Author Topic: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process  (Read 525439 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Deficits, Debt Proportion of GDP Shrinks with Growth,
« Reply #1050 on: April 29, 2018, 07:44:01 AM »
The power of a compounding growth rate - is the smallest force in the universe when growth is held back by government at essentially zero.

Moving the growth rate from 1.9% to 3% or greater is not a one percent increase, it is more than a 50% increase in growth and that fails to include the amazing mathematical power of compounding growth.  This difference in growth cuts the burden of our debt by two thirds over time.

Here is an article I read recently and looked for to post but it was hidden on the internet by Google's search engine bias.  Note that this is dated 2017 during the tax rate cut debate.  Maybe we are on a better path now but the principles still apply.

Debt, CBO says, will be 150% of GDP in 30 years.  
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52480-ltbo.pdf

Change the growth rate from  Obama levels, the CBO projection of 1.9% to 3% growth, the average over the 50 years before the latest collapse and malaise, and the deficit to GDP ratio in 30 years drops from 150% to 50%.

That is a profound difference, a republic existential difference.  Economic stagnation in our fiscal system mathematically leads to collapse.
------------------------------------
https://www.wsj.com/articles/growth-can-solve-the-debt-dilemma-1493160796

Growth Can Solve the Debt Dilemma
Hitting a 3% target would result in an economy that’s nearly $13 trillion larger in 30 years.
By Stephen Moore
April 26, 2017
The Congressional Budget Office’s latest report on the nation’s fiscal future is full of doom and gloom. The national debt will double in the next 30 years to 150% of gross domestic product—which is Greece territory. Interest payments may become the largest budget line, eclipsing national defense. Federal spending is expected to soar over 20 years from 22% of GDP to 28%. Never outside of wartime has Washington’s burden been so heavy on the economy.

But the report’s most troubling forecast, by far, is for decades of sluggish economic growth. The CBO projects that America will limp along at an average 1.9% annual growth over the next 30 years. This is a sharp downgrade from historical performance. Between 1974 and 2001, average growth was 3.3%. An extra percentage point makes a world of difference. If weak growth persists, there is almost no combination of plausible spending cuts and tax increases that will get Washington anywhere near a balanced budget.

But consider what happens to the CBO’s numbers assuming 3% annual growth. By 2040 the economy would expand not to $29.9 trillion, but to $38.3 trillion, according to an analysis by Research Affiliates, a California investment firm. That’s an additional output of $8.4 trillion—roughly the entire annual production today of every state west of the Mississippi River.

The Power of an Expanding Economy

By 2047, the economy would grow to $47.1 trillion, almost $13 trillion more than the CBO’s baseline estimate. That would spin off new tax revenue to Washington of about $2.5 trillion each year.‎That money ought to be more than enough to pay all the bills and cover most of the unfunded costs of Social Security and Medicare. The old saying is right: The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.

Growth of 3% would stop the debt-to-GDP ratio from skyrocketing. Instead it would start to fall almost immediately, eventually to about 50%, because the economy would be so much larger. Congress and the White House ought to understand that what matters most for heading off a fiscal crisis is making sure that the economy grows faster than the government. No other debt-reduction policy—certainly not a tax increase—comes close to having the fiscal effect that sustained prosperity does.

A good example is the late 1990s, the only time in recent years that Washington balanced its budget. Surpluses were the result of good policy: A 16-year economic surge allowed revenues to catch up to expenditures. A booming stock market, aided by a cut in the capital-gains tax, brought in unexpected revenue. Spending was restrained under President Clinton and a Republican Congress.

Many blue-chip economists agree with the CBO that a growth rate of about 2% is the best that America can achieve. They believe that growth in productivity and the country’s workforce is too slow to recapture the glory days.

But the right policies can counter these trends. Productivity should surge with improvements in robotics, artificial intelligence and automation. Self-driving cars could cut transportation costs dramatically in coming years. Washington could facilitate this renaissance by giving companies an incentive to invest. The Tax Foundation predicted last year that the House Republican tax reform alone would raise wages by 8%, GDP by 9% and capital investment by 28%. If this is even close to being right, pass the tax cut now and stop obsessing about whether it is paid for within the short-term budget window.

The demographic problem is a greater challenge, with the baby boomers retiring. But according to my calculations at least seven million Americans in their prime working years—18 to 65—would be on the job today if labor-force participation had not dropped since 2000. A strong economy, paired with welfare reforms, could draw millions back to work. And immigration is America’s natural demographic safety valve. Letting in more legal immigrants—especially those with skills and special talents—may not happen under President Trump, but it can and should eventually.

This isn’t a call for budget complacency. Congress should cap spending and flatten the payout formulas for entitlement programs But there’s simply no way to fix the long-term fiscal problems with 1.9% growth, no matter how sharp the budget knife. What America needs is real and sustained growth.
-----------------------------------------------------
Debt burden is a catastrophic consequence of failing to address the GDP Gap documented by Scott Grannis and posted regularly in these threads.

The failure to re-energize growth of the private economy and to sustain that growth at historic levels or better puts upward pressure on spending as more people rely on government for financial security, and that worsens deficits, debt and debt burden.  cf. President Obama's economic record: Obama ran up another $8 trillion debt under artificial zero interest rate conditions.  The full burden of that debt will not be felt under zero interest conditions.

A thoughtful liberal friend asked me recently what I thought about deficits and debt.  I mentioned concern about spending and he mentioned concern about 'tax cuts'.  Most importantly, our concern should be with growth.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2018, 08:20:37 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1051 on: April 29, 2018, 08:48:32 PM »
Very timely Doug.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs: Universal Basic Income, failed test in Finland
« Reply #1052 on: April 30, 2018, 09:45:30 AM »
Nothing new was learned.  There is no free lunch.  If you give people a little more money to spend, they have a little more money to spend.  Who did they take the money from?  Those will have a little less.  Nothing new was produced, not even a new incentive to produce was produced.  The test ended in Finland. Results to be published in 2019.  Only in government programs is that good enough.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/Finland-is-killing-its-world-famous-basic-income-experiment--/

Leftists in the US, Stockton California for example, want to try it.  
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/testing-a-universal-basic-income-stockton-california-economic-security-project/

Pay people to do nothing in return.  Not exactly a new concept in a welfare society.

California is home to some of the most amazing entrepreneurial successes in human history and yet is the nation's leader in Income inequality.  

Why don't they have the successful teach entrepreneurial classes in poorer areas instead of tease them with tastes of someone else's fruit with no hint as to how it was produced?
---------------
While I was typing, our friends at Investors published an editorial on the same subject:
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/finnish-failure-guaranteed-basic-income-punishes-work-subsidizes-sloth/

Finnish Failure: Guaranteed Basic Income Punishes Work, Subsidizes Sloth

[What could go wrong with that.]

"Finnish social planners have no more common sense than those in the U.S. Neither group seems to understand the economic truism: What you subsidize you get more of, and what you tax you get less of."

"In the 1970s, the (U.S.) government ran four random control experiments across six states to try the negative income tax, a similar policy proposal (to the basic income) that was popular at the time. In each test, the work disincentive effect was disastrous. For every $1,000 in added benefits to a family, there was an average reduction in $660 of wages from work."
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 10:06:01 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1053 on: April 30, 2018, 10:24:16 AM »
BTW, Scott Grannis endorses the Stephen Moore article.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Government programs: Climate-Linked Spending to become 1/4 of EU Budget
« Reply #1054 on: April 30, 2018, 11:13:38 AM »
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-30/climate-linked-spending-set-to-rise-to-a-quarter-of-eu-budget

Climate-Linked Spending Set to Rise to a Quarter of EU Budget

Not only that but we will lose the beneficial earth effects of all that plant growing CO2.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1055 on: April 30, 2018, 11:25:24 AM »
Please post that in the European Matters thread.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
funding for NEA increased
« Reply #1056 on: May 03, 2018, 07:11:27 AM »
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/celebrities-applaud-trump-brand-karen-pence-ally-after-arts-funding-increase/

I am not sure with all the billions spent by private collectors why we need taxpayer money for this

unless it goes to the Smithsonian maybe

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Did anyone see this coming? )
« Reply #1057 on: May 07, 2018, 07:55:42 PM »
Unexpected.

April was best month in history for U.S. budget, according to CBO figures.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/cbo-says-april-was-best-month-history-us-budget/

Economic growth helps the budget?  

So far, only the Washington Times covering it?
NYT, below the fold tomorrow?  $40 B more than expected.  Not news at all?

How come Obama never had a record surplus month? He raised taxes more than all of them.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 08:01:31 PM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Federal Deficit to Top $1 Trillion in 2020, CBO Says
 April 12, 2018
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018/04/12/federal-deficit-top-1-trillion-2020-cbo-says
---------------------
We'll know soon enough, but they've never been right.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Tax revenues at record high
« Reply #1060 on: May 13, 2018, 07:14:17 PM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Tax revenues at record high
« Reply #1061 on: May 14, 2018, 06:52:47 AM »
quote author=G M:  "Anything good for America is bad for the dems. Funny how that works.

"Isn't it strange how true that is?  Between now and the next couple of elections, they need to hope for bad economic results - or they will continue to lose.  That makes sense sadly, but look also at when they were in power.  They pushed for anti-growth policies so they mostly wanted no growth results then too?  The rationale for anti-growth policies was to fight income inequality.  But that widened too.  Tens of millions more on food stamps while the market of entrenched big corporations went up and up and up.  To fight income inequality, they need to stomp out wealth, but their coalition combines the welfare poor with the elite rich, all the rich counties around DC, the college professors, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, trial lawyers, etc.  High tax rates didn't hurt the already rich much because they can move their money around and protect what they already have.  What it hurts most is the people who want to be the future rich, meaning all the rest of us.  When the pie isn't expanding, all people can do is fight, like in the Middle East, over existing, fixed resources, and in that scenario, the already powerful always have the advantage.  Lower tax rates lead to growth, innovation, disruption, and dynamism.  That is 'risky' if you are already rich and already powerful.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
"saving" Soc Sec and Medicare
« Reply #1063 on: June 29, 2018, 08:38:27 AM »
REpublicans may be able to make this a winning issue despite the obvious retort from Dems which will be yelling screaming jumping up and down and ranting and raving hands waving and flying obnoxious hollywood tweats about how repubs just want to cut YOUR benefits (while giving it all away to the 'rich')

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/perdue-saving-social-security-and-medicare-can-lead-republicans-to-victory/

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
How to fix a budget sleight of hand
« Reply #1064 on: July 12, 2018, 11:30:55 AM »
eyJpIjoiWm1NNU4yRmlPVE5oTVdRMCIsInQiOiJiSll2bEloSEtLN2x5QVlXWUhtekYzZW0xQ1Z3eUFRUXhWWUxPMEZwb1BPcXRBcGw4WmdnUWF6Wm5cL0JIKzVXTHZvYTZJSUlhempxS0R0VDVudTZ5ek1cL1wvOEVzZXMzcjVqUWlDQ3YzZEZWbzB1dmdXSGNEZk1pNXBmZDhpakxueCJ9

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs
« Reply #1065 on: July 17, 2018, 08:53:12 AM »
I trust our government to focus on what's important and protect us without failure:

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2018/07/17/plutonium-stolen-from-the-parking-lot-of-the-marriott-san-antonio-northwest/

Plutonium Stolen From the Parking Lot of the Marriott San Antonio Northwest
by Gary Leff on July 17, 2018

On a mission to recover radioactive materials, two Department of Energy employees from the Idaho National Laboratory drove to San Antonio. Materials had been loaned to a private research lab, and their job was to get it back and transport it security to a government facility.

They brought with them specialized radiation detectors. And to calibrate the detectors they have to bring along some plutonium, too, and also cesium. These are the materials used in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

These security specialists stopped for the night at the San Antonio Marriott Northwest.

They left the materials in the back seat of their rented Ford Expedition and went to bed. The plutonium and cesium were stolen out of the Marriott parking lot.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs
« Reply #1066 on: July 17, 2018, 09:21:41 AM »
I trust our government to focus on what's important and protect us without failure:

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2018/07/17/plutonium-stolen-from-the-parking-lot-of-the-marriott-san-antonio-northwest/

Plutonium Stolen From the Parking Lot of the Marriott San Antonio Northwest
by Gary Leff on July 17, 2018

On a mission to recover radioactive materials, two Department of Energy employees from the Idaho National Laboratory drove to San Antonio. Materials had been loaned to a private research lab, and their job was to get it back and transport it security to a government facility.

They brought with them specialized radiation detectors. And to calibrate the detectors they have to bring along some plutonium, too, and also cesium. These are the materials used in nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

These security specialists stopped for the night at the San Antonio Marriott Northwest.

They left the materials in the back seat of their rented Ford Expedition and went to bed. The plutonium and cesium were stolen out of the Marriott parking lot.

We have our top men working on it!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Govt programs, Snap (Food stamps) work requirement
« Reply #1067 on: July 18, 2018, 07:41:38 PM »
Here's what the freak-out over SNAP work requirements comes down to. CBO says that in 10 years there will be 1.2M fewer SNAP recipients due to WR (work requirement)--3.7% of recipients. Keep in mind, many will do better as a consequence. That percentage is low because of--wait for it--exemptions.
   - Scott Winship, twitter  https://twitter.com/alanreynoldsecn?lang=en



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1070 on: July 20, 2018, 09:21:41 AM »
Quelle surprise.

OTOH at least we may be returning to proper budgeting process instead of Continuing Resolutions.  This is not a small thing.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
but didn't KAlifornia just give this guy money-- Elon Musk
« Reply #1071 on: July 21, 2018, 02:05:00 PM »
for some sort of "hyperlink" from Frisco to LA?:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/21/elon-musk-is-a-total-fraud/

Wasn't Jerry Brown once dubbed "moonbeam?"
or am I mixing my memory cells?

« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 05:26:13 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
VP Ivanka / Rubio -> gigantic entitlement program
« Reply #1072 on: August 03, 2018, 09:06:45 PM »
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/republicans-dont-think-government-is-big-enough-now-they-want-ivankacare/


The debt is what 21 trillion now.  That is 21 times apple's market cap!

And no it doesn't pay for itself.  I think the Louisiana people may be right :  Rubio just isn't that smart.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
another look at the Rubio Warner Ivanka plan
« Reply #1073 on: August 07, 2018, 05:17:49 AM »
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/08/marco-rubios-paid-leave-plan-shows-how-conservatives-can-embrace-working-class-families/

I don't agree that this is what we should be doing.
It is another attempt to appease the LEFT in my opinion.
The if we don't do it on our terms the Left will do it on theirs.

In other words beat the LEFT to the punch and show the masses how compassionate conservative we are but make it sounds like it is conservative by taking from future SS payments to fund the present .  If the LEFT does it they would offer these payments without deducting from SS.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1074 on: August 07, 2018, 06:24:43 AM »
I agree with CCP.  Big government conservatism is an oxymoron.

We should have a full debate about where Social Security is headed. That's not what this is. What a great thought it is that you should have more control and flexibility over your money tucked away for retirement, but simultaneously Social Security is turning into a welfare program. It's not your anymore if it ever was, it's your entitlement. It's often someone else's money and it's someone else's company that the government is trying to run.

This debate is about federal government control over private sector family leave. Believing that government can do good here without doing harm is always short-sighted.

It reminds me of the fair tax and the carbon tax. Republicans who think they can authorized more government power and it won't soon be expanded and abused are naive.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Government programs, spending, deficit, what do Dem proposals cost?
« Reply #1075 on: August 09, 2018, 09:33:31 AM »
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/7/17658574/democratic-socialism-cost-medicare-college-sanders-deficits-taxes

Question for any Dem, what tax rate would pay for it all? When it requires an 87% tax rate or confiscation of all income and wealth over 90,000, would even that really bring it in? Do they really not admit that high tax rates change economic behavior?  

There is no tax rate that will pay for free everything. Welcome to real-world socialism.

"Ocasio-Cortez and Senate Democrats also want to guarantee a job for anyone who wants one, at $15 per hour plus benefits."

"Total cost: $42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit."

"Raising the final $34 trillion would require seizing roughly 100 percent of all corporate profits as well as 100 percent of all family wage income and pass-through business income above the thresholds of $90,000 (single) or $150,000 (married), and absurdly assuming they all continue working."

As John McEnroe used to say,
YOU.CAN'T.BE.SERIOUS!!
« Last Edit: August 09, 2018, 09:42:09 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
UK patient waits 62 hours for ambulance
« Reply #1076 on: August 22, 2018, 06:22:25 PM »
« Last Edit: August 22, 2018, 07:25:12 PM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: UK patient waits 62 hours for ambulance
« Reply #1077 on: August 22, 2018, 09:28:37 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: Government deficit grew 17% in 2018
« Reply #1078 on: October 15, 2018, 11:52:43 AM »
Lots of interesting data in here:

U.S. Government Deficit Grew 17% in Fiscal 2018
Tax-law changes led to flat revenue in fiscal 2018, U.S. Treasury says
Higher interest costs on the debt and increased funding for the military helped push the U.S. deficit higher in fiscal 2018.
By Kate Davidson
Oct. 15, 2018 2:03 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON--The federal deficit widened last year amid higher government spending—including rising interest costs on the debt and increased funding for the military—and flat revenues following last year’s tax cut.

The government ran a $779 billion deficit in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, the Treasury Department said Monday. That is the largest annual deficit in six years and 17% higher than the $666 billion deficit in fiscal 2017. As a share of gross domestic product, the deficit totaled 3.9%, up from 3.5% a year earlier and the third consecutive increase.

The deficit would have been even higher if not for shifts in the timing of certain payments, Treasury said.

Government receipts held steady at $3.3 trillion, despite strong economic growth and a robust labor market. The low unemployment rate, which hit 3.7% in September, coupled with rising wages would typically drive government tax revenue higher.

But individual withheld income taxes rose just 1% in fiscal 2018, and corporate tax receipts declined 31%—both reflecting changes implemented as part of the sweeping tax overhaul enacted in December.

Trump administration officials had argued last year the new tax law would generate enough economic growth to offset the costs of a tax cut. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin went further, at times saying the changes would actually help reduce the deficit. Monday’s report showed that, so far, that is not happening.

More broadly, declining government revenues and long-term costs associated with an aging population, including higher Social Security and Medicare spending, are expected to continue pushing up deficits over the coming decades.

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said Monday the growing economy will create increased government revenues, “an important step toward long-term fiscal sustainability,” he said.

“Going forward, President Trump and this administration will continue to work with Congress to make the difficult choices needed to bring fiscal restraint, which, when matched with increasing revenue, will reduce our deficit,” Mr. Mulvaney said.

Monday’s report showed, however, that government spending as a share of GDP actually declined in fiscal 2018, to 20.3% from 20.7% a year earlier. And tax revenue declined even more, to 16.5% of GDP from 17.2%.

After the tax law was enacted last year, companies became able to take advantage of a new, lower corporate tax rate and immediately deduct the full value of equipment purchases—changes that weighed on corporate tax receipts, the senior Treasury official said. Starting in February, employers started using new withholding tables under the law, reducing the share of income withheld from workers’ paychecks.

At the same time, government spending rose 3% last year, to $4.1 trillion. Increases in interest rates and the amount of total debt outstanding drove up interest costs 14% last year from fiscal 2017, or $65 billion. Spending on defense military programs also increased 6%, or $32 billion, and Social Security costs rose 4%, or $39 billion.

Mr. Mnuchin on Monday defended Mr. Trump’s push to increase military spending last year, culminating in a congressional budget agreement that would increase government spending by almost $300 billion over two years above limits set in a 2011 law.

Corrections & Amplifications
The U.S. government deficit grew 17% in fiscal 2018. A headline in an earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to “debt” instead of “deficit.” (Oct. 15)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Fighters downed by Hurricane
« Reply #1079 on: October 17, 2018, 08:42:39 AM »
Fighters Downed by Hurricane
Why America’s best military aircraft couldn’t fly to escape a storm.
180 Comments
By The Editorial Board
Oct. 16, 2018 7:19 p.m. ET
An aircraft hangar damaged by Hurricane Michael is seen at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Oct. 11.
An aircraft hangar damaged by Hurricane Michael is seen at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, Oct. 11. Photo: jonathan bachman/Reuters

Hurricane Michael did terrible damage in Florida last week, and that may include some of the world’s most capable military aircraft left in its path. But why can’t Air Force F-22 jet fighters, of all things, escape a storm? Answer: They lack the parts to be operational and so were stuck in hangars to take a beating.

Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said Sunday that the damage to an unspecified number of F-22s on Tyndall Air Force Base was “less than we feared.” But maintenance professionals will have to conduct a detailed assessment before the Air Force can say with certainty that the planes will fly again. Press reports estimate that at least a dozen planes were left on the base due to maintenance and safety issues.
Foreign Edition Podcast
Bavarians Revolt; Beijing Represses

Welcome to a fighting force damaged by bad political decisions and misguided priorities. Of the Air Force’s 186 F-22s, only about 80 are “mission capable,” according to a July analysis from the Government Accountability Office. The average across the Air Force in 2017 was that about 7 in 10 planes were mission capable, which is still too low for meeting increasing demands.

Part of the F-22 problem is upkeep on a coating that helps the planes evade radar. Another issue is the supply chain for parts now that the U.S. no longer produces the airplane, and “some original manufacturers no longer make the parts or are completely out of business,” GAO notes. Air Force officials told GAO that a simple wiring harness requires a 30-week lead time for finding a new contractor and producing the part. Ripping out parts from planes that work, or “cannibalizing,” is now common practice in military aviation.

Then there’s scale, or lack thereof. The Air Force in the 1990s planned for about 650 F-22s, which were designed to replace the F-15. That number fell to about 380 over time, according to GAO, but in 2009 President Obama and Defense Secretary Bob Gates convinced Congress to shut down the production line.

At the time Messrs. Obama and Gates argued that the U.S. had to focus on defeating unconventional enemies (Islamic State), whereas the F-22 is designed for air dominance against conventional national forces, which could also be handled by the new F-35.

This now looks like a mistake, as Russia and China improve their military technology and the F-35 continues to have a cascade of problems. The Pentagon last week grounded the entire F-35 fleet for a fuel tube issue, though most were cleared to fly again as of Monday. Now the F-35 is the only fighter show in town. The Air Force looked at restarting the F-22 production line and predicted it’d cost billions to launch. That isn’t happening.

The larger mistake of the Obama years was cutting defense willy-nilly to pay for entitlements and other priorities, which meant military units in all branches were crunched for training, flight hours and maintenance. Budget uncertainty through “continuing resolutions” from Congress compounded the pain.

Republicans in Congress and the Trump Administration this year accepted Democratic demands to spend more on income transfers to get a bump in defense spending that included some $47 billion to get planes flying. But Democrats are promising to cut defense again if they win the House. They pretend that a vote for free health care is affordable, but damaged planes on the tarmac is one more lesson that more spending on entitlements eventually means too few planes that can fly.



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Did revenues decline in real dollars?
« Reply #1082 on: October 22, 2018, 06:47:37 AM »
https://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2018/oct/19/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-said-gop-tax-cut-led-higher-revenues-did-/?fbclid=IwAR0DQ2ujBhDDDO7SpfEhDTsioh4gv8G_z89RTAUhyCpxvLblpgFbBk41AN4

My take:

Tax rates were cut and revenues went up to new record highs.  Exactly the opposite of what CBO and the fact checkers promised.  So the"fact checkers" move the goal posts as needed to get to their desired result.  Look at revenues in "real dollars" instead, a ratio of dollars to the inflation rate.  Sorry but which dollar is the real dollar?  Were the $10 trillion in deficits borrowed under Obama "real dollars"?  Or are they smaller now?  The interest on the extra $10 trillion is real as the Fed has more than doubled its discount rate since Trump's election.

Note the elephant in the room they are missing.   

Tax Rate  x  Income  =  Tax Revenue.   

If tax rates are significantly lowered and revenues remained constant, that is a big fcuking deal.  It means NATIONAL INCOME SURGED WITH THE LOWERING OF TAX RATES!  Who bleeping knew?!  Certainly not Politi"Fact"!

Taxation is a necessity, a necessary evil.  Isn't accomplishing it with less damage, minimal damage to the private economy and our incentives and disincentives to produce an amazing accomplishment?  Not to them! This crucial point is totally lost on Leftist partisans masquerading as truth tellers.

Tax revenues are dollars used to pay expenses.  Inflation, meaning the relative value of things over time, is another matter.  The devaluing of our dollar is INTENTIONAL.  The Fed has a goal of 2% inflation and they are hitting or surpassing it consistently.  Inflation is the law of the land.  If we/they don't like it, STOP DOING IT.  It is not something that comes out of tax policy.  Inflation is a separate issue from collecting tax revenue. 

Incomes don't automatically keep up with inflation.  Income keeping up with inflation is a goal, not a presumption.  Ask Maduro about that.  Or Jimmy Carter.

What about the basic macro economic principle that government spending needs go down when private economy incomes go up.  John Maynard Keynes, 101.  Tax revenue relative to the need for tax revenue would be a much more relevant ratio.  Fewer people need food stamps.  Fewer people are on unemployment, etc.  More people get more money form the private sector instead of government.  The need for tax revenue goes down with the expanding private economy.  The budget deficit should be shrinking!  But instead, spending went up - because previous Congresses bound future Congresses and the electorate to entitlement spending with increases designed to be impossible to reverse.
----
I don't see 'politically neutral' Politi"Fact" apply this argument to long term capital gains taxation or any other skewed measure that doesn't turn the argument leftward for them.  Did they fact check "real dollars" on the phony Warren Buffet vs. his secretary's tax rate argument?  I have assets I have held for decades while the dollar devalued.  I cannot sell the assets because of the tax on the inflationary gain, not on any real gain.  But the government doesn't make that adjustment.  Why don't I declare my income in "real dollars" and see where in tax jail that puts me.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
WSJ: Debt to cost more than defense
« Reply #1083 on: November 11, 2018, 12:26:07 PM »
Note:  Fails to mention the end of the Cold War and attendant decline of military spending.
====================

 By Kate Davidson and
Daniel Kruger
Nov. 11, 2018 7:00 a.m. ET

In the past decade, U.S. debt held by the public has risen to $15.9 trillion from $5.1 trillion, but financing all of that debt hasn’t been a problem. Low inflation and strong global demand for safe U.S. Treasury bonds held the government’s interest costs down.

That’s in the process of changing.

Interest rates are rising as inflation normalizes around the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. That and the sheer scale of debt being accumulated by the federal government has put the U.S. on a path of rising interest costs that in the years to come could crowd out other government spending priorities and rattle markets.

In 2017, interest costs on federal debt of $263 billion accounted for 6.6% of all government spending and 1.4% of gross domestic product, well below averages of the previous 50 years. The Congressional Budget Office estimates interest spending will rise to $915 billion by 2028, or 13% of all outlays and 3.1% of gross domestic product.
Federal outlays, interest as a percentage ofGDPSource: Labor Department via St. Louis Fed;Congressional Budget Office
%Actual
Projected1940’60’802000’200.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.5

Along that path, the government is expected to pass the following milestones: It will spend more on interest than it spends on Medicaid in 2020; more in 2023 than it spends on national defense; and more in 2025 than it spends on all nondefense discretionary programs combined, from funding for national parks to scientific research, to health care and education, to the court system and infrastructure, according to the CBO.

From defense to Medicaid, in other words, it will become a bipartisan challenge. The early 1990s were the last time the government’s interest expenses were high and rising. Back then, Washington politicians routinely worried about “bond market vigilantes” on Wall Street who threatened higher costs on debt if deficits weren’t contained.

To confront the problem, President George H.W. Bush did a budget deal with Democrats that raised taxes on the wealthy, alienating Republicans and undermining his chances for a second term in office. President Bill Clinton abandoned campaign promises of a big fiscal stimulus program.

By next September a divided Congress will need to decide whether to extend a budget agreement which boosted federal spending by $300 billion for two years over limits enacted in a 2011 law. Beyond that lawmakers need to decide whether to extend President Trump’s individual income tax cuts, which are set to expire in 2025.

“The fact that interest is the fastest growing part of the budget and is on track to eclipse other important pieces of the budget—for instance, spending on children—is going to cause more hesitation just to charge every single item,” said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a deficit watchdog group.

The Treasury Department said last month outlays for net interest on the public debt rose 20% in fiscal year 2018, one of the key drivers behind increased spending last year.

Debt as a share of gross domestic product is projected to climb over the next decade, from 78% at the end of this year—the highest it has been since the end of World War II—to 96.2% in 2028, according to CBO projections. As the overall size of our debt load grows, so too do the size of interest payments.

At the same time, the Federal Reserve is in the process of gradually raising short-term interest rates. It is doing that because inflation has moved up to 2% from near zero in 2015. With unemployment low it could go even higher. In the next five years about 70% of the federal debt will mature and need to be refinanced at these higher interest rates.

President Trump says the central bank and its Chairman Jerome Powell are raising rates too fast, unnecessarily constraining economic growth and making it more difficult to manage the government’s debt.

“I would like to see the rates be low and pay amortization, pay off debt,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal last month. “And when he keeps raising interest rates, you can’t do that.”

Federal outlays/interest as a pct. of GDPSource: Congressional Budget OfficeNote: 2018 and 2028 numbers are projections
DefenseNondefenseNet interest
19681993201820280%2.557.510

Even if interest rates were falling, the government wouldn’t be anywhere near paying off debt. The U.S. Treasury is set to issue twice as much debt in 2018 as it did in 2017, according to Treasury Department borrowing estimates. That’s because budget deficits are rising, the result of slow revenue growth associated with tax cuts and this year’s deal between Republicans and Democrats to increase spending.

The deficit will rise even further in the event of a recession, as revenue slows and automatic spending for programs such as unemployment benefits and food stamps increases. That would lead the government to borrow even more, adding to interest expenses. The CBO’s projections don’t factor in a recession in the next decade, but it would be remarkable if one doesn’t occur. The expansion is already on track to become the longest in U.S. history next June.

Looking back on what happened in the 1990s, Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a left-leaning think tank, says, “we’ve been there before, and it’s worked out.”

Deficits back then turned to surpluses, thanks to tough budget choices by both parties and a long period of strong economic growth. Policy makers will have plenty of opportunities to confront deficits in the coming years, Mr. Baker said.

But the opportunity to ignore them could be passing.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
The entitlement endgame
« Reply #1084 on: November 25, 2018, 04:00:41 PM »
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234584

Revolt Or Collapse: Pick One*


As usual the lie factory continues here -- and this is from someone who knows better.

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit millions of Americans, but are major drivers of our national debt, which has skyrocketed to more than $21 trillion. If every U.S. taxpayer was billed for an equal share of that debt, we would each be charged about $400,000.

The cause of our out-of-control national debt is rooted in current and long-term obligations of these three big entitlement programs, due in large part to rapidly rising costs and an aging population.

Again, let me reference this Ticker, just one of dozens I've written over the years, that points out the truth: There is no crisis in Social Security.  There is a problem which can be addressed, but the problem was caused directly by tampering with interest rates within The Fed and Congress along with allowing millions of able-bodied people to claim "disability" -- and some of them have been documented to have run marathons while allegedly "disabled."

Nonetheless Social Security is fixable without a large amount of pain.  Why?  Because it is a progressive tax-based system (you get more back in benefit for the first dollar you pay in via taxes than later ones), it holds a relatively large body of bonds which by design were constructed to allow "pig-in-python" style bursts of baby creation (ala The Boomers) as the designers anticipated that happening (along with "busts" at other times) and the tax rate is, in relative terms, high.  (12.4% of all wages earned up to the cap -- you only  "see" half of it as a payroll deduction -- unless you're self-employed!)  Further the boomer pig in the python will start to recede in ten years -- 2028 -- as boomers start dying and so will their outsized proportion of the "draw" on said system.

In other words the conflation of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is an intentional lie that is repeated for political purposes and any politician or other policy "wonk" who does so deserves to be destroyed as his or her intent is to wreck this nation on a permanent fiscal basis by generating enough screaming among seniors to guarantee the actual problem is not addressed.

The entire problem with our budget lies in Medicare and Medicaid.  The reason is multi-fold but is focused in the following places:

The Medicare tax rate is 2.9%, (1.45% each for employer and employee), or less than one quarter of that for Social Security.  Yet last fiscal year Social Security spent $1.03 trillion while Medicare and Medicaid spent $1.46 trillion with approximately $1.15 trillion being Medicare.  In other words Medicare assesses taxes at less than 1/4 the rate of Social Security yet pays out more money.

Medical spending as a percentage of the national economy has increased by a factor of five since Medicare was put into place. Medical spending was approximately 4% of GDP in the 1960s; at 4% of GDP Medicare was sustainable indefinitely as its tax receipt projections were approximately correct in covering expected expenditures.  Medical spending is almost 20% of GDP today, or five times as high in percentage terms.  Yet the Medicare tax rate has not advanced at all.  It would have to be five times what it is today, and advance at the rate of medical spending generally indefinitely into the future, to be solvent.

If is not possible to "catch up" now even if you immediately made the Medicare tax 15%, which would be higher than Social Security, because those who are retired now didn't pay the higher rate and the bonds were not bought with their funds.  As such it is flatly impossible to fix this on a prospective basis through higher taxes.  IT CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE TOO MUCH TIME HAS PASSED WITHOUT DOING IT OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS.

Medicaid is even worse because there no tax assessed to cover it.  That is, Medicaid is a "pure" entitlement and last year spent approximately $400 billion.  You get it because you're low-income, not because you paid into it while working and now need it.  For this reason you cannot fix Medicaid with any sort of targeted, employment-based tax because there isn't one and the regressive nature of such taxes means people will leave the workforce to avoid paying same and then collect it.  In fact that has happened now and continues to this day.
By 2040, Medicare, which funds health care for people 65 and older, will cover 88 million enrollees and the cost per enrollee by then is estimated to more than triple. Medicare’s hospital insurance program, known as Part A, can only pay full benefits through 2024, according to the program’s trustees.

Why will it triple on a per-person basis?

Simple -- we have an out-of-control medical racketeering set of enterprises in the United States, all of which are illegal under more than 100 year old law.  Years ago I wrote an article on Lilies explaining how exponents invariably screw anyone who relies on them for a long-term "growth" plan.  It's mathematics, not politics and mathematics cannot be evaded.  But far worse when you only think you see the tiniest bit of the problem coming you're nearly dead -- every time -- because of how exponential math works.  As such the la-la-la-la-la nonsense out of politicians on this and all related subjects has only one rational, society-preserving response: REVOLT.

Let's make this clear right up front: Neither the left's "Medicare for all" or the right's "Repeal and replace" mantras will do a damn thing about this, and 2024 is not far away.  I will also remind you that markets never let you actually hit the wall just as they did not in 2000 and 2007.

Once they suss out that the politicians will not fix it because the people are sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting for people like Trump and Occasional Cortex the market will dive.  Not a little, a lot.  This will force the naked swimmers in the pool above water level for their ugliness to be seen by all.

Again -- there is no tax change that can fix this.  The only means to fix it is to dramatically cut medical spending in the economy as a whole -- not cost-shift it, not make someone else pay, stop paying entirely right now, not in the future, not via some claimed "cost curve" bend in the future that never comes.

Medical spending as a percentage of the economy must collapse back to about 4% of the economy, or approximately one fifth of what it is now, and it must do so today.

This is not impossible, contrary to those who say it is.  As just one example we can take as much as $400 billion out of federal health spending per year right now, today, forevermore by simply addressing one self-inflicted, very damaging and expensive set of disease treatments: Diabetes. 

To those who claim that sort of action would be "cruel" I reply that it is the very opposite of cruel because not only does it take a huge whack out of the federal budget (and state pension expenses) it also will dramatically improve the life of those who suffer from this condition, including in many cases reversing it entirely!

Please explain how that is "cruel".  I'm waiting......

When it comes to surgeries (Hospital Part "A" stuff) may I point to The Surgery Center of Oklahoma which routinely, even when it has to buy supplies and drugs at monopolist prices which are 100-500% or more of a market price, manages to undercut the local hospital in your town by that very same 80% I cited as necessary?  Were they able to buy supplies and drugs at market prices it would likely be 90%.  Oh, and you're one twentieth as likely to acquire an infection in said surgery center as your local hospital because they can't bill you for the cost of fixing their own mistakes and as a result they're far more-careful than your local hospital is.

Incidentally those "mistakes" (negligence, mostly) kill 200,000 Americans a year and maim millions which does even more economic damage since a dead (or maimed) person either produces nothing or far less than they otherwise could.

In 2011, in my book Leverage, I laid out a means to fix this.  Through the years since I've fleshed it out a bit more, but the basic premise remains:

Enforce the damned law against all the medical providers, require them to post prices and charge everyone the same price for the same thing, thereby allowing competition into the game.

Make illegal any sort of cost-hiding (such as the current practice of not being quoted a charge and then having your insurance company play the "explanation of benefits" game.)  This is illegal everywhere else in the economy with damn good reason -- it is, in every case, a criminal conspiracy as it intentionally screws some people who have no opportunity to shop or say no.  In other words you must get a bill and submit it to the insurance company yourself so you see the entire bill, and you must agree in advance to the charges.  When that's physically impossible (e.g. you're on your back having a heart attack) you cannot be charged more than someone who is conscious and able to give consent for the same procedure.

Medicaid can be rendered unnecessary in its entirety by these changes (no, this doesn't mean poor people get no medical care -- see the text of the bill.  They in fact get superior care to what they get now.)

Forbid drug companies from differentially-pricing across national boundaries -- either directly by law or by dropping the law that currently forbids me from getting on a plane, filling my suitcase with drug "X" in said nation and flying back to resell it in the United States.

Forbid government (or care invoiced to the government on behalf of a citizen) from paying anything for medical care where a lifestyle change will provide substantially equivalent or superior outcomes.

Force alleged "insurance" to actually be insurance.  What we now call "health insurance" is not insurance; it is a scam, a fraud under the law and a felony criminal offense in every single instance.  Actual insurance by the definition of the word is a group of people who pay a small amount of money into a pool in anticipation of a possible but not certain loss, and from which losses are then paid to those who suffer them.  By definition with insurance once you have a loss you no longer pay anything; the company pays you, and it is criminal fraud to buy an alleged "insurance" policy against either a certain or already existing loss.
Congress would have to act to put into place much of this.  But not all.  The President is the head of the Executive, which is in charge of law enforcement.  Myriad existing parts of the health system are breaking existing, in many cases 100+ year old, laws -- specifically related to anti-trust.  In the specific case of anti-trust these violations are not civil offenses they are criminal felonies.  As a result right here and now, today, the President could direct the US Attorney General to bring said charges tomorrow as could any State Attorney General, since every state legal code I'm examined has similar statutes to 15 USC Chapter 1.

The people of this nation have the ability to put a stop to what is otherwise going to be a certain collapse -- not just in asset markets but of the government itself.  This is not going to happen in 2024 when Medicare cannot pay it will happen before that date because in the history of the world markets have never allowed an actual end date to be reached before they throw up all over the impending disaster.  To expect otherwise is to claim that literally everyone in the world is stupid beyond words.

May I point out that when Medicare's funds are exhausted that $1.1 trillion dollar expenditure (and rising) from last year will be immediately reduced by 75%?  That's right -- they took in just $260 billion last fiscal year in Medicare taxes but spent four times that amount.  If you think the government can immediately add $800 billion to the deficit without interest rates spiking to 10% or more overnight -- which instantly crashes the markets and government both -- you have rocks in your head.

Exactly when the markets will blow up is not determinable in advance but that it will happen is an absolute certainty.  Once it happens there will be no orderly path available to the government or anyone else to stop or mitigate the damage since the entire problem with the market throwing up on such an event is that confidence in the ability and desire of government to address the issue will have been irretrievably lost.

I will remind you that in 2008 the housing sector and frauds in a small part of it, centered in a few "hot" markets such as Florida and California, caused the Stock Market to lose well over half of its value.  This was due to scams in perhaps 3% of the US Economy.

This blowup will be not in 3% of the economy but rather nearly 20% of it and thus will be six times as bad.

The market will not lose 50% of its value, it will lose 90% or more of its value.

GDP will not decline a few percent, it will decline 20% or more.

We will not lose a few million jobs, we will lose 20% or more of the jobs in our economy.

There will not be a couple of investment banks that fail; all of the money-center banks will fail as will all businesses that have any sort of material debt exposure.  That's every large bank, the majority of regional banks and more than half of the publicly traded firms in the United States.

There will not be a few people who lose everything -- homes, jobs, savings and retirement -- up to a third of Americans, or perhaps as much as 100 million people, will lose everything.

The odds that some sizable percentage of that 100 million people will turn to extreme and uncoordinated violence is very high.  A third of the nation may well end up hungry and homeless.  If you think the government will be able to control or put that down think again; the number of angry, willing-to-do-it individuals will be several times the size of the military and police forces combined while federal, state and local government ability to pay said forces will have collapsed.  How many cops will show up for work when their paychecks bounce and they know going to work means their family is defenseless?  How many members of the military will suddenly decide that the Constitution means something and orders be damned?  There's no way to know the answers to those questions in advance, but I assure you -- you're not going to like the answers.

You think this can't happen here?  Oh yes it can.  It has in many other nations, some with ridiculous amounts of very valuable natural resource -- such as oil.  Venezuela anyone?

If you think this is not serious enough to get off your ass now and demand resolving the problem with something as immediate and forceful as this law, backing up that demand with whatever is necessary to make it happen, and yes, I do mean whatever is necessary, then you are through your inaction giving consent to an all-on collapse of our society and government within the next six years.

The market's determination that you're un-serious and don't give a crap, at which point the option to address this problem peacefully and politically will expire, could come at any time including today -- and it is certain on the present path that the hard end-point will arrive before the end of Trump's second term when Medicare runs out of money.

This is no longer an abstract issue that is at some point "far off" in the future.

It must be addressed now.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1085 on: November 25, 2018, 05:34:30 PM »
Please post in Health Care Politics thread as well.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Things Democrats support that cost more then the wall
« Reply #1086 on: January 10, 2019, 09:44:20 AM »
The Green New Deal costs 3600 times more - to gain what, a hundredth of a degree less warming?

On a smaller scale of care with spending, he feds spend $613,634 to boost “intimacy and trust” of transgender women and their male partners.

The list linked at Drudge:
https://news.grabien.com/story-things-democrats-have-funded-cost-more-border-wall

“Rural Utility Service.” This program costs taxpayers $8.2 billion/year and has no actual purpose after its original intent — bringing electricity to rural communities — was long ago achieved. It’s now being used to bring broadband access to small communities (usually with populations of less than 20,000). However there’s no indication the “beneficiaries” of this expensive government agency actually appreciate the program, and the majority of its projects are not completed on time or within budget.

Sugar Subsidies. America, as Democrats frequently intone, faces a health crisis. What they don’t tell us is that it’s largely of their own making, as Congress subsidizes the production of unhealthy foods like sugar and high-fructose corn syrup. Eliminating sugar subsidies alone would save $6 billion, enough to fund the border wall; it would also have the added benefit of helping curb the nation’s obesity epidemic.
Community Development Grants. These grants were created in the 70s to revitalize failing American cities. The program has almost always been plagued with dysfunction, with grants going to wealthy communities and other recipients failing to produce “accountability and results.” Citizens Against Government Waste reports that even President Obama called for reining in the program. It’s elimination would save $15 billion over 5 years.

The United Nations. As the United Nation’s largest contributor, the U.S. in 2016 donated $10 billion to the U.N. As CAGW notes, reducing these contributions just 25 percent would create a savings of $12.5 billion over 10 years. Of the money Congress appropriates for the United Nations, $5 million taxpayer dollars are itemized for abortions in foreign countries.

Amtrak. Congress could sell Amtrak to the private sector where it would almost certainly be operated more efficiently, but instead it’s showered in billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. Over the next five years, these subsidies will cost $9.7 billion.

Unused Real Estate. Congress appropriates money to maintain federal real estate that’s not actually being used. Per CAGW, an October 31, 2017, CRS report found that, “In FY2016, federal agencies owned 3,120 buildings that were vacant (unutilized), and another 7,859 that were partially empty (underutilized).” Current laws require the government to undergo a series of steps before considering a sale of these buildings. Were selling this unused property prioritized, the 5-year savings are estimated at $15 billion. Simply maintaining the unused buildings annually costs $1.7 billion.

Foreign Aid. American taxpayers currently spend more than $50 billion a year helping develop foreign countries. Many of the recipients are not known for being America’s closest allies — such as Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda, South Africa, Russia, the Congo, Sudan, and Zambia — which raises the question of what Americans are receiving in exchange for all of this aid. Cutting these donations back just 10 percent would be enough to fund the wall. 

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. The Government Accountability Office estimates taxpayers are spending more than $137 billion annually on “payment errors,” which covers all manner of waste, fraud, and abuse within Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The feds could implement the same kind of fraud protections credit card companies used to ensure against abuse, but don’t. In fact, Congress has gone in the opposite direction, winding down the program intended to police fraud within Medicare, the so-called Recovery Audit Contractor. In other words, Congress is knowingly funding tens of billions of dollars of fraud annually.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
considering ~ 80% are Crats
« Reply #1087 on: January 16, 2019, 03:00:36 PM »
This poll is not bad.

Most work in government for the security so the fact their paychecks are delayed - no surprise about that but then most of us would not be happy with it.

Only 54 % blame Trump  - that is a surprise:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-shows-federal-workers-dont-prefer-border-wall-getting-paid-155101845.html

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Government regulations,"Net Neutrality" repealed 1 year ago, the sky didn't fall
« Reply #1088 on: January 25, 2019, 06:32:53 AM »
Speaking of Leftist misnomers, "net neutrality" always meant government control of the internet.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/net-neutrality-ajit-pai-internet/
[Also  https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/12/28/year-after-net-neutrality-repeal-internet-alive-and-well-and-faster-than-ever/AoVm2iZI9Jxs0ZzZFXsOfM/story.html]

EDITORIALS
One Year Later, 'Net Neutrality' Zealots Proved Dead Wrong
FacebookTwitterLinkedInShare Licensing
1/04/2019
Deregulation: A year ago, "net neutrality" zealots warned that its repeal would spell doom for a "free and open" internet. They could not have been more wrong.

Net neutrality mania was so intense that one year ago FCC Chairman Ajit Pai had to cancel his appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show because of death threats he'd received. That was the same day the FCC published its final rule repealing "net neutrality."

So-called experts predicted that removing this cumbersome Obama-era regulatory scheme — which granted the FCC virtually unchecked power over internet providers — would lead to the demise of the internet.

Horror Stories
Repealing "net neutrality" regulations "would be the final pillow in (the internet's) face," said The New York Times. The ACLU said it "risks erosion of the biggest free-speech platform the world has ever known." CNET declared that "net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same.  CNN labeled repeal the "end of the internet as we know it."
[I can't believe CNN got it wrong!]

One of the Democratic commissioners on the FCC claimed that repealing "net neutrality" would "green light to our nation's largest broadband providers to engage in anti-consumer practices, including blocking, slowing down traffic, and paid prioritization of online applications and services."


There were protests and lawsuits. The biggest companies on the internet mounted online campaigns. Democrats vowed to make "net neutrality" a major campaign issue.

What Actually Happened
A year later, none of the horror stories came true. In fact, average internet speeds climbed by roughly a third last year. The number of homes with access to fiber internet jumped 23% last year, according to the Fiber Broadband Association.

Oh, and "net neutrality" was a nonissue in the Democratic midterm campaigns. One party official said that Dems didn't campaign on it because: "It's not something that people bring up in their top list of concerns."

In a statement last week, Pai said that, "the FCC's light-touch approach is working."

Meanwhile, at this year's CES, the industry will highlight the promise of 5G internet, which allows speeds 100 times faster than the current wireless networks. D-Link plans to showcase a 5G router that will let homeowners cut the cord and still get speeds 40 times faster.

Promise of 5G
Not only will speed climb exponentially, but 5G will inject still more competition in the ISP market. Even "net neutrality" advocates should be willing to admit that there's no need for a massive federal regulatory system in a highly competitive market, since no internet provider would dare throttle or block sites for fear of losing customers.

What we did learn over the past year is that the real threats to a "free and open" internet aren't the ISPs, but the self-appointed internet censors at Google, Facebook and Twitter.

The only question that remains is whether those "net neutrality" zealots will apologize to the public for repeatedly crying wolf.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 06:56:11 AM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
Another entitlement to please Ivanka?
« Reply #1090 on: February 07, 2019, 12:03:03 PM »
I loved the speech overall but they have to be kidding with this.

When we are 22 + trillion in debt :

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/06/americans-are-wary-of-paying-for-trumps-family-leave-proposal.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1091 on: February 07, 2019, 02:11:14 PM »
I know, I know.  Seriously Donald?

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
another murky behind the scenes government program
« Reply #1092 on: February 09, 2019, 03:45:26 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72264
    • View Profile
Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process
« Reply #1093 on: February 09, 2019, 04:08:53 PM »
The applicable legislation is already on the books.

Bad political juju to fuk with it here.

Some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
government sponsored Mariachi sports
« Reply #1095 on: March 09, 2019, 07:45:27 AM »
I am pleased to know tax dollars are being used to promote Mexican culture in the Fernando Valley so the illegals can have fun:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2019/03/wasteful-spending-in-midst-of-22-trillion-national-debt-mariachi-training-soviet-wine-study/


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Re: Deficit growing faster than predicted
« Reply #1097 on: May 01, 2019, 10:23:21 AM »
It's hard to find good charts on spending.  The black line labeled "Current Law" is what I assume CBO uses.  Percentage of GDP is one way to look at it.


Hard to believe no one wants to get a handle on this.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19762
    • View Profile
"Hard to believe no one wants to get a handle on this",

like trillions on "infrastructure"

you mean like medicare for all

free tuition

I got a kick out of the Wall Street today somewhere saying we should not increase taxes to pay for college but take from the the endowments of these colleges.

Everyone all for it as long as someone else pays . - anyone but the people going to school.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19446
    • View Profile
Medicare for all, Doubling the income tax wouldn't pay for it
« Reply #1099 on: May 01, 2019, 03:22:08 PM »
https://freebeacon.com/politics/expert-doubling-income-taxes-wont-even-cover-medicare-for-all-costs/
------------------------------
One reason doubling the income tax rate won't pay for it is because it wouldn't hardly bring in any more money.

Double the top 40% rate?  To 80%??  Sounds like what France did and abandoned it because it didn't work.