What’s Driving the 2010 Deficit?
I saw this story today. And started to wonder. What is driving the 2010 deficit?
First off. A complaint:
Spending dipped 2.7 percent to $311.7 billion. Last October's outlays were inflated by the $33 billion spent on the first round of financial bailouts at the peak of the financial crisis.
If you take away that $33 billion dollars (I know you can't, but simply accounting for "normal" spending), then spending actually rose 3% over last October. The deficit for October is $176.4 billion - remember when yearly deficits under Bush were much and people went mental? We are set to high Bush's highest deficit number (sans 2008) in December of 2009. For the 2010 budget. Scary.
Revenues continue to drop.
The imbalance came mostly from lower receipts of individual and corporate taxes. Receipts were $135.3 billion, a 17.9 percent drop from last October.
Obviously due to the fact that more people are unemployed now. 10.2% or 17.5%, depending on how you want to count. I like the 10.2% number, myself. Because it's the normal standard we use and the 17.5% counts people who are "under-employed" but I don't think it's a number you can assign responsibility for.
Here's the point of this post though:
The Obama administration expects this year's deficit to reach $1.5 trillion. That would make it the third straight record annual deficit.
If TARP ($700 billion) and Porkulus ($787 billion) drove the 2009 deficit. What is driving the $1.5 trillion one in 2010? If those are one time expenses, they do not count for 2010 in government accounting. So what's driving it? If TARP is included in the 2008 Deficit (as I thought it was, which is why the final Bush deficit was so high), why is it also accounted for here, as part of the 2009 deficit?
You'd think, naturally that if you remove ~$1.5 trillion from the books, you'll be in much better territory. The 2009 deficit was around $1.8 trillion ($1.4 is what DC uses officially, as they removed ~$400 billion off book). So if you take $1.5 trillion away from this, shouldn't the deficit be back down to around $300 billion?
If not. Why not? Why is it so high for 2010?
ObamaCare/PelosiCare: The Debate Summed Up
The Berlin Wall was erected to force people to participate in a government run economy. If they tried to seek freedom from their government, they were put in jail or killed.
20 years ago today, it fell.
Yesterday, Democrats pushed a bill through the House, that will force people to buy health insurance and if they don't, they will be put in jail.
Apparently the Wall fell, but the ideas remain. The lesson wasn't learned very well.
The Problem with Moderate Republicans
Many republicans and bloggers ponder the rift between Conservative Republicans and Moderate Republicans - and are trying to find a way to breach that schism in an effort to ensure victory in 2010.
Most people (Ace, Allah, etal) that I read focus on the idea differences between the two.
Conservatives want the whole boat (social conservatism and economic conservatism)
Moderates want part of it (economic conservatism only or maybe only social conservatism)
But is it even more simple than that? This post about Crist and the Porkulus got me thinking.
Let's distill the issues down to a set core of values, first off. Let's say a "pure" republican is:
- Pro-Life
- Pro Traditional Marriage
- Limited Government
- Low Taxes
- Against Illegal Immigration
- Pro Gun
Your "ideal republican" maybe 1-6, but would you vote for a guy who is 3-6? i.e. He's pro-choice and pro gay marriage. I'd say yes. A minority might say no, but overall that's a pretty good candidate. But would you vote for a guy who is 1-2, but not 3-6. I'd say no. 3-6 are non-negotiable. Right? That's the foundation. Small government, low taxes, pro gun. I don't think many republicans would disagree with this notion.
So, what's the problem with Moderates. They fit that. They are, essentially 3-6'ers. They aren't social warriors, right? They profess to be economic conservatives, but leave the bandwagon on social issues.
But the problem is they aren't even rock hard on those issues. They are squishy. Olympia Snowe says she is an economic conservative, but might vote for Obamacare. And she's certainly not a social conservative, right? So what is she?
If her "core" beliefs are that flexible and she can vote for big government and higher taxes, then what good is she? The converse is true as well. John McCain. He's pro-life and pro-gun. And pretends to be an economic conservative (I'd disagree, but that's another issue). But, as we see so many times, he doesn't hold to his guns on what he believes. He'll negotiate his core away at a moment's notice, if the opportunity is there.
So, really, that's the problem isn't it? It's not an all or nothing party. 1-6 or die. It's a stick to your beliefs or you are useless. If you don't want to be a social warrior - fine. Don't be. But then you must be an economic warrior. You can't go in and say "Well, maybe a tax increase here is okay." or "Obamacare is just dandy. Maybe I'll vote for it." and expect people to continue to support you. This is the problem with moderates - their beliefs in anything aren't firm enough.
I'd have absolutely no problem with Snowe as a social liberal, as long as she's an economic conservative - and sticks to her guns in that sense. If she won't support a pro-life judge or whatever. Cool. I don't care. But you can't turn around and stab Republicans in the back where you are supposed to be a reliable vote.
Arlen Specter was the same way. You aren't a social con. Wonderful. Who cares. But don't turn around and argue for big government spending and tax increases, too. You can't go left on all issues and expect people to support you.
And I think that's where the root of the problem is. (And yeah, I'm poor at explaining it). It's not -really- about social cons vs social moderates. It's about sticking to what you believe. Be steadfast in your core values.
If you are a Republican, who isn't a reliable vote on social issues, don't go in front of cameras and hedge on big government spending then wonder why the party hates you. And it's not the party's fault if you can't stand up for a single thing the party believes in. That's your problem, not ours.
A smaller example would be Ace or Allahpundit. They aren't pure conservatives. No one would argue with this. But you know where they'll come down on the things that matter to them. They are going to be reliable on economic issues (Except TARP, damn you both), war on terror, taxes, guns and government spending. Not so much on social warrior issues.
In an even smaller sense, this - I think - is the conservative problem with Little Green Footballs of late. It got popular because of the War on Terror and Islamic extremism. Since the WoT is being neglected by Obama, and the site has become more apologetic to Islamic Extremism - there is little reason to expect conservatives to love this site any longer.
Back to the original example of Charlie Crist. He wants to be a Republican candidate for Senate. He's not a social warrior, but he says he's a fiscal conservative. But he turned around and hugged Obama and supported Porkulus. Before he came out against it later. And even more recently, he pulled a Charlie Gibson (Porkulus? Never heard of it.). Which would go back to the original point - what is he? If he's not steadfast in his fiscal conservatism -and- he's not a social conservative ... what good is he?
It's not about party purity as so many suggest, he's simply not reliable in any way. And that's the real issue, isn't it?
The National Debt. Some Cogent Thoughts.
The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.
...
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
...
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans--a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.
...
Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.
Congress will now be asked to raise the debt limit to $13 trillion dollars. Deficits wil be more than $1 trillion dollars every year for the next 10 - at least.
Is Obama Stupid?
Apparently, today, Obama said this:
‘UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems’
As argument for his ObamaCare plan. For the plan. Not against it.
Can I reword this a little bit?
We’ve successfully screwed up running a service that 100% of the country uses. We’ve totally screwed it up so bad, that, in fact, it’s nearly bankrupt. So, can we run the healthcare industry? Yes we can!
I mean. Really. His argument is that they can't run the post office, which everyone is practically forced to use, but they can run 15% of the economy? Really. Really?
It's a joke. The guy has to be stupid.
UPDATE:
Alternate Obama Astroturfing Sign
So the left is engaging in projection, accusing republicans of astroturfing - all the while demanding that leftists astroturf to help pass healthcare reform.
Obama sent out an email asking people to hold up signs thanking congressmen for trying to pass a bill. Here is your alternate sign to hold up to those congressmen.
Enjoy, ya fishy bastards.
UPDATE: By demand. Since it's generally acknowledged that Obama's reform is going to hurt the elderly the most - by making treatments harder to access. Here is the real message that Obama should send out.
Obama to Replace Cash for Clunkers with Cash For Grannies
Following up on the success with the Cash for Clunkers program; The Obama Administration today announced a new program - to be passed after the August Recess - called Cash For Grannies.
The idea is to get rid of all the Grannies that are polluting our planet and replace them with new, more efficient voters that don't require so much healthcare expenditures. People who turn in their grannies to Washington will receive a free Public Option to the Universal Healthcare Bill. As with the Cash for Clunkers program, you're free Public Option Insurance will be paid for by people who are not enrolled on the Public Option - so there is no cost to anyone who turns in their granny.
Obama said, "This will help us lower our costs. First off, we will no longer need to provide healthcare to grannies, that probably wouldn't prolong their lives anyways. Plus, the newer younger people are more efficient and are less harmful to the environment. Rest assured that all turned in grannies will be properly disposed of."
When asked about the Cash for Clunkers cash shortfall, and if that'd affect how Cash for Grannies was implemented, Obama simply said, "Trust me." There was no need for a follow-up question.
Critics of the program - who are probably racist - said this program would be harmful to the elderly and would not be able to improve coverage or decrease costs. Obviously, they are lying. As Obama said, "Yes, it will." There was no need for a follow-up question.
Dodd: Countrywide Discounts Are Okay
They are just like frequent flyer miles, or something. Which, of course, explains why he had to deny knowing about it for about a year. Cuz everyone lies about their frequent flyer program.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, said an account executive at Countrywide Financial Corp. told him that the VIP status was "nothing more than ... courtesy stuff."
Cuz, you know, when I get the same treatment as everyone else gets (frequent flyer miles), I totally lie about it.
No favorable treatment at all. That he's getting a unique benefit (mortgage rate reductions) from a company he's supposed to be overseeing is totally kosher. Of course. How could there be anything wrong with it?
Um. Why isn't he in jail? He'll probably end up getting re-elected instead.
National Mall / HealthCare Debacle Metaphor
Yep. Put them in charge of 1/5 of the economy.
Crumbling sidewalks near the Jefferson Memorial are sinking into the Tidal Basin. Reflecting pools are filled with green, smelly water. And millions of visitors have trampled the soil into virtual concrete where grass can't grow.
So they'll fix it right? Just like they'll assign funds properly to 1/5 of the economy, right? Yeah, right.
Last year, when dozens of ducks and ducklings died of avian botulism because the water in a mall pool near the Capitol was so fetid, and as urgent repairs were needed to stop the Jefferson Memorial's sea wall from sinking into the mud, the Senate killed a $3.5 million earmark for the mall.
Instead, funding went to projects back home. All told, Congress sent home more than $181 million in earmarks through the park service budget last year - an election year - according to data compiled by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense and analyzed by the AP. Nearly half that money was driven by lawmakers who were on the House and Senate appropriations committees.
Wait. You mean, given the choice between maintaining a decent park for everyone and giving money to their own voting bloc, they choose the latter? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
At least we know that congress is so competent at running things that service will be efficient and without any wait times. Oh hell.
And now we are promised a tax increase for this wonderful service? Well, damn. Why didn't you tell me in the first place? Sign me up, man.
Less care. More waits. More inefficient. Higher taxes. Less choice. It has all the makings of success!
Obama Defends Criticism of Stupid White Cop
Obama, under criticism for saying a white cop acted stupid for arrested a black professor, defended his actions, saying:
"I think that I have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the job that police officers do,"
And really, when you think about it, Obama is right. He, more than anyone else, understands how hard it is to be an officer. He has some buddies with a history of blowing up cops. So if anyone understands how hard their job is, it's Obama.