Tag Archives: spending

Unfunded Liabilities

Posted on by
Reply

We’ve already seen counties and cities brought low and into bankruptcy by their blithe accumulation of future liabilities that they have no hope of honoring.  Jefferson County, AL, comes to mind, from a bond sale they had every reason to believe, a priori, that they could not honor in the future.

So does Stockton, CA’s bankruptcy, flowing from a public union pension and insurance program that they, also, must have known in advance that they could not support in future.

These are well understood, and the data that would have predicted these failures easily available to any who cared enough to look—and to face the impending problem squarely.

What of our nation’s debts, though?  Chris Cox and Bill Archer describe in a recent Wall Street Journal the hidden—and unfunded—liabilities at the Federal level that make our public national debt of $16 trillion look minor.

These hidden, but too real liabilities—debts—include

the unfunded liability of Medicare, $42.8 trillion

the unfunded liability of Social Security, $20.5 trillion

the unfunded liability of federal employees’ future retirement benefits, $23.5 trillion

But these data are carefully hidden from public scrutiny.  Federal Treasury “balance sheets” don’t include things like the debt represented by those Medicare, Social Security, and retirement unfunded liabilities.  No, the data are carefully squirreled away in the individual social welfare accounts.  You have to know where to look and what to look for—knowledge that heavily trained and experienced folks like Cox and Archer have, but which our politicians know the average American constituent lacks.

This is a time bomb that demands out entitlement programs be brought to heel, our entitlement mentality as a nation to be curbed.  Else we’ll go the way of Stockton.  And for a nation, that won’t be pretty.  Think of Greece today.  Think of Weimar Germany of the last century.

Progressives and Taxes

Posted on by
1

Not only do they still not get it, they’re already operating in bad faith.  Here’s more, via Damien Paletta of The Wall Street Journal.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said higher tax rates on upper-income Americans were a central part of the White House’s deficit-reduction proposal because there was no way to raise enough revenue by only limiting tax breaks.

No doubt.  But that just means it’s a bad proposal.  Notice that this plan proceeds from a couple of false premises.  One is that the Federal government needs more money.  Another is that the only way to cut the deficit is to raise taxes.  (Putting on my best cheesy-ad voice) but wait—there’s more!

Mr. Geithner said there was a lot of “magical thinking” about the amount of revenue that could be raised by capping or eliminating tax deductions and exemptions.  He said this approach wouldn’t come near the roughly $1.5 trillion in revenue the Obama administration believes is necessary as part of a broad deficit-reduction package.

There he goes again, and with his own “magical thinking.”  Geithner’s magic is to repeat the fantasy that the Feds need $1.5 trillion in revenue in order to reduce the deficit.  In the first place, taking that much money out of the private sector will reduce economic output, which will continue, if not increase, the current unemployment rate.  In the second place, taking that much money out of the private sector will lower the amount of tax revenue flowing to the Feds, both directly and through that continued/increased high unemployment rate.  If the government wants to increase revenue, it must support a vibrant, growing economy—which it cannot do when it starves that economy of its fuel, which is money.

Then Geithner says, without a trace of irony,

When you take a cold hard look at the amount of resources you can raise from that top 2% of Americans from limiting deductions you will find yourself disappointed to the relative magnitude of the revenues we need[.]

I won’t repeat myself on his underlying false premise; I’ll just point out the equal truth of his statement from substituting “raising tax rates” for “limiting deductions.”

In the end, the only way to eliminate the deficit (and so to begin paying down the national debt) is to spend less than is collected in revenue, as any third-grader on an allowance understands.  The only way to do this is to spend less.  Only that third-grader would insist on an increase in his allowance.

Taxes and the Fiscal Cliff

Posted on by
Reply

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) pointed out the other day,

[T]here is no consensus on raising tax rates.

Additionally, McConnell reminded us

[W]e still have yet to hear an actual plan from the president for addressing the great economic challenges we face.  What’s needed now is a realistic and specific proposal from the president that can actually pass the Congress.

Indeed, we haven’t heard anything President Obama in the way of a specific plan, beyond two budget “proposals” from the last session that can only be taken as having been improv satire.

McConnell laid down his marker, and it’s a correct one:

One issue I’ve never been conflicted about is taxes.  I wasn’t sent to Washington to raise anybody’s taxes to pay for more wasteful spending and this election doesn’t change my principles.

Is Obama serious or not about recovering our economy?  We’ll find out in the coming days.

Good News

Posted on by
Reply

There really is some coming out of the election last Tuesday.

Reelecting President Obama notwithstanding, voters validated central conservative tenets:

  • Exit polls demonstrate that by a 51%-43% margin, Americans believe that today’s government already does too much that more properly belongs to the private sector.
  • By a 63%-33% spread, Americans said not to raise taxes as a means of cutting the Federal budget deficit.
  • Concerning the economy, the national debt, and the budget deficit generally, the voters preferred the Republican over the Democrat.
  • Voters also reelected an overwhelmingly conservative and Republican House, thereby explicitly and materially validating the House’s expression of those conservative tenets over the last two years.

There’s more.

In California, Democrats won voter approval to raise the top income tax rate to 13.3%.  More importantly, they also won a legislative supermajority.  California has in its state constitution an amendment requiring a two-thirds majority of both houses of the state’s government in order to raise taxes.  The Democrats have won that two-thirds majority in both houses.

Now we’ll have an object lesson, fresh in our minds at the time of the 2016 elections, about the outcome of Progressive policies implemented wholesale.  California will be that demonstration.  Watch carefully.

Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

President Obama, in the aftermath of his reelection, says he wants bipartisanship and compromise in finding solutions to the nearby fiscal cliff and to the longer term problems of his deficits and his national debt.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) says the same.

But bipartisanship, the last several times around, has meant “be reasonable, do it our way.”

After all, it was Obama who said to the House (then-)Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R, VA), “Eric, I won” and to Senator John McCain (R, AZ), “John, the election’s over,” and generally, “Elections have consequences.”

It is Obama, too, who has announced that he’ll veto any cliff solution that doesn’t contain tax rate increases on that group of Americans whom he despises.

It was Reid who, last Congressional session (of which there remain a rump term lasting until the New Year), blocked nearly 40 jobs-related bills and two national budgets passed by the House and refused even to allow them to be debated, much less come to a vote in the Democrat-dominated Senate.

It was Reid, too, who said on the eve of the election that he’d never work with the Republicans if Romney won.

And it was Senator Patty Murray (D, WA), in a Fox News “Special Report with Bret Baier” interview Wednesday, who had this exchange with Baier:

Baier: So when you hear that [Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) saying that revenues could be increased through tax reform and closing loopholes], what do you hear?

Murray: First of all, I really appreciate the Speaker say that he understands that revenue needs to be on the table.

Baier: When you say “revenue,” you mean taxes, tax increases.

Murray: That’s correct.

She also said in that interview,

The President ran on making sure that the wealthiest Americans participate in solving this problem.  He won.  A number of our Senate candidates, in fact all of them, ran on the same thing; they won.  I think that puts us in a place where we can really move forward.

There’s that Democrat concept of “bipartisanship” and “compromise.”

On the other side, Majority Leader Cantor said in a letter to House Republicans on Wednesday (the letter can be found here)

This election was filled with good news, and bad news. The good news is that the American people responded to two years of House Republican leadership by sending us back with a strong majority. It is clear that our efforts to improve the economy and create the conditions for job growth were well-received….

Our task is to legislate based on our principles and forge the compromise that will be necessary to get our nation back on track.

This is entirely correct.  A man who would compromise his principles is a man who has no principles and so is a man who cannot be trusted.  While it’s true that a clash of principles can lead to an inability to compromise, at least one side of this debate is operating from principle.  For the other side, it’s only about power and ego, just as it has been these past four years.