Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on March 08, 2011, 05:06:28 AM
-
CBO: Senate Dems Cut Only $8.7 billion to House GOP's $61 billion
by Trish Turner | March 07, 2011
It's getting so these days it takes a degree in higher order math to wrestle the real deficit impact from all the proposed spending cuts and political spin flying around Congress. The Congressional Budget Office revealed Monday yet another twist of accounting, leaving Senate Democrats with less than previously thought when it comes to deficit reduction when compared with what House Republicans approved.
This time, while Senate Democrats and the White House are touting another $6.5 billion in spending cuts in the midst of their fight with congressional Republicans over how best to reduce the deficit, CBO indicates in a 513-page report to Congress obtained by Fox that nearly $2 billion of that is emergency funding. That is - spending that is not included in the budget and, therefore, does not affect the deficit.
An aide to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not dispute the analysis of his boss' bill but merely pointed out that the goal of the chairman was to cut spending by $51 billion, when the President's current budget, which never passed Congress, is included as the base. But $41 billion of that was never enacted, so experts do not see that as a real cut. Current discretionary spending remains frozen at 2010 levels.
Likewise, Republicans really cut $61 billion and not $100 billion, as they tried to advertise. They, too, sought to use the President's current budget as the base from which they started to cut.
But if you compare apples to apples, the Republicans have cut $61 billion; Democrats have now proposed cutting only $8.7 billion, when the CBO analysis is taken into account. Republicans did not appear to count emergency spending in their $61 billion measure, though it did contain such cuts, as well.
Both measures are likely to be voted on Tuesday afternoon in the Senate, and both are expected to fall well short of the 60 votes needed for passage.
And if the goal in all of this wrangling over short-term federal government funding is actually to reduce the deficit, then CBO says we must use the figure $4.7 billion, not $6.5 billion. If the goal is merely to cut spending, then the Democrats have done so. And if the goal is to drive reporters who cover Congress mad, then - mission accomplished.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/03/07/cbo-senate-dems-cut-only-87-billion-house-gops-61-billion#
-
These treasonous scumbags ad madoffs are basically saying no cuts of any nature will be acceptable to them.
As bad as the GOP is, and yes they suck, they pale in comparison to the treachery and deceit of these far left criminals and thieves.
-
240 questions the Republicans' motives. He should be looking at what the Democrats are trying to do. They are not serious about curtailing the deficit or the government spending.
Just look at the proposals by both parties:
But if you compare apples to apples, the Republicans have cut $61 billion; Democrats have now proposed cutting only $8.7 billion, when the CBO analysis is taken into account. Republicans did not appear to count emergency spending in their $61 billion measure, though it did contain such cuts, as well.
-
Then on top of all that there is this:
GOP Lawmakers Target $105B in Spending Found in Health Care Law (Obama lies then steals billions)
Fox News ^ | 3/8/2011 | fox news
Republican lawmakers are up in arms over what they say was $105 billion in unannounced spending tucked into Democrats' legislation overhauling the nation's health care system.
Rep. Michele Bachmann, in an interview Monday with Fox News' Sean Hannity, suggested that this spending was one reason Obama and congressional Democratic leaders were in such a hurry to pass the legislation in late 2009.
“We didn’t get the bill until a literally couple of hours before we were supposed to vote on it,” Bachmann told Hannity, saying that the spending was split up and put in different portions of the proposed legislation.
The conservative Heritage Foundation uncovered the spending, which had been tallied by the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office.
It falls under the heading of mandatory spending, because it is controlled by laws other than annual appropriations acts. Such mandatory funds could remain available for the Obama administration to spend even if Republicans manage to defund the health care law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
And this:
Double counting $500 billion!
-
And this:
Double counting $500 billion!
I want just one kneepadding cun* to defend that.
-
I want just one kneepadding cun* to defend that.
Ah. They won't defend it. They will just claim that Republicans aren't doing anything just because after only 2 months of controlling the house they have not been able to roll back all the damage done by Democrats for the past 4 years. As if the Reps have a veto proof majority. Yeah, lets blame the Republicans but turn a blind eye to the Democrats who continue to try to push trough more spending bills, coming up with the stupid high-speed railway plan, double counting $500 billion in the health care package and lying about how its going to lower costs and the deficit, Dems in the Senate blocking any bill by the Reps in the House and even if Dems and Reps were to come to an agreement the retard in the oval office will veto any bill that reduces or withholds funding for any of his beloved entitlement social programs. Lets just ignore all of that and just blame Republicans. That's right!!!
-
Ah. They won't defend it. They will just claim that Republicans aren't doing anything just because after only 2 months of controlling the house they have not been able to roll back all the damage done by Democrats for the past 4 years. As if the Reps have a veto proof majority. Yeah, lets blame the Republicans but turn a blind eye to the Democrats who continue to try to push trough more spending bills, coming up with the stupid high-speed railway plan, double counting $500 billion in the health care package and lying about how its going to lower costs and the deficit, Dems in the Senate blocking any bill by the Reps in the House and even if Dems and Reps were to come to an agreement the retard in the oval office will veto any bill that reduces or withholds funding for any of his beloved entitlement social programs. Lets just ignore all of that and just blame Republicans. That's right!!!
Did yo see my thread with conrad saying Obamacare is a ponzi scheme?
-
Dario you're just being negative because Obama and the Democrats have failed to properly "frame the issue" and communicate effectively with individuals such as yourself.
It's the media's fault really.
The double counting you referenced is just the chair of HHS demonstrating how great Obamacare will be for America. It's so wonderful that its funding supersedes the laws of the universe. Just by being positive and having the audacity of hope, 500 million dollars can be counted twice with no accounting irregularities or mathematical errors.
You also have no right to call the Obama administration unamerican. Being American means feeling good about yourself all the time without getting bogged down in pesky details like math or logic. That's for uncool people and republicans.
-
Dario you're just being negative because Obama and the Democrats have failed to properly "frame the issue" and communicate effectively with individuals such as yourself.
Don't you just love that talking point? Dems believe they know what is best for all of us.
-
Don't you just love that talking point? Dems believe they know what is best for all of us.
And repub dont..??
-
And repub dont..??
When did you hear a Republican claim that they need to keep explaining their legislations to the American people until they accept it?
Republican party has its flaws and has made errors. But, now they are trying to cut back on as much government waste as possible. Who is standing in their way? Hint: It isn't the majority of citizens.
Republicans are not saints, but Democrats, AT THIS POINT, are far worse and more dangerous. Just look at what is going on in Wisconsin. Who is running away from facing the problem of state bankruptcy and the economic burden of public unions and refusing to try to solve those problems? It isn't the Republicans.
-
Dems: Congress's Styrofoam cups could cause cancer
By Jordan Fabian - 03/08/11 11:04 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/148027-dems-congress-styrofoam-cups-could-cause-cancer
A group of Democrats complain Styrofoam cups in the House cafeteria could contain carcinogens.
________________________ ___________
In a letter to Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) and other Republican leaders, the nine Democrats say the Styrofoam cups and other dining materials could hold chemical components that could cause cancer. The Democrats are upset with the switch to Styrofoam from recyclable materials put into place when Democrats ran the House.
The letter asks Boehner to reconsider the switch away from recyclable to polystyrene-based foam containers, and warns that the health of visitors to the Capitol could be compromised.
"The irresponsibility of the decision to use polystyrene foam without considering other options is all the more egregious because the cafeteria is not merely used by House members and our staffers," the lawmakers write. "The health of constituents and visitors to the Hill who eat in the cafeteria will be impacted by this short-sighted decision."
The change to Styrofoam caused a stir among some staffers and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill late last month, when the recyclable material preferred by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was replaced. Lawmakers mostly raised concerns about Styrofoam's impact on the environment.
Republicans have downplayed the harmful health and environmental effects of Styrofoam and said that the composting program in place under Pelosi cost too much money and did not do enough to bring down energy consumption.
But the Democratic letter cited toxicology studies that claim polystyrene contains "possible human carcinogens" and could present other health challenges, such as headaches, hearing loss, central nervous system dysfunction and difficulty sleeping.
"Eliminating polystyrene-related health impacts will result in fewer lost work days and lower heath insurance costs for the House and its staff," the lawmakers write. "This benefit alone should outweigh any cost savings from using polystyrene containers."
The "Dear Colleague" notice soliciting signatures from other lawmakers, which was circulated by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), is titled "Cancer Causing Cups in the Cafeteria?"
The other lawmakers who signed the letter are Reps. James Moran (D-Va.), George Miller (D-Calif.), Mike Honda (D-Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Susan Davis (D-Calif.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).
Here is the full letter from the nine Democrats:
Speaker John Boehner Majority Leader Eric Cantor
1011 Longworth House Office Building 303 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515
Chairman Dan Lungren
House Administration Committee
2313 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
March 11, 2011
Dear Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and Chairman Lungren:
We are writing to express our deep concern with the current choice to use polystyrene products, commonly known as “styrofoam,”[1][1] in the House of Representatives cafeterias. While we appreciate that the CAO is working to reduce costs, there are significant health and environmental risks associated with styrofoam, as well as additional costs associated with increased waste removal. These external costs should be considered in making the decision for cafeteria products; the desire to save a few pennies should never come at the expense of jeopardizing staff, members and visitors’ health. Over 20 years ago, McDonalds and other fast food restaurants replaced polystyrene foam with recyclable and paperboard containers. More than 100 cities have also chosen to ban polystyrene foam for health and environmental reasons. Adopting the same standard is the least we can do.
We have numerous concerns about the safety of polystyrene foam products. Polystyrene foam products can leach their component chemicals into the foods and liquids they contain. Leaching of styrene and benzene is documented with nearly 40 years of scientific evidence, as are the resulting negative health impacts.[2][2] During the manufacturing process, acute short-term exposure to styrene can result in irritation to the eyes, nose, throat, and mucous membranes as well as gastrointestinal effects.
Over time, exposure to the styrene that leaches into food and liquids can cause extensive health effects, including fatigue, headaches, hearing loss, central nervous system dysfunction, difficulty sleeping, as well as low platelet and hemoglobin values and chromosomal abnormalities.[3][3][4][4] The International Association for Research on Cancer classified styrene as a potential human carcinogen. Eliminating polystyrene-related health impacts will result in fewer lost work days and lower heath insurance costs for the House and its staff. This benefit alone should outweigh any cost savings from using polystyrene containers.
Polystyrene foam products continue to threaten public health and the environment after they are used and discarded. Polystyrene is not easily or cheaply recycled, and there are significant health and environmental impacts from the 25 million polystyrene foam cups that are thrown away per year. When disposed of in landfills, products made of polystyrene take over half a millennium to biodegrade. While in landfills, polystyrene chemicals can leach into groundwater, jeopardizing water quality. The safe incineration of polystyrene foam requires extremely high heat in specialized plants. Incineration at normal heat levels releases over 90 different hazardous chemicals, polluting the air quality of those communities surrounding the waste plants and burdening them with increased health risks and costs.
Although we strongly support efforts to reduce costs in the federal government, it is our understanding that the cafeteria operations generate profits for the House – an estimated $879,000 for 2010. Any costs associated with composting or any of the other environmentally sound options were always meant to be offset by these profits. Those of us who are concerned about the health and safety of Members, staff and visitors feel that this is certainly a worthwhile use for these proceeds.
The irresponsibility of the decision to use polystyrene foam without considering other options is all the more egregious because the cafeteria is not merely used by House members and our staffers. The health of constituents and visitors to the Hill who eat in the cafeteria will be impacted by this short-sighted decision. We urge you to bear in mind our responsibility to protect the health and welfare of the American public, now and in future generations, and to reconsider the decision to use Polystyrene foam in our cafeteria.
Sincerely,
________________________ ___________
haha ha ha h
DEMOCRAT = PUSSY
-
Oh man. Styrofoam cups. Priorities. Priorities.
-
Oh man. Styrofoam cups. Priorities. Priorities.
If that wasnt in The Hill i thought it would have to be a joke. But this is the dem party, so it is to be expected.
-
This time, while Senate Democrats and the White House are touting another $6.5 billion in spending cuts in the midst of their fight with congressional Republicans over how best to reduce the deficit, CBO indicates in a 513-page report to Congress obtained by Fox that nearly $2 billion of that is emergency funding. That is - spending that is not included in the budget and, therefore, does not affect the deficit.
An aide to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not dispute the analysis of his boss' bill but merely pointed out that the goal of the chairman was to cut spending by $51 billion, when the President's current budget, which never passed Congress, is included as the base. But $41 billion of that was never enacted, so experts do not see that as a real cut. Current discretionary spending remains frozen at 2010 levels.
Likewise, Republicans really cut $61 billion and not $100 billion, as they tried to advertise. They, too, sought to use the President's current budget as the base from which they started to cut.
Great points. BOTH SIDES were bullshitting americans.
-
Hoyer Says Federal Budget May Not Be Balanced for 20 Years
Tuesday, March 08, 2011
By Matt Cover
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hoyer-says-federal-budget-may-not-be-bal
House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer of Md., speaks to supporters at an election night party in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Washington (CNSNews.com) – House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that it may take as many as 20 years to balance the federal budget after years of deficit spending in Washington.
At Hoyer's weekly press briefing on Capitol Hill, CNSNews.com noted that President Obama's latest budget proposal does not balance at any time in the next 10 years and asked Hoyer, "Do you plan on introducing anything that balances within that 10-year timeframe, or is that possible?"
Hoyer said, “Now [that] we’re at $14 trillion in debt, I think the answer is – responsibly – we’re not going to get there [a balanced budget] in ten years, but we have to be on a very considered path to get there, certainly, within the next decade and a half or two decades,” Hoyer said Tuesday at his weekly press briefing.
“I don’t think you can get there in ten years. I think it’s going to take a longer time [because] we’ve dug such a deep hole. We turned a $5.6 trillion [projected] surplus into $5 trillion in additional debt.”
Hoyer noted that even his 20-year estimate was based on a robustly growing economy that would allow the government to take in a normal level of tax revenue instead of the reduced revenue it expects to take in during a recession.
Hoyer, the number two House Democrat, said he is not satisfied with President Obama’s fiscal 2012 budget proposal, which does not balance the budget within ten years. President Obama said earlier that his fiscal 2012 budget request would lower the budget deficit by about $1 trillion over ten years.
Hoyer said Republicans and Democrats must compromise if they are ever going to solve the nation’s budget issues. “We have to – together, together – work on getting this deficit under control.”
-
Even Hoyer is not happy with the President's plan.
-
Even Hoyer is not happy with the President's plan.
Even Bernie Madoff probably laughs at Obama.
-
Look who else is not happy with Obama:
Obama Has 'Failed to Lead' on Spending Cuts, Democratic Senator Says
Freshman Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin accused President Obama of sitting on the sidelines Tuesday while Congress debates "wildly different" budget bills that are expected to fail.
"Our president has failed to lead this debate or offer a serious proposal for spending and cuts that he would be willing to fight for," Manchin, D-W.Va., said on the Senate floor.
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer shot back, saying Obama is the "point person" for the budget negotiations.
"He and his people are fully engaged in this effort," Hoyer said. "Senator Manchin, I think is incorrect."
But Manchin, who battled persistent criticism during his campaign that he was too close to the White House, had strong words for both parties.
He said Republicans' proposals were too sweeping and harsh while Democrats' proposals don't do enough to address the deficit problem.
Instead of engaging in what he called "political theater," Manchin urged the president to take a more active role and bring both parties together toward a budget compromise.
The government is currently operating on a temporary, two-week budget bill. Unless a broader budget is approved for the rest of 2011, Congress will likely have to approve another short-term bill to keep things running. So far, the parties have not been able to come together on a package that includes spending cuts they're both happy with.
Manchin, the former governor of West Virginia, will have to run for re-election in 2012. He has strived since his campaign to show he is independent from Democratic leaders in Washington.
But his comments add fuel to GOP claims that Democratic spending proposals do not go deep enough. Republicans are calling for $61 billion in spending cuts, while Democrats are proposing about $8.7 billion, according to a recent analysis. That includes $4 billion in cuts approved in the last two-week budget bill.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/08/obama-failed-lead-spending-cuts-democratic-senator-says/#
-
Bill To Reform Patent System Would Kill Innovation In U.S. (Correct Title)
IBD Editorials ^ | March 8, 2011 | Phyllis Schlafly
The Democratic Senate is itching to pass a bill that will mean death for innovation, which is the backbone of American economic growth. Sen. Patrick Leahy's bill, S. 23, is called patent reform, but it's not reform — it will kill innovation by litigation.
Now that the globalists have transferred millions of good American jobs to Asians willing to work for as little as 30 cents an hour with no benefits, all we have left to maintain and restore our economic well-being is our innovation superiority.
The United States is the world leader in inventing useful and important products and processes, while other countries build their economies by copying our innovations.
The mainspring of our success is the American patent system, unique when the Founding Fathers put it into the U.S. Constitution even before freedom of speech and religion, and still unique today.
Unfortunately, some globalists outside and even inside the United States want to reduce the American standard of living.
The core of our time-tested patent-granting system goes under the label first-to-invent, plus a one-year grace period. It is only common sense that the patent should be granted to the first person who actually invents something, and our Constitution specifically identifies "inventors" as the owner of the property right.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
-
When did you hear a Republican claim that they need to keep explaining their legislations to the American people until they accept it?
Republican party has its flaws and has made errors. But, now they are trying to cut back on as much government waste as possible. Who is standing in their way? Hint: It isn't the majority of citizens.
Republicans are not saints, but Democrats, AT THIS POINT, are far worse and more dangerous. Just look at what is going on in Wisconsin. Who is running away from facing the problem of state bankruptcy and the economic burden of public unions and refusing to try to solve those problems? It isn't the Republicans.
I have to agree with you on this good post
-
Bill To Reform Patent System Would Kill Innovation In U.S. (Correct Title)
IBD Editorials ^ | March 8, 2011 | Phyllis Schlafly
The Democratic Senate is itching to pass a bill that will mean death for innovation, which is the backbone of American economic growth. Sen. Patrick Leahy's bill, S. 23, is called patent reform, but it's not reform — it will kill innovation by litigation.
Now that the globalists have transferred millions of good American jobs to Asians willing to work for as little as 30 cents an hour with no benefits, all we have left to maintain and restore our economic well-being is our innovation superiority.
The United States is the world leader in inventing useful and important products and processes, while other countries build their economies by copying our innovations.
The mainspring of our success is the American patent system, unique when the Founding Fathers put it into the U.S. Constitution even before freedom of speech and religion, and still unique today.
Unfortunately, some globalists outside and even inside the United States want to reduce the American standard of living.
The core of our time-tested patent-granting system goes under the label first-to-invent, plus a one-year grace period. It is only common sense that the patent should be granted to the first person who actually invents something, and our Constitution specifically identifies "inventors" as the owner of the property right.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Get ready for third world status. If we are not already there.
-
CBO: Democrats’ “$6.5 Billion” in Spending Cuts Actually $4.7 Billion
ABC News ^ | 3/08/11 | Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe
CBO: Democrats’ “$6.5 Billion” in Spending Cuts Actually $4.7 Billion
March 08, 2011 5:47 PM
Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe report:
The Congressional Budget Office this week said that the Senate Democrats’ bill offers $4.7 billion in spending cuts -- not the $6.5 billion that President Obama and congressional Democrats said.
After last week’s meeting on Capitol Hill among congressional leaders and Vice President Biden, Senate Democrats wrote legislation and gave it to CBO to be analyzed.
CBO put the cuts at $4.7 billion.
The bottom line: Democrats and Republicans are roughly $52 billion apart in the cuts they want to see.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
-
Categories:Appropriations.Reid: Save federal funding for the cowboy poets!
File this under: Did Harry Reid just say that?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0311/Reid_Save_federal_funding_for_the_cowboy_poets.html
In the middle of his tirade against House Republicans' "mean-spirited" budget bill on the Senate floor Tuesday, the Senate Majority Leader lamented that the GOP’s proposed budget cuts would eliminate the annual "cowboy poetry festival” in his home state of Nevada. (See also: Reid’s prostitution lecture bombs.)
Reid clearly has a soft spot for the Baxter Blacks of the poetry world and thinks Republicans don't.
“The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 … eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts,” said Reid. “These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist.”
Reid was attempting, of course, to criticize the spending proposal crafted by House Republicans that would cut $61 billion from the budget before he began praising the annual festival in his home state. The Senate majority leader also insisted Tuesday that he would do everything he could to schedule an up-or-down vote on H.R. 1 in order to force his GOP colleagues to take a position on the budget bill that Democrats argue includes "draconian" cuts.
For the record, the National Cowboy Poetry Gathering is in Elko, Nev., next January. The 28th annual festival, a “week-long celebration of life in the rural West, featuring the contemporary and traditional arts of western ranching culture,” is expected to draw thousands of people, according to the festival’s website.
-
Reid is as brokeback mountain as it gets.
-
Dems not taking debt seriously
JACOB SULLUM jsullum@reason.com Mar 9, 2011 02:10AM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/4204002-452/dems-not-taking-debt-seriously.html
In the context of federal spending that will total something like $3.8 trillion this year, $61 billion is a rounding error. Yet the Democrats resisting that amount in House-approved cuts say it will wreck the economy while leaving children unschooled, taking food from the mouths of the elderly, and casting disabled people into the streets.
Laughter is the only appropriate response to such predictions. In these absurd times, when both parties quibble over crumbs while the layer cake of debt rises higher and higher, laughter is a mark of fiscal seriousness.
How else should one greet a New York Times editorial that concedes the federal deficit, projected to be $1.6 trillion this year, is “too large for comfort” but calls $61 billion in cuts “ruinous”? Or a press release from the Every Child Matters Education Fund that deems them “harsh” and “extreme”?
The cuts represent less than 2 percent of the total budget, less than 4 percent of the deficit, and less than 5 percent of discretionary spending, which rose in real terms by 75 percent from 2000 to 2010 and by about 9 percent in each of the last two fiscal years. If the House-approved reductions would be “the largest one-year cuts in history,” as the folks at Every Child Matters say, that is a sad commentary not on Republican cold-heartedness but on the fiscal incontinence of both parties.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) highlighted that tendency. “Do we want jobs?” he asked. “If we do, then we simply cannot pass the plan the Tea Party has already pushed through the House.”
This argument got a boost last month from a projection by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. By Zandi’s reckoning, “The House Republicans’ proposal . . . would shave almost half a percentage point from real GDP growth in 2011 and another 0.2 percentage point in 2012,” which “would mean some 400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of 2011 and 700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012.”
At $174,000 a year per job, that does not seem like such a good deal. But if we assume, as Reid apparently does, that money is no object, why not raise federal spending by $2.4 trillion a year, thereby creating 13.7 million jobs and eliminating unemployment altogether?
The answer, presumably, is that the resources diverted to the government’s job factory, in terms of new debt and future taxes needed to pay it off, can be better employed elsewhere, creating value instead of make-work. But in that case, we should stop worrying about the jobs “lost” when government spending is cut.
A more sophisticated version of this argument, favored by President Obama, distinguishes between wasteful government spending and “job-creating investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure.” The problem with trusting the government to invest our money is that it faces no penalty for making bad calls.
Consider education spending, which Obama treats as an unalloyed good. Between 1961-62 and 2006-07, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education, per-pupil spending in public schools more than tripled in real terms, while student achievement stagnated. This was a “job-creating investment” only in the sense that it created jobs for public school teachers.
Picking up the president’s investment theme, The New York Times says it’s “obfuscating nonsense” to declare that “we’re broke,” as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) likes to do. “A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more ‘broke’ than a family with a mortgage or a college loan,” the Times explains.
Suppose the mortgage is twice the home’s current value, the college loan was used for an unfinished degree in anthropology, and the family cannot make payments on either without borrowing or stealing because it has no income of its own. Now this family looks more like the federal government.
Whether we call it “broke” or not, no one should be lending it any more money until it gets its house in order.
-
Illinois Governor Pat Quinn to Small Business: Drop Dead
Feed Front ^ | 03/11/2011 | Shawn Collins
With the stroke of his pen, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn sent a strong message to small businesses that they are not welcome in his state.
The hostile signal from Governor Quinn came by signing HB 3659 into law, which forces out-of-state retailers to collect Illinois state sales tax for Internet sales, based on the view that affiliate marketers constitute a tax nexus for the retailers.
Noted “Mom & Pop” advocate Walmart applauded Pat Quinn’s move to send scores of IL entrepreneurs to the unemployment line.
How, you ask, would this legislation, which carried the misnomer of the “Mainstreet Fairness Bill”, put people out of business? Well, the target of this law is Amazon and other online retailers who do not have a physical presence in Illinois.
Here is how similar legislation has played out in other states… Amazon removes the affiliates of that state from their affiliate program, so they still do not assume a tax nexus, which means no additional tax revenue collected.
But wait, there’s more! Now there are scores of affiliate marketers who have been fired from Amazon and countless other online retailers. That’s a big chunk of income and income tax that has vaporized.
And that income that no longer exists can no longer be spent in Mainstreet Illinois.
Let me break this down for the IL lawmakers and Governor Quinn: you’ve created a net loss for your state.
Brian Littleton, founder and CEO of Chicago-based ShareASale, an affiliate marketing network that will see a huge negative impact from this legislation, had this to say…
“Let us remember that the reason the bill was written was to collect revenue for the State of Illinois. This bill does the opposite.
Because out-of-state retailers – and we are not talking about just Amazon – but any and all retailers can simply terminate their affiliate programs in Illinois, thus removing themselves from this bill’s grasp, no revenue will be collected. That means no revenue, lost contracts for Illinois businesses, lost jobs in Illinois.
It is entirely unfortunate that the Federal government has not acted on this issue as everyone on all sides of this issue knows that it is truly a problem that only the Federal government can solve. Unfortunately, Governor Quinn jumped the gun on this. Despite the fact that we’ve been in communication with Senator Durbin’s office, who indicated that this exact issue would be considered during this session – the Governor’s early action will make that all moot as the damage will already have been done in Illinois.
As we speak, Illinois affiliate marketers are being forced to pack up their businesses and move to another state. Through a bill, which started with a lack of understanding, and finished with poor judgment – Governor Quinn has spoken unequivocally that the growing, innovative, job-creating industry known as affiliate marketing is entirely unwelcome in Illinois. Where we were once poised to become the “Silicon Valley” of the Midwest, we are now forced to look to other states. We have confirmed that neighboring state Governors and Lt. Governors have been in direct contact in an attempt to woo affiliate marketers to their borders.
Governor Quinn has instead decided to side with big-box retailers – those who destroyed main street in the first place – in an issue of “fairness”. This bill helps Walmart, Target, K-Mart etc… this bill does not help Ma and Pa booksellers who were simply being used by the big-box retailers to put a better face on the issue. When this bill becomes a law in July of 2011… there will be no increased revenue for Ma and Pa on Main St.; there will be no more people shopping on Main St. as opposed to online; and there will be no more a fair level playing field for Ma and Pa than there was prior to this bill. Unfortunately, the big-box retailers have fooled Ma and Pa into thinking that they are on the same side – when, in fact, they never will be.
The irony is that during his last budget address, the ink still not dry, Governor Quinn setup a Technology Council designed to foster growth in the growing Tech community of Illinois. Unfortunately, the very first thing he did was pass a bill that a) isn’t fair, b) doesn’t create any revenue for Illinois, and c) kills job growth in an industry that he wished to grow.
Here are two critical things that have to happen now.
The State of Illinois Dept. of Revenue MUST setup a mechanism to track new revenue coming in from this bill on July 1st. If the Dept. of Revenue fails to do this, it will be an irresponsible lack of action – piling on to the already devastating loss of jobs in Illinois. The Federal government, specifically in Illinois the office of Senator Dick Durbin must take great care in looking at this issue – as there is still time before July 1st where he can save the State of Illinois from the unfortunate actions of the Governor. Fairness? What is fair about eliminating a whole bunch of jobs in Illinois.
Here’s how this goes:
The bill passes. Amazon terminates affiliates. Other merchants do the same. Affiliate-powered businesses large and small are decimated. No revenue is collected, Ma and Pa are still being hammered by big-box retailers, and nobody benefits.
Tell me. How is that fair?
But hey, at least Walmart is happy.
-
March 11, 2011
Planet Washington
By Jonah Goldberg
www.realclearpolitics.co m
By earth-logic, if you got a raise of 10 percent last year, but this year you're only getting a raise of 8 percent, you're still getting a raise. On Planet Washington, that qualifies as an indefensible slashing.
So when the GOP cut $4 billion from the budget last week, the Democrats acted as if it was an involuntary amputation.
Now the GOP wants to cut $61 billion of discretionary nondefense spending from the total budget of $3.7 trillion, and Democrats are responding as if this will spell the end of Western civilization.
But given their terror of forcing a government shutdown, Democrats were forced to counteroffer with a cut of $10.5 billion, or 0.28 percent of the federal budget.
Imagine you have a budget of $10,000 (about 40 percent of it borrowed on a credit card), then "slash" 28 bucks. That's what it's like to be a frugal Democrat.
"Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace repeatedly pressed Sen. Dick Durbin: Is $10.5 billion in cuts "really the best the Democrats can do?" The No. 2 Senate Democrat responded, eventually: "We've pushed this to the limit." Any cuts beyond that would simply crater our economy and gut "investments" to make us competitive with China. Apparently, Durbin thinks trimming the staff at the Oregon National Laboratory will result in us all becoming busboys at a Beijing restaurant.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's solution to the deficit is -- wait for it -- spend a whole bunch more. In October, Pelosi said that every dollar spent on unemployment benefits and food stamps puts another $1.79 into economy. "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance."
Her latest version of teenage-mutant ninja Keynesianism is to "invest" even more on education. "Nothing brings more to the treasury than investing in education," Pelosi said.
Never mind that Washington has "invested" roughly $2 trillion in education since 1965. Forget the fact that spending at all levels of government has gone from $55,000 per a single student's complete K-12 education in 1970 to $155,000 in 2009, according to Cato Institute scholar Andrew Coulson, while "overall achievement has stagnated or declined, depending on the subject."
Would another trillion spent on education really have a greater return than, say, allowing US companies to drill for the billions of gallons of oil and the trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under our soil?
Why am I talking about Durbin and Pelosi? Well, Obama is in a fetal crouch under the Oval Office desk, muttering something about the need for courage and bipartisanship while quietly proposing $6.5 billion in cuts, which the Congressional Budget Office said is really only $4.7 billion. (That's about $700 million more than the US spends in borrowed money every day.)
Oh, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seems determined to keep talking until the men in the white coats escort him off the Senate floor. He was last heard saying the GOP has gone crazy because it had cut funding for a Nevada cowboy-poetry festival. No, really.
In 2007, the budget was 19.6 percent of the GDP. In 2009, it went up to 25 percent of GDP. That's where the Democrats would like to see it stay.
What happened? The financial crisis, of course. But as many of us suggested at the time, one of the Democrats' real motives behind the stimulus was to inflate the "baseline" budget so that huge increases would never be reversed, thanks to the DC logic that a cut in growth is a cut.
Now, Democrats greet any attempt to restore government to its pre-crisis size -- when we were still living way above our means -- as if America would be plunged into the Stone Age.
Look at it this way. Those heartless Republican bastards would cut 2011 nondefense discretionary spending from 3.6 percent to 3.2 percent of GDP. Under Bill Clinton, such spending averaged 3.1 percent of GDP.
We owe $14 trillion we don't have. Our total liabilities -- i.e., Social Security and other entitlements -- dwarf that. So we can't just cut discretionary spending alone. But if it's this hard to ask cowboy poets to pony up, how are we going to deal with what everyone agrees is the much harder stuff?
Copyright 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
-
No one is more clueless than Democrats when it comes to business and money.