The Fake Spending Cuts


If they're so interested in balancing the budget, why are they increasing spending and calling it a cut?

The Federal government has not had an actual, official budget for many months.

When it was time for a new budget last year, the one proposed had so much pork and needless spending hikes in it that even the Democrats who controlled both houses could not get it passed.

And neither they nor the Republicans have succeeded in passing a budget, to this day. They have instead, kept the government funded with “Continuing Resolutions”, temporary agreements to “continue” spending at current rates while the budget is debated.

In 1995, such continuing resolutions actually helped reduce the National Debt, because they held to current levels of spending for months, instead of the next year’s increases.

And people assumed that this is what was going on this year…but they underestimated just how corrupt the Congress has become. Last year the Democrats controlling Congress did not agree to traditional Continuing Resolutions, maintaining current spending…their “resolutions” were actually based on the proposed budget that most members of Congress were rejecting.

Flash forward to the last few weeks:

The Republican leadership has made a big deal about having made two billion dollars in “cuts” from the Continuing Resolution…and when that one ended, six more billion from the next CR.

They have been claiming credit for “ten billion dollars in cuts”. This would, if it were true, be the first time in something like 60 years that the budget was actually cut, instead of the rate of increase simply being adjusted.

Even the 1995 Republican Revolution only cut the amount spending was increased. This was called “cuts” by the most ridiculous Liberals of the time, because they seriously think that increasing spending the “planned” amount is not an increase, at all. So if you plan to increase spending 3%, and then increase it 2%, that is a “cut”.

This is what I had feared the “cuts” in the Continuing Resolution actually were; just reductions in the increase.

But it’s worse…as I noted above, the CRs were actually based on the rejected, larger budget. And the Republican leadership is corrupt enough to reduce only those proposed super-increases, leaving the temporary budget still higher than last year, then claim credit as if they’d actually cut spending.

This explains more clearly, to me, why 54 Republicans, mostly TEA Party types, refused to vote for the CR.

Why Steal $700,000,000,000 from the US Economy?


Robin Hood stole from the Political Class and returned to the taxpayers made poor by the government's burden

With the US economy suffering its first depression in sixty years, why would the Liberal Democrats in Congress want to suck seven hundred billion dollars from the economy?

But that is what they’re demanding, with their bizarre claim that we should raise taxes in the midst of this economic crisis.

When they say letting job-producing businesses and families making more than $250K per year keep their money “will cost seven hundred billion dollars”, of course that means that NOT letting them keep it will cost the private economy that same amount.

And, of course, the private economy is what creates wealth and permanent jobs.

We have seen that for the past year, when the government’s make-work “stimulus” jobs each ended, causing unemployment to worsen.

A “stimulus” job is a burden on the economy that must eventually end, leaving the worker unemployed again…but a job at at a real company pays for itself…as long as the worker makes the employer a profit, the business keeps employing him.

So, in order to save our economy, we need to leave money in private hands, to create wealth that sustains private jobs, that create more wealth, on and on.

Remember, the Political Class thinks that it owns the money it confiscates in taxes…but in the real world, WE own it, and the entire economy is robbed when it’s taken by the government.

The T.E.A. Party is correct: We are Taxed Enough, Already.

We Need MORE Snow in DC


The thing about the government shutdown that should worry bureaucrats the most, is that we might realize we don't need them.

Watching pundits worrying about the shutdown of DC because of record snowfalls, and debating who to blame, asking whether this meant it is vulnerable to shutdown by other disasters, I found that they were entirely missing the point:

Aside from providing the perfect background for the fall of the global warming myth, it has illustrated for us how absolutely unimportant the Federal bureaucracy is for the nation’s well-being.

The “government shutdown” has proved as completely irrelevant to the rest of the country as it did in 1995, and 1990, and several times in the 1980s. For the most part, the Federal government…especially the expensive, or restrictive, aspects of it…is nothing but a burden on the backs of the American people.

Snow it in, or cut off its funding, and the real, productive people in the rest of the country not only do just fine, but are actually better-off.

What we need is for this kind of thing to happen more often.

Perhaps we could at least spare the innocent (albeit largely non-productive) DC locals the suffering, and have official, planned government shutdowns. We could start with the precedent of the December-to-April shutdown in 1995, caused by Clinton vetoing the fiscal restraint proposed by the Republican Congress; a shutdown that saved enough money to jump-started the move to the first nominal government surplus in decades.

We shut down much of the Federal government for four months, and tally up the savings. Next year, we increase it by some modest amount…say five percent. And we do that each year, until we find the point of diminishing returns. I figure it’ll be around the 364-day shutdown mark.

Washington, you’d better figure out you are doing us more harm than good, before it’s too late.

%d bloggers like this: