as simple as getting the Division of Health to reconsider. Unfortunately, Darlene O'Connell, the town's health officer, refused to comment, directing a reporter to her superior, Thomas Alexander, who did not return several calls. If, on the other hand, it turns out the push is from the state, surely Gov. Chris Christie and state lawmakers would be happy to work out a resolution that advances health while preserving the more personal elements that make this kitchen such a gift to those in need.
On a 1995 trip to New Delhi, Hillary Clinton visited an orphanage run by Mother Teresa's nuns. She came away impressed by the great love and care she found there. With no small irony, she noted it was a place that "would not have passed inspection in the U.S."
At least not in Morristown.
Write to MainStreet@wsj.com
Published in Wall Street Journal 11-22-2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Federal Spending Simplified
A good friend of mine sent me an email today with the information below.
I have written in the past about the way the public has become numb to the billions and trillions in spending that our politicians throw around. This does a great job of putting the governmental spending and debt problem into a format that every individual can relate to.
Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
So to deal with our spending problem, this administration thinks cuts of 1.00% of current spending are the way to solve our problem. This is like you and I taking a bag lunch to work 1 day a week instead of going out to lunch.
You would not be able to conduct your financial affairs in this manner, so why do we think it is OK for the federal government to do so? If these numbers were really from an individual or household, they would be filing bankruptcy. This is a serious situation and we need serious leadership.
The situation we find ourselves in should come as no surprise as the Senate has not passed a budget for the past two years and has no intention of passing a budget for next year. The House has approved a budget, most families have a budget, so why don't we hold the Senate accountable?
We have already seen from my previous post that taxing companies and people more will not solve the problem. The Simpson-Bowles report contained a plethora of ideas on spending cuts and revenue improvements, but the President ignored it, even though he commissioned the report. Paul Ryan has proposed the Path to Prosperity and again all he got for his great work was criticism from the Administration. All we hear from this President is that no one if presenting solutions to the problem. The reality is, there are people of both sides of the aisle making recommendations, this President just doesn't want to use them.
Well, we the people, will have a chance to hear our voice heard. This fall the choice is clear, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago and do you think the country is better off than it was 4 years ago? It is unfortunate, but for the vast majority of Americans would probably answer no. We have seen excessive government spending and regulation that has cost businesses trillion in additional expense that will ultimately be borne by use in the form of higher prices.
You need to make your voice heard. Task a stand and tell your elected representatives that you are sick and tiered of the way this country manages our hard earned money/ If they can't fix this fiscal mess, we will elect others who are willing to make the tough choices and put this country back on the road to fiscal stability.
I have written in the past about the way the public has become numb to the billions and trillions in spending that our politicians throw around. This does a great job of putting the governmental spending and debt problem into a format that every individual can relate to.
U.S. Tax revenue: $ 2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $ 14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
Annual family income: $ 21,700
Money the family spent: $ 38,200
New debt on the credit card: $ 16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $ 142,710
Total budget cuts: $ 385
So to deal with our spending problem, this administration thinks cuts of 1.00% of current spending are the way to solve our problem. This is like you and I taking a bag lunch to work 1 day a week instead of going out to lunch.
You would not be able to conduct your financial affairs in this manner, so why do we think it is OK for the federal government to do so? If these numbers were really from an individual or household, they would be filing bankruptcy. This is a serious situation and we need serious leadership.
The situation we find ourselves in should come as no surprise as the Senate has not passed a budget for the past two years and has no intention of passing a budget for next year. The House has approved a budget, most families have a budget, so why don't we hold the Senate accountable?
We have already seen from my previous post that taxing companies and people more will not solve the problem. The Simpson-Bowles report contained a plethora of ideas on spending cuts and revenue improvements, but the President ignored it, even though he commissioned the report. Paul Ryan has proposed the Path to Prosperity and again all he got for his great work was criticism from the Administration. All we hear from this President is that no one if presenting solutions to the problem. The reality is, there are people of both sides of the aisle making recommendations, this President just doesn't want to use them.
Well, we the people, will have a chance to hear our voice heard. This fall the choice is clear, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago and do you think the country is better off than it was 4 years ago? It is unfortunate, but for the vast majority of Americans would probably answer no. We have seen excessive government spending and regulation that has cost businesses trillion in additional expense that will ultimately be borne by use in the form of higher prices.
You need to make your voice heard. Task a stand and tell your elected representatives that you are sick and tiered of the way this country manages our hard earned money/ If they can't fix this fiscal mess, we will elect others who are willing to make the tough choices and put this country back on the road to fiscal stability.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Record Debt Limit Increase - AGAIN
Only a politician would think the solution to our debt problem is more debt. So instead of dealing with the real issue –excessive spending – they just increase the credit line. What is even worse is the Senate and the President still has not passed a budget. Unless, and until, we get control of spending, we will not solve this crisis. And, we will not get control of this mess if we don’t have a plan – a budget.
The recent debt limit increase is the single largest increase in the debt limit ever and follows the previous largest increase ever ($1.9 trillion) back in February 2010. Since Obama took office the debt limit has been increased 4 times for a total of $5.379 trillion. The total of these increases, in just the last 30 months, are more than the increases to the debt limit from Aug. 1997 to Feb. 2009. So, in 30 months we have increased the debt limit higher than we did for the past 11 years.
Not a surprising result, when you refuse to actually budget your spending.
When you start talking about billions and trillions the number become so large and are a bit beyond our ability to comprehend. So, let’s take a look at this debt crisis and the debt ceiling increase solution and take it down to the household level. Because, at the end of the day, the government has no money, except from we the people.
As of Aug. 1, 2011, the total national debt outstanding is in excess of $14.5 trillion. There are approx. 82 million families in the US. So if we take the outstanding debt and allocate it to every family, this would equate to over $176,000 for every family.
This is like every family in the US having a credit line of $176,000 that is totally maxed out. And what is the political solution? Ask the US taxpayer for a 20% increase in that line when there have been essentially no principal payments ever. What do you think would happen if you walked into your bank and asked for a similar deal?
Unfortunately, most in Washington see nothing wrong with this and think it is totally proper to continue to spend more than we take in each month. They are only interested in getting re-elected and won’t make the tough choices needed to get this country back on track.
The recent debt limit increase is the single largest increase in the debt limit ever and follows the previous largest increase ever ($1.9 trillion) back in February 2010. Since Obama took office the debt limit has been increased 4 times for a total of $5.379 trillion. The total of these increases, in just the last 30 months, are more than the increases to the debt limit from Aug. 1997 to Feb. 2009. So, in 30 months we have increased the debt limit higher than we did for the past 11 years.
Not a surprising result, when you refuse to actually budget your spending.
When you start talking about billions and trillions the number become so large and are a bit beyond our ability to comprehend. So, let’s take a look at this debt crisis and the debt ceiling increase solution and take it down to the household level. Because, at the end of the day, the government has no money, except from we the people.
As of Aug. 1, 2011, the total national debt outstanding is in excess of $14.5 trillion. There are approx. 82 million families in the US. So if we take the outstanding debt and allocate it to every family, this would equate to over $176,000 for every family.
This is like every family in the US having a credit line of $176,000 that is totally maxed out. And what is the political solution? Ask the US taxpayer for a 20% increase in that line when there have been essentially no principal payments ever. What do you think would happen if you walked into your bank and asked for a similar deal?
Unfortunately, most in Washington see nothing wrong with this and think it is totally proper to continue to spend more than we take in each month. They are only interested in getting re-elected and won’t make the tough choices needed to get this country back on track.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Accurate Reporting of Financial Performance
Would you invest in this company? Better yet, would anyone lend money to this company?
Well, I think we all know that a business would immediately look at ways to cut expenses. By right-sizing and refocusing on the important tasks, most companies come out of these difficult times in a much stronger financial position and it leads to years of prosperity.
This is exactly what has happened at many companies since the financial crisis. While the immediate changes might be painful, it is necessary to ensure the long-term health of the company.
Problem is, these results are not the results of any company, they are the results for the Federal government. Bet you've never see the financial performance of the Federal government displayed in such terms.
No business or household would conclude that they way out of a financial situation like this, is to increase revenues. The first reaction is to control spending, then look at ways to increase revenue.
The house has the formula right, Cut, Cap and Balance. First cut spending and not in government speak, make real cuts. Second, cap spending for the next several years so that all the cuts are not simply reinstated next year. Finally, pass a balance budget amendment. All of our states have to balance their budgets, why should the Federal government be any different?
If you listen to the Obama administration they don’t think we need a balanced budget amendment. If that were the case, why are we having this huge debate about the debt ceiling? This, as well as many previous administrations, and Congress, have proven they can not control spending. It is exactly because these politicians can not live within their means that we must have a balance budget amendment!!
So, back to the original question, would you invest in or lend to this enterprise? Amazingly, many do. The Treasury has had little problem selling enormous amounts of debt to buyers willing to earn record low rates of return. Why? They know we will simply print more money or threaten to tax more. We need limits and we need fiscal responsibility restored to this country.
Not surprisingly, Harry Reid predicts that the House plan to cut, cap and balance has no chance of passing the Senate. Could it be our elected officials do not want to be held accountable? Without a balanced budget amendment we will continue to keep raising the debt limit and pushing the burden of fixing this financial mess on to our children and grandchildren. We are at a pivotal point and the time to act is now!! We owe to our children and grandchildren to fix this mess NOW.
- negative net worth of $44 trillion
- operating loss of $817 billion
- $1.3 trillion of negative cash flow
Well, I think we all know that a business would immediately look at ways to cut expenses. By right-sizing and refocusing on the important tasks, most companies come out of these difficult times in a much stronger financial position and it leads to years of prosperity.
This is exactly what has happened at many companies since the financial crisis. While the immediate changes might be painful, it is necessary to ensure the long-term health of the company.
Problem is, these results are not the results of any company, they are the results for the Federal government. Bet you've never see the financial performance of the Federal government displayed in such terms.
So why is the government not asking all agencies to look at the spending and staffing levels and find ways to cut expenses and get the government back on a stronger financial footing? Why, because all they have to do is print more money. They also have the foolish belief that they don’t tax people enough.
No business or household would conclude that they way out of a financial situation like this, is to increase revenues. The first reaction is to control spending, then look at ways to increase revenue.
The house has the formula right, Cut, Cap and Balance. First cut spending and not in government speak, make real cuts. Second, cap spending for the next several years so that all the cuts are not simply reinstated next year. Finally, pass a balance budget amendment. All of our states have to balance their budgets, why should the Federal government be any different?
If you listen to the Obama administration they don’t think we need a balanced budget amendment. If that were the case, why are we having this huge debate about the debt ceiling? This, as well as many previous administrations, and Congress, have proven they can not control spending. It is exactly because these politicians can not live within their means that we must have a balance budget amendment!!
So, back to the original question, would you invest in or lend to this enterprise? Amazingly, many do. The Treasury has had little problem selling enormous amounts of debt to buyers willing to earn record low rates of return. Why? They know we will simply print more money or threaten to tax more. We need limits and we need fiscal responsibility restored to this country.
Not surprisingly, Harry Reid predicts that the House plan to cut, cap and balance has no chance of passing the Senate. Could it be our elected officials do not want to be held accountable? Without a balanced budget amendment we will continue to keep raising the debt limit and pushing the burden of fixing this financial mess on to our children and grandchildren. We are at a pivotal point and the time to act is now!! We owe to our children and grandchildren to fix this mess NOW.
CUT, CAP and BALANCE
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
It's the Spending - Stupid!!
Despite what the Obama administration and democrats would lead the public to believe we have a spending problem not a revenue problem. I prefer to use actual facts and not hyperbole like the administration, the democrats and those who have no fiscal responsibility. In fact the data I will present below is actually from the Office of the President of the United States.
So let's examine the facts. In 2001 total revenue collected by the government was just shy of $2 trillion. Spending or cash outlays during 2001 were $1.8 trillion, which yielded a $128 billion surplus. Now let's look at 2008, the most recent year for which we have actual results. Total revenue collected was $2.5 trillion, an increase of $532 billion or 26%. Spending (cash outlays) during 2008 were just under $3 trillion, an increase of 60%, which yielded a deficit of $458 billion.
Clearly, spending grew much faster than revenue between 2001 and 2008 and during that time the government spent $2 trillion more than they collected. While these numbers are depressing, these are all pre-Obama and pre-Obama Care.
For 2009, receipts were $2.1 trillion, a decline of 14% from 2008; however expenditures increased over 18% to $3.5 trillion which yielded a deficit of $1.4 trillion. Unfortunately, the story for 2010 is much the same as 2009. Receipts and outlays were essentially the same as 2009, yielding another deficit of $1.3 trillion. Sad news is that projections for revenue in 2011 are for negligible growth, but over 10% growth in spending. The deficit for 2011 is projected to be $1.6 trillion.
Clearly, this government does not know how to live within their means. The President and democrats suggest we can simply solve the problem by having rich people pay more. So, if you believe this, we would need to collect $1.6 trillion more in taxes which would be an increase of almost 75%.
Let's look at the IRS records to see if this is even possible. In 2008, the last year for which the IRS has disclosed data, taxpayers making more than $200,000 paid $440 billion in taxes nearly half of all the taxes collected in 2008 from just 2.8% of the taxpayers. Total income reported by this group was $1.9 trillion, so in order to cover the gap; we would need to tax this group at 100%. Clearly we can not tax our way out of this problem.
STOP SPENDING!! We the people can not afford the size of government as it exists today.
So let's examine the facts. In 2001 total revenue collected by the government was just shy of $2 trillion. Spending or cash outlays during 2001 were $1.8 trillion, which yielded a $128 billion surplus. Now let's look at 2008, the most recent year for which we have actual results. Total revenue collected was $2.5 trillion, an increase of $532 billion or 26%. Spending (cash outlays) during 2008 were just under $3 trillion, an increase of 60%, which yielded a deficit of $458 billion.
Clearly, spending grew much faster than revenue between 2001 and 2008 and during that time the government spent $2 trillion more than they collected. While these numbers are depressing, these are all pre-Obama and pre-Obama Care.
For 2009, receipts were $2.1 trillion, a decline of 14% from 2008; however expenditures increased over 18% to $3.5 trillion which yielded a deficit of $1.4 trillion. Unfortunately, the story for 2010 is much the same as 2009. Receipts and outlays were essentially the same as 2009, yielding another deficit of $1.3 trillion. Sad news is that projections for revenue in 2011 are for negligible growth, but over 10% growth in spending. The deficit for 2011 is projected to be $1.6 trillion.
Clearly, this government does not know how to live within their means. The President and democrats suggest we can simply solve the problem by having rich people pay more. So, if you believe this, we would need to collect $1.6 trillion more in taxes which would be an increase of almost 75%.
Let's look at the IRS records to see if this is even possible. In 2008, the last year for which the IRS has disclosed data, taxpayers making more than $200,000 paid $440 billion in taxes nearly half of all the taxes collected in 2008 from just 2.8% of the taxpayers. Total income reported by this group was $1.9 trillion, so in order to cover the gap; we would need to tax this group at 100%. Clearly we can not tax our way out of this problem.
STOP SPENDING!! We the people can not afford the size of government as it exists today.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Full of Hot Air
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "But how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You've made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now, it's MY fault
The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."
She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."
"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."
The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."
"I am," replied the balloonist. "But how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "You don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You've made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and now you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now, it's MY fault
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The National Debt and You!!
Back in 2000 the National Debt was $5.7 trillion and interest on this debt was $227 billion. In 2000, the government brought in $1.8 trillion in tax revenue and spent $1.7 trillion. Amazing, in 2000, the government actually spent less than it collected in revenue, just like all the rest of us have to do. Debt to GDP was 61.5% and governmental spending as a % of GDP was 36.31%.
In 2004 the government began to spend more than they collected in revenues racking up a deficit of $388 billion in 2004 alone. The national debt increased to $7.1 trillion and interest on this debt actually fell to $155 billion, despite the $1.4 billion increase in debt.
By 2008 the national debt had increased another $2.5 trillion to $9.6 trillion and the interest expense increased to $219 billion. Debt as a % of GDP increased to 70% and government spending as a % of GDP was almost 40%.
In the time Obama has been in office the debt has now climbed to $14 .2 trillion, double what it was back in 2004. Interest on the debt, thanks to historically low interest rates is $205 billion. However, Debt as a % of GDP is now almost 100% (97.56%) and governmental spending as a % of GDP is 46.38%.
This trend can not continue – government has gotten too big and it now threatens the credit rating of the nation. We need to start taking the finances of this country seriously and quit trying to demonize anyone who tries to suggest a way to bring our fiscal house in order.
Between 2000 and 2011 the effective rate paid on the outstanding US debt has fallen from 3.98% to 1.44%. These rates will not last forever, in fact rates are likely to increase in the next 24 months. So, what will happen to the interest on the national debt, even if we don’t add any more debt, which we all know will never happen? The answer should concern us all.
If we do not add one more dollar to the national debt and if we assume that interest rates increase 200 basis points, this would make the effective rate on the debt 3.44%. While that rate seems reasonable and below what the rate was back in 2000, the effect on the interest payments is substantial.
At 1.44% the annual interest paid to debt holders is $205 billion, which is almost as much as the government collects in Corporate Income taxes. If rates rise and the effective rate becomes 3.44%, the interest on the current national debt would increase $283 billion to $488 billion. This $488 billion is equal to 44% of the revenue generated through individual income taxes.
To put this even more clearly, 44 cents of every dollar in individual income taxes that the government collects would have to be used to pay just the interest on the debt. This only leaves 56 cents to fund the rest of the budget items and leaves nothing for paying down the debt.
Doing nothing is not an option. Making reductions to increases in spending and calling them cuts like the government has done for years is no acceptable. Making minor tweaks to discretionary spending is not going to amount to anything. We need radical change or you will have to suffer through the devaluation of the currency and that will be a whole lot more painful than reducing the size of government.
The time for action is now and failure to act will have consequences far worse the economic downturn we just experienced.
In 2004 the government began to spend more than they collected in revenues racking up a deficit of $388 billion in 2004 alone. The national debt increased to $7.1 trillion and interest on this debt actually fell to $155 billion, despite the $1.4 billion increase in debt.
By 2008 the national debt had increased another $2.5 trillion to $9.6 trillion and the interest expense increased to $219 billion. Debt as a % of GDP increased to 70% and government spending as a % of GDP was almost 40%.
In the time Obama has been in office the debt has now climbed to $14 .2 trillion, double what it was back in 2004. Interest on the debt, thanks to historically low interest rates is $205 billion. However, Debt as a % of GDP is now almost 100% (97.56%) and governmental spending as a % of GDP is 46.38%.
This trend can not continue – government has gotten too big and it now threatens the credit rating of the nation. We need to start taking the finances of this country seriously and quit trying to demonize anyone who tries to suggest a way to bring our fiscal house in order.
Between 2000 and 2011 the effective rate paid on the outstanding US debt has fallen from 3.98% to 1.44%. These rates will not last forever, in fact rates are likely to increase in the next 24 months. So, what will happen to the interest on the national debt, even if we don’t add any more debt, which we all know will never happen? The answer should concern us all.
If we do not add one more dollar to the national debt and if we assume that interest rates increase 200 basis points, this would make the effective rate on the debt 3.44%. While that rate seems reasonable and below what the rate was back in 2000, the effect on the interest payments is substantial.
At 1.44% the annual interest paid to debt holders is $205 billion, which is almost as much as the government collects in Corporate Income taxes. If rates rise and the effective rate becomes 3.44%, the interest on the current national debt would increase $283 billion to $488 billion. This $488 billion is equal to 44% of the revenue generated through individual income taxes.
To put this even more clearly, 44 cents of every dollar in individual income taxes that the government collects would have to be used to pay just the interest on the debt. This only leaves 56 cents to fund the rest of the budget items and leaves nothing for paying down the debt.
Doing nothing is not an option. Making reductions to increases in spending and calling them cuts like the government has done for years is no acceptable. Making minor tweaks to discretionary spending is not going to amount to anything. We need radical change or you will have to suffer through the devaluation of the currency and that will be a whole lot more painful than reducing the size of government.
The time for action is now and failure to act will have consequences far worse the economic downturn we just experienced.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Collective Bargaining - A "Right" - not for public employees
The 1959 law that first instituted collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin initially only applied to local government workers and teachers, not to state employees. The ordinal law passed only passed because Republicans, who had a 20-12 State Senate majority, supported it. When the law was later changed in 1967 to include collective bargaining for state employees, Republican Warren Knowles was governor and the GOP controlled both houses of the legislature.
The privilege of collective bargaining was provided to public employees by the legislature and it is their "right" to revoke that privilege, which they did earlier this week.
While some may not agree with their decision, it is the legislature's right to grant collective bargaining. It is not a right of the public employees to have collective bargaining.
The manner in which this legislation passed is a disgrace to the legislative process. We elected people to represent us, not run from their duty. We also don't expect to have legislation rammed through which was clearly evident with the short conference committee meeting and the quick vote in the Senate.
The people of Wisconsin deserve better and it is time for elected officials in the State to stand up and do the job they were elected to do and it is time for the public to quit all the harassing and intimidating of these same public servants.
If we want the best and brightest to serve us in Madison, we need to treat them with respect even when we don't agree with them. If we can't work together and agree to disagree I fear for the State. We will discourage well qualified people from running and end up with inferior representation.
It is time to move on and restore the dignity of the respective offices of government and allow the legislative process to work for "We the People."
The privilege of collective bargaining was provided to public employees by the legislature and it is their "right" to revoke that privilege, which they did earlier this week.
While some may not agree with their decision, it is the legislature's right to grant collective bargaining. It is not a right of the public employees to have collective bargaining.
The manner in which this legislation passed is a disgrace to the legislative process. We elected people to represent us, not run from their duty. We also don't expect to have legislation rammed through which was clearly evident with the short conference committee meeting and the quick vote in the Senate.
The people of Wisconsin deserve better and it is time for elected officials in the State to stand up and do the job they were elected to do and it is time for the public to quit all the harassing and intimidating of these same public servants.
If we want the best and brightest to serve us in Madison, we need to treat them with respect even when we don't agree with them. If we can't work together and agree to disagree I fear for the State. We will discourage well qualified people from running and end up with inferior representation.
It is time to move on and restore the dignity of the respective offices of government and allow the legislative process to work for "We the People."
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Wisdom for 2011
(Thanks for sharing Kate)
Occasionally we have calendar events, which occur on the same day, that when put together they seem to carry special meaning.
Two such events will occur this year on Feb. 2nd, both Groundhog Day and the President's State of the Union address occur on the same day.
As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition of events - one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog."
At least the groundhog can't spend our money. Just wait until the State of the Union address and then tally up the cost of all the programs that will be proposed. What I would like to hear is a commitment to reduce the deficit and to spend less than the government collects through taxes and revenues.
Most families in America do that every day. Is it too much to ask our government to do the same? After all, it is our money they are spending.
Occasionally we have calendar events, which occur on the same day, that when put together they seem to carry special meaning.
Two such events will occur this year on Feb. 2nd, both Groundhog Day and the President's State of the Union address occur on the same day.
As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition of events - one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog."
At least the groundhog can't spend our money. Just wait until the State of the Union address and then tally up the cost of all the programs that will be proposed. What I would like to hear is a commitment to reduce the deficit and to spend less than the government collects through taxes and revenues.
Most families in America do that every day. Is it too much to ask our government to do the same? After all, it is our money they are spending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)