Many Republicans have been concerned about the federal deficit since George W. Bush turned a surplus into a deficit with increased spending and tax cuts but as soon as Barack Obama was elected president this concern quickly transformed into an obsession.
To many, this has become such a dire situation that 20 states are now calling for a constitutional convention to include a balanced budget amendment into the US constitution. The most recent state to add fuel to this balanced budget fire is Michigan where Republican Governor Rick Snyder stated in his state of the state address "Hey we balance our budget at home, we balance our budget at work, why can't the federal government balance theirs?"
While most Republicans would probably agree with the governor's statement, the reality is this just isn't true. Companies and households do not balance their budgets. Of the 500 companies in the S&P 500 only 23 are debt free. The same is true of households, where 69 % hold some form of debt. So if the truth is that neither companies nor households balance their budgets then using the Republicans own logic it follows that the government doesn't need to either.
The real question shouldn't be about a balanced budget but rather how the money is spent. As the CNBC article on corporate debt explains "Wall Street doesn't seem to care if companies are carrying debt on their balance sheets – as long as they are putting that money to work." Smart companies will incur debt if that debt has a return on investment. This is also the case with the government.
In the 80's Ronald Reagan oversaw a 3.1 increase in government jobs which stands in stark contrast to the 2.7 reduction in government jobs under President Obama. Regan also increased the national debt by 186% which dwarfs the 44% increase by Barack Obama, the 101% increase by George W. Bush and the 32% increase by Bill Clinton.
What Reagan understood was that during down times investments in government jobs, even at the expense of the national debt, keeps more people working and spending money which prevents the private sector jobs losses that compound the problem.
Of course many Republicans act like there is only one side to the government balance sheet. Since 2000 real government revenues have fallen by $249 billion. Similarly since 2009 real government spending has fallen by $226 billion.
The data shows that the Bush tax cuts cost the government $2.8 trillion. Studies also show that tax cuts, not hikes, cause an increase in the size of government and the national debt. These real world realities run 100% counter to the talking point Republicans continue to try and sell year after year. Perhaps the real problem isn't the money the government spends but the lack of money the government collects.
Additionally, Republicans supported nearly unlimited funding to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without any of the tax increases associated with past wars or spending cuts that they insist are required currently for any new spending. These wars have already cost US taxpayers $2 trillion and are expected to cost another $2 to $4 trillion.
Does anyone really think that a balanced budget amendment would have stopped George W. Bush from going to war? After all everyone seems to agree that "in case of emergency" the government could simply ignore the balanced budget requirement of any balanced budget amendment.
This possibility is one of the biggest problems with a balanced budget amendment. Republicans think we must have this amendment because we can't trust congress to act responsibly yet who are the architects of the balanced budget amendment that 20 states want enshrined into the constitution? The very same congress that can't be trusted in the first place. Also, does anyone seriously think that these big spending politicians with a 10% approval rating aren't going to find loopholes that will render this amendment moot?
No one argues that the government shouldn't be more prudent with its money, but a balanced budget amendment does almost nothing to address the underlying problems that lead to wasteful spending. Make an amendment that prevents the typical quid pro quo between politicians and large donors, keeps the military from paying $1,000 for a hammer, stops fraud in government services, cuts medical costs to match world norms, eliminates corporate welfare, and ends the billions in cost overruns.
Odds are, such an amendment still wouldn't pass since there is way too much money at stake, but the reality is that Republicans really don't want a balanced budget because if they couldn't feign concern for the national debt when Democrats were in charge they would be stuck talking about immigration, women's rights, marriage equality and a host of other topics that exposes the bigotry of their core values.
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Can Michigan really trust Rick Snyder?
For two years Rick Snyder claimed "Right to work" legislation was too divisive and not on his agenda. Shortly after the 2012 elections Rick Snyder changed his mind. Given how divisive "Right to work" would be, it should come as no surprise that the governor would want to insulate Republican members of the state house and senate from taking a potentially damaging vote that would expose their true intentions shortly before an election. The governor however tells a different story.
In the governor's mind he was essentially forced to consider "Right to work" after unions attempted to enshrine their rights in the states constitution. Never mind that the measure was defeated which meant union rights in the state were no different than the previous two year when Rick Snyder was against "right to work". No, by even asking residents to consider a small measure of certainty for unions, Governor Snyder was required to retaliate. What other choice did he have?
So there you have it - if you mess with Rick Snyder there will be hell to pay. Either you work with the governor and bend to his will or he will forced to change his opinion in the name of retribution.
This means that anyone that pushed the voter ID law that the governor opposed is now on notice. So too are other groups like the NRA who attempted to get concealed weapons in schools even though Rick Snyder dismissed such a measure previously, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce who supported a bill that would make it harder for the Michigan treasury to collect unpaid business taxes, and the Moroun family, who own the Ambassador bridge and backed a proposal that would prevent the governor from building a second Detroit to Windsor bridge.
While we can only assume the governor is taking his time to determine the proper punishment for these dissenters, the group that should really be most concerned about experiencing the wrath of Rick Snyder are Right to Life. Not only did they push for legislation that the governor eventually vetoed - they refused to accept the governor's decision and launched a petition drive to get new abortion restrictions put in place. After gathering signatures from only 3% of Michigan residents, RTL were able to bypass Rick Snyder and enact the very law the governor opposed.
If the disobedience of unions meant an immediate 180 degree change for the governor, one can only imagine the fire and brimstone that will soon shower Right to Life since not only did they disobey his wishes, but they also publicly embarrassed him by turning one tough nerd into one irrelevant bystander.
Of course it's possible that "Right to work" had nothing to do with Proposal 2 and that the governor was being disingenuous when he suggested this legislation was just a natural counteraction to the unions actions, but really, when has there ever been a powerful businessman that was willing to lie to get his way?
In the governor's mind he was essentially forced to consider "Right to work" after unions attempted to enshrine their rights in the states constitution. Never mind that the measure was defeated which meant union rights in the state were no different than the previous two year when Rick Snyder was against "right to work". No, by even asking residents to consider a small measure of certainty for unions, Governor Snyder was required to retaliate. What other choice did he have?
So there you have it - if you mess with Rick Snyder there will be hell to pay. Either you work with the governor and bend to his will or he will forced to change his opinion in the name of retribution.
This means that anyone that pushed the voter ID law that the governor opposed is now on notice. So too are other groups like the NRA who attempted to get concealed weapons in schools even though Rick Snyder dismissed such a measure previously, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce who supported a bill that would make it harder for the Michigan treasury to collect unpaid business taxes, and the Moroun family, who own the Ambassador bridge and backed a proposal that would prevent the governor from building a second Detroit to Windsor bridge.
While we can only assume the governor is taking his time to determine the proper punishment for these dissenters, the group that should really be most concerned about experiencing the wrath of Rick Snyder are Right to Life. Not only did they push for legislation that the governor eventually vetoed - they refused to accept the governor's decision and launched a petition drive to get new abortion restrictions put in place. After gathering signatures from only 3% of Michigan residents, RTL were able to bypass Rick Snyder and enact the very law the governor opposed.
If the disobedience of unions meant an immediate 180 degree change for the governor, one can only imagine the fire and brimstone that will soon shower Right to Life since not only did they disobey his wishes, but they also publicly embarrassed him by turning one tough nerd into one irrelevant bystander.
Of course it's possible that "Right to work" had nothing to do with Proposal 2 and that the governor was being disingenuous when he suggested this legislation was just a natural counteraction to the unions actions, but really, when has there ever been a powerful businessman that was willing to lie to get his way?
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Military pension cuts prove hypocrisy of Republicans
Over the past few decades the attitude towards military personnel has shifted to the point where now individuals of all political ideologies consider our military personnel as inviolable. Polls show that the military favorability rating has nearly doubled compared to the last 30 years of the 20th century.
With this in mind it should come as no surprise that after learning the details of the new budget deal agreed to by congress Veterans groups as well as many politicians voiced their displeasure with the cuts to military pensions. While the concern from past and present service members is completely understandable the complaints from Republican legislators is peculiar.
Since the start of the great recession the public sector has taken pay cuts or had their pay frozen, asked to pay a higher portion of their retirement and health care costs, while also losing 750,000 jobs. Conversely military personnel have not been asked to take a pay cut, do not contribute to their pensions and have seen an increase in their numbers.
It should also be noted that one of the biggest complaints from conservatives about public sector jobs is that many require union membership. While the military is not officially a union it certainly operates an awful lot like a union. For example if you want to defend your country from bad guys the government has a monopoly on this work and regardless of how good you are at your job you will make no more or no less than your peers. The military also has a history of protecting their members, who have committed unlawful acts, from losing their jobs.
Additionally according to TodaysMilitary.com servicemen make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts while also being able to retire with only 20 years of service. This means you could be done working and receive retirement pay for life by age 38. Of course not only will they get paid for life they will also receive healthcare for life at absurdly low rates.
If not getting paid based on your abilities, having great benefits, and higher pay than the private sector are problems for public sector unions, why are they not also troubling when it comes to the military?
Most will justify these benefits by suggesting that military jobs are dangerous yet 91% of military jobs don't involved direct combat operations. There is no adjustment in retirement benefits based on the time spent in combat. All military personnel get the same package regardless of the risk associated with their position.
But even if danger was a reason for good pay, great benefits, and public adoration there are certainly other jobs, such as fishing and logging workers, that have higher mortality rates then the general service member. Where is the concern from congress for the wages and benefits of these professions?
We also have a number of public sector jobs, such as policemen and firefighters, where people risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of this country, yet their pay and benefits have not been shielded from the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric many politicians used to attack public sector workers.
The reality is most people would probably agree with the words of Senator Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi when he said "It is unfair to make a promise to members of our military and then – after they have honorably fulfilled every part of their obligation – have their government fail to live up to its part of the bargain,". But the question the Republicans who are fighting to restore the cuts to military pensions really need to answer is what makes all of these other brave men and women that work for the government less deserving of good pay, great benefits, and public adoration?
With this in mind it should come as no surprise that after learning the details of the new budget deal agreed to by congress Veterans groups as well as many politicians voiced their displeasure with the cuts to military pensions. While the concern from past and present service members is completely understandable the complaints from Republican legislators is peculiar.
Since the start of the great recession the public sector has taken pay cuts or had their pay frozen, asked to pay a higher portion of their retirement and health care costs, while also losing 750,000 jobs. Conversely military personnel have not been asked to take a pay cut, do not contribute to their pensions and have seen an increase in their numbers.
It should also be noted that one of the biggest complaints from conservatives about public sector jobs is that many require union membership. While the military is not officially a union it certainly operates an awful lot like a union. For example if you want to defend your country from bad guys the government has a monopoly on this work and regardless of how good you are at your job you will make no more or no less than your peers. The military also has a history of protecting their members, who have committed unlawful acts, from losing their jobs.
Additionally according to TodaysMilitary.com servicemen make as much if not more than their private sector counterparts while also being able to retire with only 20 years of service. This means you could be done working and receive retirement pay for life by age 38. Of course not only will they get paid for life they will also receive healthcare for life at absurdly low rates.
If not getting paid based on your abilities, having great benefits, and higher pay than the private sector are problems for public sector unions, why are they not also troubling when it comes to the military?
Most will justify these benefits by suggesting that military jobs are dangerous yet 91% of military jobs don't involved direct combat operations. There is no adjustment in retirement benefits based on the time spent in combat. All military personnel get the same package regardless of the risk associated with their position.
But even if danger was a reason for good pay, great benefits, and public adoration there are certainly other jobs, such as fishing and logging workers, that have higher mortality rates then the general service member. Where is the concern from congress for the wages and benefits of these professions?
We also have a number of public sector jobs, such as policemen and firefighters, where people risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of this country, yet their pay and benefits have not been shielded from the "shared sacrifice" rhetoric many politicians used to attack public sector workers.
The reality is most people would probably agree with the words of Senator Roger Wicker (R) of Mississippi when he said "It is unfair to make a promise to members of our military and then – after they have honorably fulfilled every part of their obligation – have their government fail to live up to its part of the bargain,". But the question the Republicans who are fighting to restore the cuts to military pensions really need to answer is what makes all of these other brave men and women that work for the government less deserving of good pay, great benefits, and public adoration?
Friday, January 17, 2014
The NSA is scary good
Since June of 2013 when Edward Snowden released government documents confirming the existence of various data gathering methods used by the NSA there has been a lot of discussions surrounding the value of these programs. Many of these same conversations also occurred in 2006 when it was reveled that the NSA was collecting data from billions of phone call made by normal citizens. Curiously the support for these programs seems to be very closely tied to the political leanings of the commander and chief. For example in 2006 with a Republican in office 71% of Republicans supported the actions of the NSA. Conversely with a Democrat in office Republican approval plummeted to 32%.
While bringing to light the nefarious actions of the NSA exposed the depth of partisan politics as well as the extent to which government officials value data over privacy it also unveiled the fallacy of a popular political meme.
For years now many have decried the incompetence of government entities. This perceived incompetence is often the rationale used by many political pundits and politicians advocate for converting public sector jobs to private sector functions. While studies have shown that for the vast majority of jobs the private sector actually costs more than the public sector the NSA scandal shows just how advanced our government can be.
The US has a long history of technological achievements which originated with the government. These inventions include microprocessors; RAM memory; hard disk drives; liquid-crystal displays; lithium batteries; the Internet; cellular technology and networks; global positioning system (GPS); multi-touch screens. Now we also find out that many of the bastions of technology in the private sector were unable to prevent the data mining activities of the government.
These companies had built up security to thwart the attacks of expert hackers and then doubled their efforts to protect against Chinese cyber espionage but they were oblivious to the backdoor access the US government had been exploiting as far back as 2008.
Perhaps the greatest trick our government ever pulled was convincing vast sums of Americans that they were incompetent. No matter how many examples that exist exposing this fallacy, having a faithful congregation devoted to this belief is paramount to the corporate elites who profit from such a meme.
Snowden proved just how scary good our government can be. But it's the people who chose to ignore that reality that pose the biggest danger.
While bringing to light the nefarious actions of the NSA exposed the depth of partisan politics as well as the extent to which government officials value data over privacy it also unveiled the fallacy of a popular political meme.
For years now many have decried the incompetence of government entities. This perceived incompetence is often the rationale used by many political pundits and politicians advocate for converting public sector jobs to private sector functions. While studies have shown that for the vast majority of jobs the private sector actually costs more than the public sector the NSA scandal shows just how advanced our government can be.
The US has a long history of technological achievements which originated with the government. These inventions include microprocessors; RAM memory; hard disk drives; liquid-crystal displays; lithium batteries; the Internet; cellular technology and networks; global positioning system (GPS); multi-touch screens. Now we also find out that many of the bastions of technology in the private sector were unable to prevent the data mining activities of the government.
These companies had built up security to thwart the attacks of expert hackers and then doubled their efforts to protect against Chinese cyber espionage but they were oblivious to the backdoor access the US government had been exploiting as far back as 2008.
Perhaps the greatest trick our government ever pulled was convincing vast sums of Americans that they were incompetent. No matter how many examples that exist exposing this fallacy, having a faithful congregation devoted to this belief is paramount to the corporate elites who profit from such a meme.
Snowden proved just how scary good our government can be. But it's the people who chose to ignore that reality that pose the biggest danger.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Chris Christie unabridged and unpresidential
Not too long ago the right was up in arms over a scandal at the IRS. To them it exposed a litany of truths they had long believed about the Obama administration. It proved they would use the power of the office to punish the opposition. It proved they were arrogant. It proved they were Chicago style thugs. It proved that they were liars. And to some it proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president.
If conservatives find this type of behavior concerning they might want to take a closer look at the recent scandal surrounding the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President, Chris Christie.
Apparently some of the governors top officials worked with a few close political allies at the port authority to shut down a number of access lanes for the George Washington bridge as political retribution. While the port authority employees involved resigned weeks ago Chris Christie and his staff continued to proclaim their innocence up until a few days ago when emails were released showing the involvement of some Christie staffers.
Using political power to punish the opposition - Check.
Arrogantly believing these indiscretions would never see the light of day - Check.
Acting like thugs - Check.
Lying - Check.
Many believed Barack Obama had ordered the additional scrutiny delivered by the IRS and found the presidents denials completely unbelievable. There were more than a few articles which claimed the president was either lying or incompetent. Obviously the same logic applies for Chris Christie. Are we supposed to believe he was completely unaware of the actions of his Deputy Chief of staff? Assuming he is not lying about his involvement there are litany of other questions that suggest incompetence on his part.
This incident occurred more than a month ago yet Chris Christie took no action until emails were released proving the involvement of his staff. Was he lying to protect his Deputy Chief of staff or was he that oblivious as to the actions of the person he hired as one of his top officials? Having that little control over his employees certainly wouldn't suggest Chris Christie is ready to be the leader of the free world.
While many will probably attempt to dismiss this scandal as the actions of one rogue or misguided staffer Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote on Fox News that this sort of brazen political activity was not an anomaly for the Christie administration. In fact it could be considered the hallmark of his governing style.
The disappointing reality is that people in power do lots of unscrupulous things. Be it manipulating the mortgage market to increase profits or using political power to stay in power. The people deserve better. But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that most of those who thought the IRS scandal proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president will find a way to dismiss the bridge scandal as an aberration while others will undoubtedly suggest that not only is this a non story but that it actually proves just how presidential Chris Christies is.
If conservatives find this type of behavior concerning they might want to take a closer look at the recent scandal surrounding the leading candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for President, Chris Christie.
Apparently some of the governors top officials worked with a few close political allies at the port authority to shut down a number of access lanes for the George Washington bridge as political retribution. While the port authority employees involved resigned weeks ago Chris Christie and his staff continued to proclaim their innocence up until a few days ago when emails were released showing the involvement of some Christie staffers.
Using political power to punish the opposition - Check.
Arrogantly believing these indiscretions would never see the light of day - Check.
Acting like thugs - Check.
Lying - Check.
Many believed Barack Obama had ordered the additional scrutiny delivered by the IRS and found the presidents denials completely unbelievable. There were more than a few articles which claimed the president was either lying or incompetent. Obviously the same logic applies for Chris Christie. Are we supposed to believe he was completely unaware of the actions of his Deputy Chief of staff? Assuming he is not lying about his involvement there are litany of other questions that suggest incompetence on his part.
This incident occurred more than a month ago yet Chris Christie took no action until emails were released proving the involvement of his staff. Was he lying to protect his Deputy Chief of staff or was he that oblivious as to the actions of the person he hired as one of his top officials? Having that little control over his employees certainly wouldn't suggest Chris Christie is ready to be the leader of the free world.
While many will probably attempt to dismiss this scandal as the actions of one rogue or misguided staffer Erick Erickson of RedState.com wrote on Fox News that this sort of brazen political activity was not an anomaly for the Christie administration. In fact it could be considered the hallmark of his governing style.
The disappointing reality is that people in power do lots of unscrupulous things. Be it manipulating the mortgage market to increase profits or using political power to stay in power. The people deserve better. But perhaps more unfortunate is the fact that most of those who thought the IRS scandal proved Barack Obama was unfit to be president will find a way to dismiss the bridge scandal as an aberration while others will undoubtedly suggest that not only is this a non story but that it actually proves just how presidential Chris Christies is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
