We last week passed the $15 trillion national debt mark.  It continues hurtling upward, almost completely unabated.

We the People did our job and then some in the historic 2010 election, delivering more than 70 new Republicans to the Congress – on their promises to rein in out-of-control Washington spending.

We sent these folks to D.C. in large part to prohibit President Barack Obama and his Democrats from continuing to explode the budget – and the deficits and debt along with it – the way they had when exclusively in the Majority in 2009 and 2010.

So when President Obama campaigns asking for reelection and more D.C. Democrats – to undo this “do nothing” Congress – remember that stopping Obama and his Party colleagues was what We the People elected these “do-nothings” to do.

Serving as an impediment (modest though it may be) to the Democrat fiscal train wreck is, in fact, doing something.

(more…)

Mr. Geithner, please check your crystal ball because it appears to have a major malfunction!  Either something’s wrong with the ball or you’ve got a classic case of “operator error” going on.  You might look into borrowing your good buddy Barack Obama’s.  His crystal ball seems to be shooting fairly straight these days.  “Electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket,” anyone remember this gem?  He could start a 1-800-psychic line with that one!  Hey it might not be pretty, but at least it was truthful.

In an interview with Fox News on April 19, 2011, a little over three months ago, when U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked if the U.S. was at risk of losing its AAA rating, he replied:

“No risk of that, no risk…you see the leadership of the United States of America, the President…the Republican leadership…the Democrats…recognizing now that this is the right thing to do for the economy.”

For some time now, the United States debt has been creeping up to the 100 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) mark.  That’s a disaster just waiting in the wind. It’s reminiscent of 2001 when the Bush Administration warned of potential problems and warned that financial giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, could “cause strong repercussions in financial markets.”  In 2003, the White House upgraded the concerns to a “systemic risk” that could spread beyond the housing sector.  But U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D) told the House Financial Services Committee that the housing market was fine, stating, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack are not in a crisis.”

In 2008, the housing market crashed, sending the economy in a downward spiral, from which we have not recovered.  You would think that our “leaders” would have learned their lessons from the past, especially from such a debacle just a few short years ago.  But with the passing of the recent budget hijacking, debt ceiling busting deal that our lawmakers recently compromised on, ignoring the warnings of the TEA Party, it is apparent that the lessons of history were short-lived.  Shortly after the deal was done, the unthinkable happened.  The US debt hit the 100 percent mark of GDP, the market tanked, and the US credit rating was downgraded from its AAA rating, with the real possibility of being downgraded again.

(more…)

Can you even imagine blaming a rape victim for being raped, or a terrorist victim for being murdered by terrorists? Of course not. In a sane world, it is the rapist and terrorist that is blamed for the crime, not the victim. But amazingly, this is exactly what Obama and his socialist cabal are now doing in the midst of the debt ceiling crisis- blaming the victims.

These out of control D.C. spending addicts are exactly like drug addicts who have abandoned their spouse, kids, and job to snort crack cocaine 24 hours a day. Even though they’ve stolen from us, we do all we can to help, doing our best to get them into rehab. But since they don’t want to stop snorting their drugs, what we get in return is hate, anger and blame. They accuse us of being horrible people for not willingly handing over more money to feed their spending addiction. They absurdly assert it’s all our fault and that we’ve forced them to rob us at gunpoint. And they scream that we are “extreme” while they keep snorting.

Only seriously delusional enablers can close their eyes to the fact that Obama and his fellow addicts have spent us to the edge of economic Armageddon, and blindly refuse to see that it is the addicts on Capital Hill who are irresponsible, dangerous, self-destructive, and suicidal. They can’t stop…they want more money…they deny they have a problem…and they think the answer to their addiction is more money, to buy more drugs.

Like all addicts they don’t blame themselves for their addiction, it has to be someone else’s fault. In this case they blame the taxpayers and the Tea Party. It’s our fault because we won’t willing give them more money, to buy more drugs. Just like the crack addict, in their mind the answer to their drug problem is holding up the taxpayers at gunpoint for more money. The addicts are sick. Insane. Delusional. And headed for death.

The only difference between a crack addict and the addicts in D.C., is that the crack addict is suicidal, hurting only himself. Unfortunately, the addiction of Obama and Congress is destroying the American economy and enslaving our children and grandchildren to unimaginable debt for decades to come. This is a murder-suicide.

In the midst of this crisis, madness and economic disaster, the Tea Party has come to the rescue. The Tea Party is trying to save America and put the government in rehab by cutting off the money that feeds the addiction. Like all addicts, Obama’s response, supported by his enablers- the progressive left and the biased leftist media- is to attack and blame the Tea Party.

Mr. Obama, after spending the trillions of dollars we’ve given you in our hard earned taxes and then spending trillions more you didn’t have on things we don’t want, you’re actually blaming us? Seriously? You want taxpayers to pay more of our hard-earned money to feed your addiction? If the victims feeding your addiction finally say “enough” you define us as “extreme?”

Taxes aren’t the problem. Heavy federal, state, local, sales, property, and corporate taxes are already choking the entire U.S. economy. The addiction to spending is the problem. Raising taxes hasn’t helped Europe. The PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain) are all insolvent and bankrupt despite much higher taxes than America. More money has never helped a single addict in world history. Only tough love, discipline and rehab solves the problem. And only hitting rock bottom starts the healing process and saves their lives.

Obama is the mother of all spending addicts. He has an illness. Obama needs to stand up in front of America and say, “My name is Barack Obama and I am an addict. I apologize to the taxpayers, all of whom I have wronged. I apologize for spending our economy into insolvency and bankruptcy. I apologize for the historic levels of unsustainable debt. I apologize for trying to blame the victims (taxpayers) for my illness.”

It all starts with admitting you have a problem. You have to hit rock bottom. Obama and the Congress are addicts. They are ill. They need help. Taxpayers must refuse to pay more for their illness. We must not accept one dollar in new taxes.

Obama and Congress must learn to live with the money they’ve got. No more blaming the victim. The Tea Party and the taxpayers are the heroes here. We are the only sane ones in the room. We understand a spending addiction can’t be solved with more spending. It’s time to force the addicts to get help, or let them crash. It’s time to stop blaming the victim.

History repeats itself again and again. Obama and his spending-addicted socialist cabal is casting the Tea Party as radicals, going so far as to accuse them of treason for refusing to raise taxes or the debt ceiling. I’d like to remind Mr. Obama that is exactly what King George and his House of Lords called the original American Tea Party patriots. That didn’t work out so well for the king the first time.

In what appears to have been a sociopathically twisted interview, Martin Bashir of MSNBC interviewed Dr. Stanton Peele, who describes himself as an “addiction specialist,” to, lo and behold, diagnose members of the “Tea Party,” also known by their other name, the American People, as “addicted to having their own way,” a condition which will supposedly render them “psychopaths.”

First, I don’t know of any mainstream American who feels like he or she has “had his own way” much lately. Second, clearly, Bashir and his guest have the wrong patient on their couch.

Anyone who has struggled through a family member with an addiction- whether to alcohol, drugs, food, gambling, or any other out of control behavior- knows the ropes. If you don’t have an addict in your immediate family, but you’re an American who is aware of your surroundings, you now know them, too.

We have just experienced the first real intervention, organized by the unorganized “Tea Party,” on behalf of the real patient, our establishment Washington politicians, who are addicted to spending and the power that emanates from it. The intervention that has just been performed on Washington came with all the characteristics that are typical of most interventions.

First, there is the “identified” patient, i.e., the family member who is the addict. This person is steeped in “denial” of his addiction. The family who has brought him to the office has been through hell with him. He has done any number of things to them in order to maintain his addiction, which is “number one” in his life. He has lied to them, hidden things from them, stolen money from them, made pledges to them that he would stop his addictive behavior, and then broken those very pledges.

(more…)

From The Associated Press:

Ending a perilous stalemate, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders announced historic agreement Sunday night on emergency legislation to avert the nation’s first-ever financial default.

The dramatic resolution lifted a cloud that had threatened the still-fragile economic recovery at home—and it instantly powered a rise in financial markets overseas.

The agreement would slice at least $2.4 trillion from federal spending over a decade, a steep price for many Democrats, too little for many Republicans. The Treasury’s authority to borrow would be extended beyond the 2012 elections, a key objective for Obama, though the president had to give up his insistence on raising taxes on wealthy Americans to reduce deficits.

(more…)

Results of a recent Washington Post/ABC poll, conducted with 1,001 random adults- not likely voters- found that 77% of those polled believe that Republicans are being too stubborn and uncompromising when it comes to the debt debate. The survey also found that 62% of the respondents believe that a combination of cutting spending and increasing taxes is the best way to reduce the federal budget deficit. These results follow along with common stereotypes that Republicans are rigid, rather than principled, about important issues concerning the nation, and that “all of the above” is better- or, for non-committal types, more convenient- than one option. After all, why bother to educate yourself about the options, when you can simply choose everything?

Similarly, a CBS News poll regarding the debt talks, conducted with 810 random adults- 24% who gave their political affiliation as “Republican,” 35% “Democrat,” and 41% “Independent-” found that 43% approve of the president’s handling of the debt talks, 31% approve of the Democrats, and only 21% approve of the Republicans’ management of the negotiations. This survey also found that half of Republicans, 51%, disapprove of how members of their party in Congress are handling the negotiations. It should be noted that, while the poll did not obtain responses from equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, some Americans who identify themselves as “Republicans” are indeed disapproving of their congressional representatives- but because they believe they are not being principled enough.

Keep in mind that likely voters are not representative of the general population of telephone owners. Likely voters are generally more aware and informed about the issues, enough to commit to get out and vote.

Enter Rasmussen Reports, which, this week, finds that a generic Republican presidential candidate earns support from 47% of likely voters, as President Obama earns 41% of support. Similarly, for the second week in a row, Republicans were shown to have a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot, 44-38%. Unaffiliated voters prefer the Republican candidate by a 40% to 25% margin.

(more…)

For weeks, we have been treated to comic opera in D.C.’s theater of the politically and economically absurd. On the stage, the actors—President Obama, the Secretary of the Treasury, congressional leaders—hop about, shouting moronic lines about the national “default” that will occur unless the government’s statutory debt limit is raised, reciting Chicken Little lines about how such a default will trigger worldwide economic catastrophe. According to a report in the July 5th issue of the Christian Science Monitor,

Facing an Aug. 2 deadline, Congress and the White House are stepping up face time to avert what the Treasury Department has called “catastrophic economic and market consequences” of a default on the national debt.

Think about this statement. Have governments defaulted in the past? Of course, they have, on hundreds of occasions over the centuries. Have these defaults triggered “catastrophic economic and market consequences”? No. When a government defaults, there are consequences, of course, including heightened reluctance of lenders to lend to the deadbeat government in the future or at least to lend at such favorable interest rates. Often partial payments of principal and interest are arranged or debts are restructured. The world keeps spinning.

(more…)

On May 16, 2011, the United States reached the current debt ceiling, $14.3 trillion. In essence, that number represents our national credit limit – the United States government is unable to borrow any more money unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. Thanks to a few short term accounting tools, the Treasury Department says that current funds will last until August 2nd. If the debt ceiling is not increased by that time the Administration warns of serious consequences, since other countries and individuals who have invested in U.S. debt may fear that they won’t recoup their investment.

Usually, when the federal government is about to reach the debt ceiling, Congress just raises the ceiling and continues spending dollars that future generations will have to pay back. That’s why I’ve voted “no” the last seven times the House has considered raising the debt ceiling, under both President Bush and President Obama. I voted “no” last year. I voted “no” again last month, when the House considered legislation requested by President Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $2.2 trillion without any reductions in spending.

The call to raise the debt ceiling is an obvious indicator of our national spending addiction. It is also a warning that our national credit card bill is coming due.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is telling Congress that he will halt investments in two big government pension plans Monday to allow the government to continue borrowing money for the next few months.

Geithner says the government will reach its $14.3 trillion borrowing limit on Monday. Republicans have held back supporting an increase in the borrowing limit, saying they want Congress first to approve more spending cuts.

(more…)

Federal spending will top $3.6 trillion this year, but what’s your share?

The Government Cost Calculator is a new online tool that can be found at MyGovCost.org. A project of the California-based Independent Institute, it allows you to plug in your age, income, and education level to generate a series of tables that show your share of both current and future federal spending across more than a dozen categories. You can break out your share of spending for defense, Medicare, Social Security, and other areas and calculate what you could be earning if you were able to keep the money and invest it at a 6 percent rate of return.

The idea behind the project is that the true cost of government is reflected not just in your tax bill, but in your opportunity cost, what you could be doing with those dollars if you didn’t have to hand them over to the government.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Francis Cianfrocca are joined by Dr. Arthur Laffer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Laffer Center to discuss Paul Ryan’s budget plan, deficits, taxes the economy and more.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

The 30-Cent Tax Premium
Dr. Arthur B. Laffer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation
Laffer Center: The Economic Burden Caused by Tax Code Complexity

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Francis on Twitter

Can you hear that great sucking sound? It’s the sound of government shrinking around the world, as Portugal just joined Greece, Ireland and soon many others in acknowledging they are bankrupt and asking their European brethren for a bail-out. What is frightening to the big government advocates is this collapse was caused by a doubling of Portugal’s borrowing costs in just three weeks. The klaxon horns are going off in Europe and America; cut deficit spending or be destroyed by rising interest rates.

Over the last two decades, governments in Europe and the United States have been massively using taxpayer subsidies to sponsor favoured industries, under the smoke screen of National Industrial Policy. The theory, developed by Harvard economist and former Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration, Robert Reich, stated that governments must “deliberately and strategically” speed the movement of capital and labor into “higher-valued production” or suffer social decline; with infant mortality rates rising and employment and life expectancy falling. Reich championed National Industrial Policy planners would more efficiently allocate capital and labor resources to satisfy consumer demand than large corporations who inefficiently use marketing to bend customer demand to their needs. He claimed it was the duty of government to induce through direct subsidies and worker retraining grants uncompetitive companies to scrap production and steer investment in industries of the future.

Europe adopted National Industrial Policy through the introduction of the Euro currency and banking deregulation. Southern European countries like Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain got low-interest German and French bank loans to scrap supposedly uncompetitive local manufacturing and “cushion” the transition of workers into leisure services and retirement housing development. Germany and France got elimination of competition and export growth to Southern Europe. Europeans were ecstatic for 15 years; the South had a real estate and banking boom, the North had a manufacturing and banking boom.

The U.S. adopted a National Industrial Policy during the Clinton Administration in 1999 by tying bank deregulation to a colossal expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act. The big banks got unlimited ability for multi-state banking and abolition of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act prohibitions against banks engaging in high risk securities and derivative trading for their own accounts. Planners got huge quota requirements for loans to inter-city and rural communities. President Clinton hailed that the signing of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act “establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act”.

(more…)

The media are reporting that if a governmental shutdown occurs, it will affect only “nonessential services and personnel.” Now, call me superficial, but I have a question:

At a time when we face a $1.4 trillion deficit this year alone, why are we funding anything or anyone that is admittedly “nonessential”?

I have been pondering an analogy that ought to be easy for anyone to grasp. Let’s compare the current congressional battle over federal spending with a hypothetical family feud over your own household budget.

Suppose you and your spouse are arguing about your finances. You have discovered, to your horror, that you are spending $1,400 per month over and above your total household income. Terrified, you inform your spouse that this is completely insane and unsustainable, and that it must stop immediately.

Your spouse nods in nominal agreement — but then digs in his or her heels against every single specific spending cut that you propose.

Knowing of your partner’s stubborn, spendthrift ways, you eventually propose just $100 in reduced spending. That would still have you falling behind each month by $1300, but at least it’s a start. However, your spouse is outraged and rejects the figure out of hand; it’s “draconian,” and would undermine the profligate lifestyle to which you’ve become accustomed.

You argue, and argue, and argue. Getting nowhere, and desperate for any point of agreement, you say: “Look, can’t we cut just $61 from our monthly spending? We both know that this won’t even make a dent in our obligations, but at least it might slow our rush toward bankruptcy, if only by a few days.”

(more…)

With the Federal government scheduled to shut down on April 8, Congress is not only debating where to spend trillions of dollars in the next fiscal year, but also whether to raise the roof, i.e. the debt ceiling.  The debt ceiling simply represents a cap on the total debt the U.S. government can hold, and it is currently set at a whopping $14.294 trillion.  Though the resolution for this limit was signed a mere year ago, we are quickly approaching the limit and should reach it sometime in the first week of April.  Keep in perspective that it would take more than 31,000 years of earning $1 a day to make a measly $1 trillion of the total debt. The government has added to the total debt every year since 1960 (except for two years).  Worse yet, it has added over $5 trillion in the past three and a half years alone.  Wouldn’t common sense indicate that there’s little room to borrow more?  Apparently not.

The reality is that many lawmakers want to “stabilize the debt” by increasing the debt ceiling.  Of course, you can’t stabilize trillions of dollars.  So essentially, the government ends up selling more bonds just to pay interest on the national debt and pay for new spending.  What’s a few more hundred billion when you already owe several trillion?

Often, to explain how we must increase the debt ceiling, government plays on one major fear – the fear of U.S. default.  Those in support of raising the debt ceiling argue that if it’s not increased the government will not be able to meet obligations.  They essentially say the country will go bankrupt.  To prevent this very issue, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since March 1963.  The problem with this rationale is that it’s like urging a boat to take on more water to keep it from sinking.  Imagine meeting with your financial planner and hearing him say, “In these tough financial times I recommend you add to your debt in order to stay solvent.”  I hope you would quickly find a new financial planner.

(more…)

Since the beginning of government, the ambition of those who spend money has rarely been matched by the ability of citizens to pay for government.  Modern day America, California or Greece are not exceptions to the rule, just examples of yesterday on a more grand scale today.  As perpetual as that problem is  - so too is the argument over the best way to raise tax revenue.  In simple terms, lower tax rates produce a more vibrant economy and higher revenues over time.  Higher tax rates do the exact opposite.  Heading into 2012, the Country cannot afford for Republicans to lose that economic argument.

The issue of taxes produces perhaps the greatest display between real politics and false economics.  Politicians throughout time have passed laws claiming to raise taxes.  In truth, politicians pass laws that raise tax rates.  That is a political process.  From there, the laws of economics take over.

In general, throughout all time, people adjust their behavior in reaction to political laws by acting in accordance with economic laws which are driven by human nature.  So if the penalty for speeding went up to $5000 per ticket – the number of people who speed would be reduced.  If the penalty for making income increases, i.e. taxes, rises – the amount of income actually made or reported will be reduced over time as well.

Today we are faced with astronomical deficits nationally and in many states.   The debt repayment obligation for California next year alone is larger than the budgets of 21 states.  What should governments do?  Should they politically raise tax rates? Or should they economically lower rates?  The answer is the latter and if Republicans (1) fail to make the argument why in 2011 and 2012, as this article implies they will, Grover Norquist, Tom Coburn duel over tax hikes , and (2) don’t stop simply saying NO to so-called tax increases, then Barack Obama will be reelected.

Consider this argument for cutting tax rates to raise revenue:

(more…)

Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee that oversees the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), and U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Oklahoma) introduced legislation to stop taxpayer subsidies to public radio and television. CPB-funded television and radio programs are distributed through National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Since 2001, CPB has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money.

“Our nation is on the edge of bankruptcy and Congress must make some tough choices to rein in spending, but ending taxpayer subsidies of public broadcasting should be an easy decision,” said Sen. DeMint. “Americans struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be forced to fund public broadcasting when there are already thousands of choices for educational and entertainment programming on the television, radio and web. President Obama’s own bipartisan debt commission proposed ending these unnecessary subsidies to public broadcasting. NPR boasts that it only gets 2 percent of its funding from taxpayers and PBS gets about 15 percent, so these programs should be able to find a way to stand on their own.”

“Politicians in Washington should focus their attention on eliminating the more than $200 billion in duplicative spending GAO highlighted this week and stop defending indefensible subsidies for public broadcasting,” said Dr. Coburn. “The federal government has no business picking winners and losers in today’s highly competitive media environment.  NPR and CPB will do just fine without largesse from Washington.”

(more…)

Our continued annual deficits of over $1.5 trillion will eventually destroy our economy and consume our liberty.  We must deal with this crisis now.  The Left says that the rich need to pay more, that more taxes will solve the problem.  Here is the truth.  If we were to double federal taxes on all Americans, our deficits would still be in excess of $400 billion per year.  There is not enough wealth for more taxes to do any good.  Consider that doubling federal taxes means the top rate would be 70%!  With state and local taxes, Americans would have little left for food and shelter.  The debate is over.  We have no choice but to dramatically cut spending.

Entitlements are the major contributor to the spending crisis and Social Security has long been the most protected of all entitlements.  It needs to be reformed in order to reduce its growing burden on our economy.  The reforms being discussed will not result in anyone currently receiving, or about to receive, benefits having any less than they are expecting.  The Democrats will cry that restructuring Social Security will hurt those who have planned for it, but this is a lie.  All reform options being discussed will only impact those who will have the time to plan for the changes.  The truth is that if Social Security is not reformed, the program will fail.

Democrats point to a $2.3 trillion Social Security Trust Fund surplus.  This is not a cash surplus. It was spent on general government expenses and replaced with Treasury Bonds.  Who is responsible for payment of those bonds? The taxpayer is responsible.  Yes, the Social Security Trust Fund surplus is nothing more than a government I.O.U.  Bernard Madoff could not have done better.

Before the recession accelerated in the fall of 2008, Social Security payroll taxes exceeded benefits paid each year.  Surplus cash, though diverted and replaced with bonds, was being generated.  However, since the labor force lost eight million jobs in the recession, Social Security benefits now exceed payroll taxes collected each year.  With the surplus nothing more than part of the national debt, we have to borrow to make up the difference.

It gets worse.

(more…)

Henry David Thoreau in his essay Civil Disobedience wrote, “That Government is best which governs least.” Those particular words, written in 1849, summarize the simple truth that the power of the individual and self-reliance in our free society are what has driven the development of American Exceptionalism.  Unfortunately in the 162 years since, our great nation has fallen prey to the dependency of entitlement programs administered by a suddenly powerful central government.  The cost of all this government in our lives, programs that now approximately 50% of our population has become dependent on, has reached unsustainable levels and our liberty is in peril.

The major entitlements of Social Security and Medicare, which all workers pay for through payroll taxes, are only part of the problem.  The future liabilities of these programs can be managed by restructuring the timing of benefits and the manner in which collected taxes are invested.  Future installments in this series will offer some thinking on these matters.  The other part of the problem is the combination of additional entitlement programs and the cost of the large federal bureaucracies to administer these other programs.

In 2011, we will pay out $385 billion in food stamps, $365 billion for the federal portion of Medicaid (with an almost equal amount due from the states), $200 billion in unemployment benefits and over $100 billion in aid to education.  The total cost of these payments will exceed $1 trillion, but the cost of administering these programs will add approximately $300 billion in expenditures to the federal budget.  The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are largely in place to administer the distribution of government aid.  Excluding defense, these departments and their associated costs represent half of our entire non-military federal government.

Without questioning the necessity of the programs, it is reasonable to question why we need all the extra government to administer them.  One solution is to consider localization of the management of these entitlements by transferring that authority to the states.  Private sector experience has proven that more local operations and management results in lower costs and greater efficiency. Decisions made closer to the source of the need are made faster and by fewer employees. Recognizing that there will be a cost to localized administration, the net impact of eliminating these cabinet level departments and their hundreds of thousands of personal and the associated supportive infrastructure will be a significant reduction in overall costs.

(more…)

That’s the way Winston Churchill, whose 1939 words we borrowed for our headline this week, were he asked about America, might answer that question today.  In foreign affairs we have spent much of the past two years trying to reset our relationships with the rest, or much of the rest, of the world.  So far we have little, perhaps nothing, to show for it other than the alienation of some old friends and no new friends.

Domestically (according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office) we’ll overspend to the tune of $1.5 trillion this year, on top of the $1.3 trillion we overspent last year.  At the rate we’re going, we’ll add more to our debt during President Obama’s first term than all the debt accumulated by all of his predecessors combined, according to Michael Boskin, professor of economics at Stanford University.

Does the Administration want to see real economic growth in the country?  Of course.  Obama can’t retain the White House without a strong economic turnaround. Has he been pursuing policies to achieve that goal? Hardly. Quite the contrary.  His Administration is spending much more effort stoking the fiscal fire than dousing it. The President has largely ignored the recommendations of his own Debt and Deficit Commission, making it easy for those Republicans and Democrats who oppose the commission’s recommendations to have rendered the report dead on arrival.  There is a growing expectation among analysts and economists including Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office that U.S. debt will lose its AAA credit rating within the next three years.

And while we have written, at great length, about the sad state of the federal fisc, the financial condition of the many states is worse.  At least the federal government can, in a pinch, print money to meet its obligations.  The states, collectively, seem to be a train wreck waiting to happen.

(more…)