No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Politics' Category

January 21, 2011

Citizens United – one year later

by @ 7:39. Filed under Politics - National.

One year ago today, Citizens United earned a major victory for political speech in the Supreme Court. In honor of that, Citizens United president David Bossie and legal counsel Ted Olson released a statement on that, while Citizens United put together a video about it.

Quoting from Olson’s portion of the release:

I think it may be the most important case in history because what that decision said is that individuals, under the First Amendment, cannot be inhibited, cannot be restrained, cannot be threatened, cannot be censored by the government when they wish to speak about elections and the political process. What could be more important than that? This is a robust expression of our fundamental liberties. I think it is the most important decision ever to be rendered by the Supreme Court in connection with the freedom of citizens to participate in the political process.

January 20, 2011

Doyle staff used “Enron accounting” on their way out the door

by @ 23:18. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

The Legislative Audit Bureau reviewed a few “questionable” decisions by the staff of former governor Jim Doyle (Democrat, for those of you just tuning in) that allowed the state to claim it was in compliance with the $65 million statutory minimum balance at the end of FY2010 by claiming the state general fund balance was $71.1 million. In order of, in my humble and non-expert opinion, increasing severity, here are the four items of “concern” that fell outside the scope of established Government Accounting Standards and thus outside last month’s “unqualified audit opinion”:

  • $10.6 million in “lapsed” amounts from program revenue appropriations to the general fund that were covered not by cash-on-hand, but by either accounts receivable or other assets – As the report notes, this is legal under Wisconsin law. However, it made cash available for FY2010 that was either not yet in hand or could only be put in hand by asset sales. I really would like to know how much of that was from accounts receivable (and how much of those receipts actually came in) versus how much was backed by illiquid assets, as that would determine how much of that represents a further hole in the state budget.
  • $25.9 million in funds spent in FY2010 but not reported as spent until FY2011 – This is a new twist on the “delayed payment syndrome” practiced by many states and advocated by some who want to avoid an increase in the federal debt limit. Usually, they’re “honest” enough to not spend the money until the new fiscal year “resets” things, but in this case, the money was gone in one fiscal year with only the recording of the expenditure delayed until the following one. Further, as it appears the fiscal year of the spending authority doesn’t match up with the fiscal year of expenditure, the LAB notes it appears to be inconsistent with the spirit of the portion of the state Constitution prohibiting expenditures without lawful-and-authorized appropriations.
  • $406,700 “lapsed” from the Unclaimed Property fund to the general fund – It may be but a drop in the bucket, but it’s a double-dipper for the Doyle administration. By state law, all the proceeds from the Unclaimed Property fund are to go to the Common School Fund, and under the state Constitution, the “clear proceeds” of property that comes under the custodianship of the state by escheat (e.g., unclaimed property) is to be used for educational purposes.
  • $8.8 million in “lapsed” amounts from program revenue appropriations to the general fund that were neither covered by cash nor by any assets – Now we get to the potentially-serious. There was, is, and will be no expectation of that $8.8 million ever existing, yet the Doyle administration claimed it did. In the private sector, that is a convictable felony.

Except for the heist from the Unclaimed Property fund, each of those other categories, especially the “whole-cloth” lapsing, is more than the difference between the reported closing FY2010 balance and the statutory minimum balance. I wonder what J.B. Van Hollen is doing these days.

To answer newly-minted Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch’s question of what this does to the over-$100 billion deficit in the current FY2010/2011 biennial budget (as quoted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which for some reason chose to focus instead on the up-to-$3.3 billion structural deficit the FY2012/2013 biennial budget needs to fill), my best guess as to how much of that $45.7 million is part of the expanded hole is somewhere between $9.2 million (the amount of the wholly-nonexistent lapses plus the improper raid on the Unclaimed Property fund) and $19.8 million (adding in the remainder of the potentially-nonexistent lapses). The $25.9 million in “delayed-reporting” spending, while odious, would have been spent prior to the end of FY2011 anyway and thus doesn’t appear to represent a further liability to the state.

Returning to CPAC

by @ 18:21. Tags:
Filed under Politics - National.

For the second year in a row, I’ll be covering CPAC from the ranks of the bloggers. This year, FreedomWorks has joined RedState as sponsors of

Since Rep. Paul Ryan will be there, I’m likely to grab an interview with him, either at the conference itself or at his office. Much of the GOP Presidential field is also attending, and I hope to get a word with many of them.

January 14, 2011

Friday Hot Read – Michelle Malkin’s “Blame Righty: A condensed history”

by @ 9:20. Filed under Politics - National.

In her column today, Michelle Malkin outlined nine different episodes of violence from either leftists or non-partisan nuts originally blamed by the presstitutes, liberal activists (though we repeat ourselves), and Democrat politicians on the right. Read the column, and remember the close to the expanded introduction she includes on her blog:

The solution isn’t to “tone it down” and turn the other cheek, but to confront them forcefully with the facts — and to fight back unapologetically against insidious efforts to diminish the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech and activism of the Right in the name of repressive “civility”.

January 13, 2011

The “New Tone”, Wisconsin edition

by @ 7:56. Filed under Compassionate Lieberals, Politics - Wisconsin.

You probably heard that, after five days of smearing former Alaska governor Sarah Palin with the mass shooting at a Rep. Gabrielle Giffords constituent event, death threats against Palin are at an all time high. The “kill the Republicans” theme has hit Wisconsin, as WTMJ-TV reports several Republican officials, from Governor Scott Walker to Senator Ron Johnson to state Senator Alberta Darling, were the targets of a threat posted on Craigslist earlier this week by someone blaming them for the mass shooting.

I’m sure it’s completely unrelated to the first version of a Democratic Party of Wisconsin bumper sticker featuring a bullet train driving into Walker’s head, complete with spurting-blood graphics.

January 12, 2011

Social Security “Trust Fund” – 2010 in review

by @ 17:28. Filed under Social Security crater.

I know, it’s been too long since I did a wrap-up of the Social Security “Trust Funds”. However, we have final numbers from the Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary through November, and preliminary numbers from the Treasury Department for December, so it’s high time to do this.

Both the Disability Insurance (DI) “Trust Fund” and the Old-Age and Survivors (OASI) “Trust Fund” lost money on a primary (cash) basis in 2010. The OASI fund had a $15.9 billion primary deficit on $569.0 billion in tax revenue and $585.0 billion in total expenses, while the DI fund had a $32.9 billion primary deficit on $94.7 billion in tax revenue and $127.7 billion in expenses (note; the numbers will appear to be off due to rounding). Of note, before the Social Security Trustees admitted that the OASI fund would run a primary deficit in the 2010 Trustees Report, they did not anticipate in their “intermediate” estimations that it would run a primary deficit this early in any Trustees Report from at least 1997 onwards.

Once one adds in the $108.2 billion in interest “earned” by the OASI fund and the $9.3 billion in interest “earned” by the DI fund, the OASI fund had an increase in theoretical value to $2,429.1 billion (or $92.3 billion), while the DI fund had a decrease in theoretical value to $179.9 billion (or $23.66 billion).

How does that compare to the “intermediate” estimations in the last two Trustees Reports? In 2009, the Trustees estimated that the OASI fund would see a primary surplus of $42.1 billion and a fund value increase of $152.7 billion (to $2,502.2 billion from an estimated $2,349.6 billion in 2009 and an actual $2,202.9 billion in 2008) on taxes of $623.3 billion, interest of $110.6 billion, and total expenses of $581.2 billion. In 2010, that estimate changed to a primary deficit of $8.9 billion and a fund value increase of $99.9 billion (to $2,436.7 billion from an actual $2,336.8 billion in 2009) on taxes of $577.3 billion, interest of $108.9 billion, and total expenses of $586.2 billion.

For the DI fund, the Trustees estimated in 2009 that it would see a primary deficit of $23.7 billion and a fund value decrease of $14.3 billion (to $191.7 billion from an estimated $206.0 billion in 2009 and an actual $215.8 billion in 2008) on taxes of $104.4 billion, interest of $9.5 billion, and total expenses of $128.1 billion. In 2010, that estimate changed to a primary deficit of $32.4 billion and a fund value decrese of $23.2 billion (to $180.3 billion from an actual $203.5 billion in 2009) on taxes of $96.0 billion, interest of $9.3 billion, and expenses of $128.4 billion.

While costs have gone up a bit faster than expected, the primary driver of the earlier/faster collapse of Social Security has been the collapse of tax revenues, specifically payroll taxes, in the second year of the full-on POR (Pelosi-Reid-Obama) Economy. Since the full calendar-year 2010 numbers are not available from the Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary yet, and it is nigh impossible to accurately estimate the breakdown between payroll taxes and taxes on benefits using the Treasury’s Monthly Treasury Statement, I’m using the Fiscal Year numbers (which run from October 1 of the prior year to September 30 of the current year) from Social Security. In FY2008, Social Security took in $671.8 billion in payroll taxes and $17.8 billion in taxes on benefits for a total tax take of $689.6 billion. In FY2009, while the total tax take of $689.0 billion was hardly changed, the mix of payroll taxes and taxes on benefits radically changed, with payroll taxes dropping to $668.2 billion and taxes on benefits increasing to $20.8 billion. In FY2010, a further increase in taxes on benefits to $22.8 billion was overwhelmed by a drop in payroll taxes to $646.6 billion, as total taxes dropped to $669.4 billion.

For those who weren’t paying attention, FY2008 and much of FY2009 was declared to be in a “recession” period, while the end of FY2009 and the entirety of FY2010 was declared to be in a “post-recession” period of “recovery”.

Revisions/extensions (6:07 pm 1/12/2011) – I read off the wrong columns in my spreadsheet for the 2010 DI fund primary deficit and 2010 DI total expenses. The figures have been corrected.

January 11, 2011

The Ame…er, Holloway House of Happy Hacks is now open

by @ 12:29. Filed under Politics - Milwaukee County.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported yesterday that acting Milwaukee County Executive Lee Holloway has appointed Renee Booker, who ran the county’s child welfare division so ineptly that the state shut it down and took it over in 2001, and who was fired from his “make-work job” at the House of Corrections once Scott Walker got settled into office, as the head of the Department of Administrative Services. Booker, who overspent the child welfare division funds to the tune of $6 million, is now responsible for, among other things, purchases the county makes and contracts the county enters.

County Board Supervisor Lynne DeBruin, an opponent of the move and one of those who pushed for Booker’s firing back in 2001, noted that when then-County Board Chair Karen Ordinans and interim County Executive Janine Geske served as temporary County Executives after Tom Ament resigned in disgrace, neither person made any major appointments.

I wonder if it was the crookedness of Booker or his common skin tone with Holloway that attracted Holloway to Booker. Given Holloway’s nature, I’d have to guess both played major roles.

Video of the day – In the Crosshairs – In the Crosshairs

by @ 9:20. Filed under Politics - National.

Uncle Jimbo unloaded on the oh-so-“tolerant” Left with the latest In the Crosshairs (yes, there is a language warning – deal with it):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsu-HQtGRrI[/youtube]

January 10, 2011

Can’t We Do With One Less?

by @ 20:22. Filed under Politics - National.

I think it goes without saying that the events of this weekend were tragic.  Steve and Kevin have done a good job of laying out some of the double speak and self service that some on the left have used the events of this weekend for.  There is however, one reactive action that NRE hasn’t covered.

Rep. Bob Brady (D-PA) has introduced a bill that would criminalize the use of “threatening imagery” against lawmakers and judges. Rep. Brady is reacting to Sarah Palin’s website that had a cross hair shown over certain jurisdictions which had incumbent Democrat representatives that could be targeted for defeat.

Certainly, it is easy to agree that no one cares to see physical harm come to any elected official, regardless of their party affiliation. However, a move to ban “threatening imagery,” especially against politicians seems to allow entirely too much latitude for courts to interpret. After all, as you may have heard in last week’s reading of the Constitution, the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…

A couple of things to note about that amendment. First, the free speech issue was not geared towards our day to day speech as to whether we liked or disliked Oprah’s latest guest. The free speech reference was geared specifically towards political free speech. The Founder’s wanted the public to be able to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their government. The latter was particularly important as one of the checks against a run away, out of touch, political elite.

The second thing to note is that the amendment doesn’t say “Congress can make some laws…” or “Congress can’t completely eliminate free speech.” No, it says “Congress shall make no laws.” Zero, zilch, nada, none.

Imagery, especially political imagery, should be jealously guarded. Like hate crime legislation, treading into what imagery is “right” or “wrong” requires the enforcer to know the mind of the “artist” and that just isn’t possible.

“War,” “Battle” and “Target” wording and imagery have been a part of political campaigns and imagery since before the nation was founded. If enacted, which of these images would the legislation limit?

The first known US political editorial cartoon?

This editorial at the start of the Civil War?

Or this editorial of President Bush?

I guess when you consider all the amendments we have to the Constitution we should be able to get by with at least one, or part of one less!

Monday Hot Read – Glenn Reynolds’ “The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel”

by @ 8:43. Filed under Politics - National.

After a nearly-full weekend of leftist attempts to try to tie the shooter of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords/murderer of 6 people and everybody right of center while ignoring the planks in their eye (ably chronicled below by Kevin Fischer) , Glenn Reynolds unloads in today’s Wall Street Journal. I’ll cut to the quick:

To be clear, if you’re using this event to criticize the “rhetoric” of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you’re either: (a) asserting a connection between the “rhetoric” and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you’re not, in which case you’re just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?

understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America’s political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.

Where is the decency in that?

January 9, 2011

Yes, lefties, let’s tone down the rhetoric

by @ 20:12. Filed under Politics - National.

The hateful left is attempting to blame conservatives, specifically Sarah Palin for the Arizona shootings Saturday. Their outrageous claim is that the right has engaged in rhetoric that could instigate violence.

Of course, the left never uses such volatile language.

A comment left on the web site Big Government:

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”

Oh, there’s plenty more.

Revisions/extensions (8:37 am 1/10/2011, steveegg) – A couple more compilations of Lefty intolerance from Michelle Malkin and Charlie Sykes. Side note; I added the Politics-National category.

January 6, 2011

Must-See TV – The Heritage Foundation’s “The Debt Limit: Made Simple”

by @ 17:28. Filed under Politics - National.

My friends at The Heritage Foundation put together a short cartoon to help even the fiscally-illiterate understand the looming request to increase the debt limit by somewhere north of $1 trillion (or if you prefer percentages, 7.14%). They did forget to mention this latest increase won’t even last a whole year because the federal government is adding debt to the tune of roughly $1.5 trillion each year.

Of course, they’re a bit Pollyannish in the end for United Estates. We’re more likely to end up like Greece or France, where the “youths” and unions riot over even the smallest of changes made for the countries to survive another couple years.

January 5, 2011

Wednesday Hot Read – Michelle Malkin’s “Day One, 112th Congress: 10 Simple Rules for the GOP”

by @ 7:36. Filed under Politics - National.

Michelle Malkin has 10 rules for the House freshman class, and the returning Congresscritters. A couple of them might not quite apply to the freshly-seated Wisconsin Legislature, but most of them are just as appropriate to them (just a couple of those reposted here):

1. Manage expectations.

2. Serve the people, not the press.

6. Never forget: Government does not “create jobs.” Politicians don’t create jobs. You are there to stop government from killing jobs in the name of “reform,” the “children,” “emergencies,” global warming, hope, change, etc., etc., etc.

9. Show, don’t tell: Transparency. Accountability. Integrity. When you fail, you’ll be called out. The “R” after your name doesn’t give you immunity. Ever.

Read them and take them to heart.

Was That a Tingle I Just Felt?

by @ 7:05. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

On Monday, Harry Reid and some of his bestest Senate comrades, sent a letter to new House Speaker John Boehner.  In it, they warned him against proceeding with any action that would attempt to repeal Placebocare.  Shortly thereafter, it was announced that the House will vote January 12th, on a bill to repeal Placebocare in its entirety.

An aside:

I have had strong reservations about Boehner.  What I have seen from him in the past has me concerned that he talks a tough game but that in the end, he works the “let’s all get along” deals that move this country on a continual path left.  That said, while I live in Kentucky now, call me from Missouri.  I’m willing to give Boehner the benefit of the doubt and see where his actions lead.  Along with “from Missouri”, I guess you could say I’ll be “doing the Reagan” as I trust but verify.

Yesterday, in response to Harry Reid’s letter to him, Boehner sent the following response:

Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.

– Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office

I’m not the type that has physical responses to events but, I could have sworn I just had a tingle run up my leg!

January 4, 2011

My Old Kentucky Home – No More!

by @ 21:10. Filed under Immigration, Politics - Kentucky.

As many of you know, after spending my entire life in Minnesota, (except for the year that all Minnesotans are required to spend in Iowa for penance) Mrs. Shoe, the Things and I loaded up the Beverly Hillbillies truck and moved to Kentucky.  As attuned to Minnesota politics as I had become, I am nearly as untuned to the political scene in Kentucky.

Reading a few web news stories I came across this from my own new backyard:

Ky. Republicans file immigration bill as promised

Kentucky Republicans are attempting to pass an immigration enforcement law ala Arizona. The Kentucky version would allow law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants for trespassing if they are found on
“any public or private land in this state.” As the article notes, that should cover all property in Kentucky. Even though the Democrats here tend to be of the blue dog variety, I’m not placing a lot of money on the final passage of this bill given the Senate (where the bill was introduced) is controlled by the Republicans and the House is controlled by the Democrats.

Regardless of whether the bill passes, I find some of the comments and arguments against the bill illuminating.

The local representative of the Catholic Church, similar to how this issue is handled everywhere by the Catholic Church says this about the bill:

“It’s much broader and much more harmful than the Arizona law,” said the Rev. Patrick Delahanty, head of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, which is opposing the bill. “This bill does nothing but turn people who are generally hard-working and law-abiding into criminals and drains resources from local governments and police departments that ought to be put into protecting citizens from serious criminals.”

(emphasis mine)

Um, Rev. Patrick, doesn’t the fact that they broke they law to get here and continue to break the law to stay here, fly in the face of your assertion that they are “generally…law-abiding?” Haven’t they turned themselves into criminals but not following our immigration laws?

The good Reverend goes on to display his ignorance of all things not theological with his follow up statement:

Delahanty said Republicans are trying to solve a problem with illegal immigrants that doesn’t exist in Kentucky. The Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center estimated last year that Kentucky has about 30,000 illegal immigrants.

I wonder at what level Reverend Delahanty believes the law should be enforced. Should one person speeding be OK but two not? How about drunk drivers? Vandalism; how much should be OK?

More and more I see Catholics at least talking about (I can’t say I’ve actually heard that Pelosi and others have been denied Communion) not conveying Communion to a Communicant who lives in unrepentant sin. I can only assume that Reverend Delahnty follows the Catholic Church in this regard. Isn’t it ironic that when dealing with issues of eternal life the Reverend likely believes that unrepentant sin has consequences but in our momentary, earthly life it shouldn’t?

Budget Chop – Oil and Gas Management

by @ 20:10. Filed under Budget Chop, Energy, Politics - National.

I’ve already highlighted the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management for the need of a budget reduction.  My argument at the time was that if they didn’t want to issue any permits for drilling, there wasn’t need for more than one person to be able to answer the phone and say “NO!”

In one of the first acts of the new year, the Obama administration announced that they would now allow 13 companies to resume their deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  While this doesn’t mean that they will be issuing new permits, I take this as a sign that the Administration is concerned that my suggestions are sure to be implemented.

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that despite Obama’s rhetoric about job creation, there is no desire to create jobs in the oil and gas industry.  The Energy Information Administration now projects that offshore energy production will be nearly 20% below what they had predicted for the year.  That shortfall translates into thousands of lost jobs and the wages associated with them.  Not only does the Administration’s war on fossil fuels cause lost jobs, it also causes lost revenues.

According to this spreadsheet (I’ve verified them to the reported revenue) in FY 2008, the Federal Treasury received over $22 Billion in revenue from all oil and gas leasing activity.  in FY 2009, that number dropped to to under $9 Billion and in FY 2010 it was about $8 Billion. Now admittedly, there was approximately $10 Billion of “bonuses” received in 2008 which inflates that number a bit. However, even when adjusting for that, revenue to the treasury for oil and gas leasing has dropped by 33% in just two years.

Let’s recap:  No new leasing, more drilling area restrictions, lost jobs and wages….Oh, that’s not so bad…..

Former executive predicts gas to hit $5 by 2012

Number of the day – $14,025,215,218,708.52

by @ 0:34. Filed under Economy Held Hostage, Politics - National.

That number is the total amount of federal government debt outstanding as of 12/31/2010. Of that, $9,390,476,088,043.35 (plus about $10 million, or if you prefer, $0.00001 trillion in what is termed “guaranteed debt of government agencies” that is somehow not part of the public debt but is part of the “debt subject to limit”), and $4,585,749,068,174.55 in “intragovernmental debt” (that would be, for the most part, the various “Trust Funds”). To put it in a bit of text perspective, the Gross Domestic Product was $14.119 trillion in 2009, and if projections can be believed, will come in at just over $14.7 trillion in 2010. That makes the public debt just under 64% of GDP and total debt over 95% of GDP.

That dry text doesn’t, however, do it justice. I decided to go through 40 years’s worth (or, give or take a few shakes of a lamb’s tail, about the length of time I’ve been walking the Earth) of calendar-year-ending Monthly Statements of the Public Debt, grab the GDP for each of those years (estimated for 2010), and whip up a “little” frightening chart for you:


Click for the full-size chart

The short version of that chart:

  • Between 1970 and 1981, total debt remained right around the 37% of GDP, and publicly-held/guaranteed debt remained right around 27% of GDP.
  • Publicly-held debt plateaued right about 40% of GDP between 1986 and 1989, but because of changes to Social Security, the increasing intragovernmental debt, which crossed the 10% of GDP threshhold in 1988, caused total debt to continue to increase at an unchanged rate.
  • Sticking with intragovernmental debt briefly, it steadily increased to a high of nearly 32% of GDP in 2009 before multiple “trust funds” began running deficits, both primary (cash) and gross, helping to increase the publicly-held debt as said “trust funds” get monetized through borrowing while there is exactly $0.00 set aside or otherwise available for the purpose.
  • Back to the publicly-held debt, it again plateaued at 50% of GDP between 1992 and 1996, with total debt plateauing around 68% of GDP, before “unified budget surpluses” and a gangbusters economy allowed them to go down as a function of GDP.
  • By 2000, total debt dropped to about 57% of GDP, with publicly-held debt hitting its post-1981 low of 33% of GDP in 2001. While publicly-held debt remained about 37% of GDP through 2007, the increasing reliance on “trust fund” surpluses caused total debt to increase to about 66% of GDP in 2007.
  • The muzzle came off the debt monster in 2008, with publicly-held debt increasing to about 64% of GDP and total debt increasing to about 95% of GDP by the end of 2010.

Several of those in my bloated feed reader, like Dad29, Zip, Allahpundit Stephan Tawney, and ultimately NRO’s Corner crew, found yet another utterance from Barack Obama that has reached its expiration date – one from a 2006 debate in which he opposed raising the debt limit as Senator, an act which his economic advisor now calls “insanity”:

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. … 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.

The publicly-held debt was 37.3% of GDP at the end of 2005 and 36.6% of GDP at the end of 2006, while total debt was 64.6% of GDP at the end of 2006 and 64.4% of GDP at the end of 2006.

Revisions/extensions (7:02 am 1/4/2011) – The Emperor links, and provides a further link to Aaron Worthing at Patterico’s Pontifications and the full Obama remarks that were walked back. The relevant extension:

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

For those who can’t do the math, Obama was complaining about a potential $12.1 trillion total debt by the end of 2011. Well, we’re at just over $14 trillion before we got to the beginning of Calendar Year 2011 (or if you prefer, a quarter of the way through Fiscal Year 2011). The kicker – had Pelosi taken up Obama’s proposed budget, the total debt would be $15.1 trillion at the end of FY2011.

R&E part 2 (7:45 am 1/4/2011) – Dan Spencer points out just how much the debt has gone up under Nancy Pelosi’s now-expired Speakership – $44,662 for every man, woman and child who make up the 310,574,015 U.S. populace.

A minor point of order – the first 9 months of 2008 were largely budgeted by the prior Congress, while the last 3 were budgeted solely by Pelosi and Senate Democrat leader Harry Reid. That explains why the deficit, at least as a percentage of GDP, didn’t increase all that much in 2007.

I might redo the chart to reflect fiscal years instead of calendar ones, but it is a bear to get the numbers.

January 3, 2011

The Budget Chop – Federal Headcount

by @ 10:36. Filed under Budget Chop, Politics - National.

I have a riddle for you:

Q.  What do Russia and Cuba have that the United States doesn’t?

No, it’s not a massive federal deficit; they each have that.

No, it’s not a hard core leftist as the leader;they each have that.

Nope, it’s not a government that is more interested in itself than it’s citizens; they each have that.

The correct answer is: Federal employment that is being reduced.

After announcing earlier that they would be reducing the size of their federal government employment, Russian President Medvedev signed a decree  that will reduce the number of people employed by the Russian government by 20% over the next few years.

The civilian federal employment jumped over 10% from 2008 to 2010 and that is after subtracting the temporary census workers.  2011 is slated to grow that number by another 3.5%.  So federal employment has grown by double digit percentages will private employment has decreased by millions.

An area for the new GOP House to focus on for balancing the budget is the number of people employed by the federal government. 

Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a bill last year, that would have reduced federal employment to 2008 levels.  According to Hatch, this would be a reduction of 20% although I don’t think his math is quite right as he’s including the temporary census workers.  Not surprisingly, Senator Hatch’s bill went no where. 

Fewer federal employees would be good for at least three reasons:

1.  Fewer employees means fewer dollars spent today.

2.  Fewer employees should be coupled with privatizing more of the things that the federal government does but doesn’t need to do.

3.  Fewer employees means fewer dollars spent tomorrow in the way of pensions and other retirement benefits.

The next few weeks will be interesting to watch.  By the end of January, we should know whether the message of reducing spending, has been received by Congress.  I know the message hasn’t been received by President Obama but we’ll cross one bridge at a time.

January 2, 2011

Pardon The Interruption…

by @ 12:11. Filed under Politics - National.

I know you’re all enjoying the daily dole of the NRE awards.  Steve, I and others worked hard last week on those so that we could take a little time off over this weekend.  Of course, I could only use that excuse if I actually wrote on a regular basis…but that’s a separate issue.

I’m seeing a bunch of stuff flying around the internet about the RNC chair race.  The “stuff” mostly surrounds Reince Priebus and issues about his law firm and whether they make him a RINO and therefore unfit to serve as RNC chair.

Let me first provide full disclosure:

1.  I think Michael Steele has been the worst chair in some time.  I don’t believe he is a conservative by any definition.  I do suspect he is a closet racist or at the least, carries a huge chip on his shoulder regarding the color his skin happens to be.

2.  While I blog here at NRE, I’m not a Wisconsinite.  I’m from Minnesota Kentucky and am not a homer on this one.

3.  I don’t know, or have even heard of Reince Preibus prior to a couple of weeks ago.  I have no idea what he is about personally.  Heck, I don’t even know how to pronounce his name!

Two issues have been raised against Mr. Preibus, suggesting that these make him unfit for chair:

1.  That his law firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional.

2.  That he personally, and his law firm generally, solicited clients to assist with securing various funding from the stimulus bill.

As to the first issue.  Let’s assume his firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional.  Preibus’ firm has over 200 attorneys.  A firm of that size is not going to serve clients with a singular political ideology,  In fact, it would not be uncommon for that firm to have argued both sides of the same argument in different cases with different attorneys.

Some have argued that because Preibus is a “partner,” that he is involved with determining what cases are taken and must concur with the firm’s stance with regard to Placebocare being constitutional.  I cruised the firm’s website and noted that Preibus is NOT on the management committee.  While he certainly would have latitude in determining cases he was involved with, I can’t see anything on the surface that would suggest he is dictating the firm’s direction.

As I look at the firm’s website, I note that they do patent work for green technologies.  I assume that this would disqualify Preibus also because all green technologies are bad?  Oh, even worse, they have on their site that they have achieved “Green Master Status!”  Well, we know this is just code for being a lefty sympathizer!

Folks, I’ve worked for some companies that were pretty liberal in their ideologies (AT&T and domestic partner rights anyone?).  There was nothing about those engagements that made me a RINO.  Heck, there were a number of folks who moved further right in their beliefs as I worked along side them.  My point is that where a person works and what that company believes does not have to be a reflection of the individual’s belief.

The second issue is even more ludicrous.  Again, let’s assume that Preibus did solicit clients to secure stimulus funds?  So what? 

Mrs. Shoe and I tithe.  While we don’t believe the Bible dictates that we do so, we do believe it to be an appropriate way to recognize that what we have received is a gift from God.  Our tithing and our other charitable contributions, have nothing to do with the fact that we are able to deduct these contributions on our income taxes.  In fact, I prefer a flat tax where no deductions are granted. Would the people who suggest that Preibus shouldn’t solicit work for a legal government program call me a hypocrite for taking a charitable deduction on my taxes?

There is a difference between working within the law to find economic advantages for yourself or your company and advocating for the policy in the first place.  I have no problem with Preibus helping his clients get government money, no different than I have no problem with people taking every legal tax advantage they can; it’s the law.  I would have a problem if Preibus had been lobbying for the passage of the stimulus bill but I don’t see any evidence of that.

In short, I don’t know if Preibus is the right person or not for the RNC chair.  As I said, I don’t know anything about the man’s abilities or ideologies.  The problem is that most of the people making the above accusations about Preibus are in the same boat as I am regarding his abilities and true ideologies.  Unfortunately, that’s not slowing them down.  I wonder why? 

What I do know about Preibus is that he is the GOP chair in Wisconsin.  I also know that Wisconsin just evicted one of the furthest left Senators from the Senate.  Wisconsin also elected a Republican Governor and made substantial GOP strides in both of the State’s legislative bodies.  Of course, it is possible that like his law firm’s support of Placebocare, there is no correlation between Preibus’ involvement and the election results in WI.  If I were looking to vote, I’d want to get the facts on both of those issues. 

The case against Preibus seems to be built on second hand or circumstantial versus first hand knowledge.  Why do you suppose that is?  Is it possible that inuendo rather than truth, better fits the accuser’s agenda?

We now return you to your regularly scheduled NRE awards!

December 31, 2010

Was PlaceboCare designed by the POR team or Henry Ford?

by @ 9:19. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

I’m actually beginning to think Henry Ford offered more options on the Model T than PlaceboCare does. George Scoville lists just some of the items that, as of tomorrow, will no longer be able to be purchased with Health Savings Account money without a prescription:

  • Acid controllers
  • Acne medicine
  • Aids for indigestion
  • Allergy and sinus medicine
  • Anti-diarrhea medicine
  • Baby rash ointment
  • Cold and flu medicine
  • Eye drops
  • Feminine anti-fungal or anti-itch products
  • Hemorrhoid treatment
  • Laxatives or stool softeners
  • Lice treatments
  • Motion sickness medicines
  • Nasal sprays or drops
  • Ointments for cuts, burns or rashes
  • Pain relievers, such as aspirin or ibuprofen

“Strangely” enough, birth control, reading glasses (of course, Congress can’t read, so it won’t help them) and contact lens solutions can still be bought over-the-counter with HSA money.

December 29, 2010

Best comment surrounding the Birther horse manure

by @ 22:34. Filed under Politics - National.

This gem from James Wigderson on the desire of incoming Hawaii governor and Obama family friend Neil Ambercrombie (D) to unseal Barack Obama’s birth certificate is priceless:

I think some people will just remain convinced that Obama isn’t a citizen even if the afterbirth can be produced with a chain of custody documenting the source, DNA tests, and video of the birth with a “Welcome to Hawaii” sign in the background. Oh yeah, and Don Ho playing the music on the video soundtrack.

The sad thing is, that isn’t just comedic gold.

It’s good to be king…just for a while – Milwaukee County edition

by @ 21:46. Filed under NRE Polls, Thug Holloway.

Noted slumlord and abuser of fellow Milwaukee County Supervisors Lee Holloway is now acting Milwaukee County Executive, and he hasn’t disappointed those who expected new lows to be set. Despite the 30-day tag on his rule (or at least this stage of his rule), he wasn’t satisfied with just one judge administering the oath of office, inviting disgraced former County Executive F.(U.) Thomas Ament (the guy who signed into law the multi-million-dollar pension grab in 2000 that, when it finally came to light in 2002, cost him and several supervisors their jobs in recall elections) to the ceremony as an honored friend, or summarily firing the housing director (highly ironic since Holloway and his wife are facing legal action from the city of Milwaukee for numerous code violatoins on rental property they own), or laying out a massive tax-and-spend agenda that will by necessity take far more than either the 30 days he has before he has to name an “interim” County Exec (most-likely himself because he temporarily gave up the Board Chairmanship) or the 3 1/2 months before an elected replacement takes office (yes, he’s running). The latest is the revelation that he assembled a 32-member transition team.

Revisions/extensions (7:03 am 12/30/2010) – In the 5 o’clock hour, WISN-AM’s Jerry Bott and Ken Herrera pointed out that, in Holloway’s announcement that he was running for the remainder of the term, he used street putdowns on his potential challengers, conservative and ultra-liberal alike. Since nobody hit the poll yet, I simply added it to the poll.

I guess it’s time for a new NRE Poll…

What is the most outrageous aspect of Lee Holloway's assumption of the powers of Milwaukee County Executive?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

  • Despite the city of Milwaukee taking legal action against him for numerous code violations at his rental properties, he fired the county housing director. (38%, 5 Vote(s))
  • He invited disgraced former executive F.(U.) Thomas Ament to the swearing-in ceremony as an honored friend. (31%, 4 Vote(s))
  • Despite the 30-day nature of the "acting" title, he requires 32 people in his transition office. (23%, 3 Vote(s))
  • He laid out a massive tax-and-spend agenda that will take far longer than the 30 days he has as acting exec or the 3 1/2 months before an elected replacement takes office. (8%, 1 Vote(s))
  • He needed not one, but two judges to administer the oath. (0%, 0 Vote(s))
  • He couldn't pass up using street putdowns of all his potential challengers. (0%, 0 Vote(s))

Total Voters: 13

Loading ... Loading ...

It’s also time for some appropriate music…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvIz_GXKUss[/youtube]

Wednesday’s Hot Read – The Chilean Model

by @ 8:46. Filed under Social Security crater.

(H/T – Fausta)

The Investor’s Business Daily editorial board noted the phenominal success story that the privatized Chilean social security system has become:

(Then-labor minister Jose) Pinera’s proposal began with scrapping the payroll tax on the country’s social security system and inviting all workers to take the money they were contributing and move it into a private pension.

Workers would be free to choose the fund, how much to put in, and at what age they would retire, with a minimal safety net built into the design. Past contributions would be refunded to workers by government bond. And anyone who didn’t like the idea was free to remain with the system as it was. It was a huge success: 95% of Chile’s workers chose the private system.

Pinera told the public to expect a compounded 4% rate of return under the private plan. But as of 2010, the average annual rate of return was 9.23%, far higher than promised.

By contrast, the U.S. social security system, which today accounts for a quarter of the U.S. government budget, is slated to give retiring workers in the next decade a 1% to 2% rate of return. And those entering the system today will see a negative return.

In order to compare apples to apples, one has to compare the rate of return to inflation. The bad news is Chile’s inflation averaged 10.72% between 1981 and 2009, which means the 9.23% rate of return only covered 98.7% of inflation. The ugly news is that is still better than the SocSecurity rate of return compared to the likely rate of inflation over the next decade, in which the rate of return is expected to cover barely 98% of inflation.

Let’s move to the effect on government finances:

Chile’s implicit pension debt fell to just 6% of GNP — compared with 100% in the U.S., 300% in France and 450% in Italy, leaving Chile with no net debt.

Better still, the accumulated savings in the pension funds fueled Chile’s spectacular economic ascent, taking real incomes from about $4,000 per capita in the early 1980s to $15,000 today, and GDP to the 6% range most years for nearly 20 years.

That, folks, is the real payoff; a government and a people able to weather economic storms that is sinking the rest of the world. Even when one takes out the dysfunctional Disability Insurance, the cost of providing the benefits of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (including a transfer of funds to cover railroad retirees) outstripped the taxes paid by $2.14 billion on $577 billion of benefit payouts, and $6.06 billion on $580 billion in total program cost, in FY2010. That’s $6.06 billion that, because of the nature of the “Trust Funds”, the Treasury had to borrow, which gives the lie to the accounting trick that counts “interest earned” by said “Trust Funds” as income into Social Security.

With the level of publicly-held debt rapidly approaching 100% of GDP, and current trends showing that increasing at an exponential rate, how long can it be before everybody stops buying US Treasuries? The first time that happens, the value of those “Trust Funds” will be $0.00, and we’ll be up a swollen Shit Creek without a paddle.

December 28, 2010

Tuesday Hot Read – James Wigderson’s “Debating Doyle’s Legacy”

by @ 17:10. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Over at the MacIver Institute, James Wigderson took an extended look at the utter failure that has been the Jim Doyle governorship. The lengthy explanations, which range from taxes to education, from budgets to various flip-flops big and small, need to be read, but three sentences sum them all up quite nicely:

Doyle spent much of his time as governor not living up to the political statements he made. From big issues to small issues, he disappointed and frustrated friend and foe alike. The Doyle motto seemed to be what Rush Limbaugh once described as the strategy of the Clinton White House years, “How do we fool them today?”

As Michelle Malkin says, DLTDHYOTWO, Craps.

December 27, 2010

They told me if…PlaceboCare Death Panel edition

by @ 13:52. Filed under Health Care Reform, Politics - National.

(H/T – Ed Morrissey)

Shortly after the mandatory every-5-year “Just die already” speech was stripped from PlaceboCare because of the backlash led by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the New York Times reports that, not only did the Obama administration slip it back in administratively via the same mechanism that forces every state to have drinking age of 21 and primary enforcement of mandatory seat belt laws (the dangling of money), but that instead of getting the speech every five years, you’ll get it annually.

Jimmie Bise has a lot more wrapup, while WISN-AM’s Mark Belling, filling in for Rush Limbaugh, has been hammering home the fact that, even though it is officially even more “voluntary” as said federal drinking age, it is as much a mandate. There is no distinction between offering extra money to force a decision and withholding money to force said decision.

Remember when Teh Won said that doctors took out tonsils for profit? They told me, if I voted for Palin, doctors would profit from telling me to die. AND THEY WERE RIGHT!

Update by Shoebox:

The Death Panels are only half of the story. In the past week, Sebelius and her pack of flying monkeys have also issued rules (all as part of Placebocare), that requires any insurance company who dares raise rates more than 10%, to face a health care inquisition.

Now, it’s clear that no one in the Obama abomination administration has any economic training.  If they did, they would recognize that there is a very bright light heading towards them from the opposite end of the tunnel and it’s not the end of the tunnel. 

Econ 101, whether macro or micro, will tell you that if you remove the ability for prices to reflect increasing costs, the result is a restriction on the amount of the service or good offered.  If you doubt this, simply look at any attempt to set prices and you will note that in time, the good or service for which the price is artificially set, either becomes so poor in quality (an attempt to reduce the costs) or has severe shortages in the amount offered so as not to any longer resemble the original product or service.  I wonder which, poor quality or less availability, the Obama administration is targeting under Placebocare?

So, to sum it all up, under Placebocare we have people “counseling” about how to end your life without any of the “expensive” treatments.  And, you have a limit on the amount of premium increases.  Sounds like those two go hand in hand don’t you think?

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]