Our National Bankruptcy
Tags: Tax and Spend Liberalism.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
As exemplified by California, detailed over at Mish’s who then concludes:
If “everything” is on the table (for budget cuts), then why isn’t anyone mentioning union contracts, pensions, prisons, privatizing services, property taxes, proposition 13, state mandates, and illegal immigration?
California is in a mess because in practice “nothing” is on the table. Democrats do not want to cut services. Nor do Democrats want to address unions, pension problems, or illegal immigration.
Meanwhile Republicans do not want to raise taxes and I certainly cannot blame them on that score.
Schwarzenegger’s idea to ease mandates and minimums on social programs is a good one. It should apply to every state. However, if Obama goes along, California will only save $8 billion but the hole is $21 billion and rising every month.
Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, says “there are no easy solutions left”. Jean Ross is not phrasing the problem correctly. There are many easy solutions starting with illegal immigration, cutting pension promises, cutting union benefits, and privatizing the prison guards.
The problem is there is no political will to do what absolutely must be done.
Political will is, indeed, what is lacking – in California, in most of the rest of the States and, of course, in Washington DC. California’s crisis is acute because, unlike the federal government, California doesn’t have a Federal Reserve which can print money to buy US bonds and thus paper over the fiscal cracks. But as goes California, so goes the nation (and, as an aside, now we can see why Arnie is talking so nice about Barry lately – he’s looking for a hand out).
Everything needs to be cut – every dime which can be saved from local, State and federal budgets has to be saved. We simply must balance the budget as swiftly as possible and no matter how much it hurts. Failure to do so just means even worse pain, for a longer time, down the road.
I’m not like our liberal friends who complained about each vacation President Bush took. The President does need a significant amount of down time in order to be perpetually ready when a crisis erupts. But was it really necessary for Obama to fly the whole kit and kaboodle over to Hawaii while we’re suffering the largest deficits in our history? Something wrong with Camp David for Christmas? Why does Michelle Obama need such a large staff? Goodness, how many foreign trips has the President been on and its not even the end of his first year in office? How many Czars do we have? How much do they cost?
The party is over, good people. We lived on fiat money and usury for nearly a century and it was quite a ball – but, its over, now. We’re broke, suffering a massive hangover and the bill collectors are talking foreclosure. And when I say “everything” needs to be cut, I mean everything. Yes, even Defense – with the proviso that the troops in battle shall not lack the least thing (I’m sure there’s some new ships and planes we can delay while still retaining naval and aerial superiority). But while Defense is a big budget item, its not the only thing in there and, bank on it, there’s far more fat and fraud likely to be found in, say, the Education and Labor departments than in Defense. The main thing is to massively cut spending until spending is less than revenues – so think in terms of everyone in government having to get along with less.
One third less people (or, however you like it, one third less payroll – can keep more people if pay cuts are taken); one third less government travel; one third less staff for elected officials (take that, Czars!)…one third less of everything, except that part of Defense and law enforcement which keeps the bad guys at bay (to do other than offer full support for such is to repeat the criminal neglect shown our armed forces in the 30’s and 70’s). If we don’t do this – and do it soon – then it’ll just get worse and worse…and don’t think of it in terms of “well, its 100 worse now and we can wait until is 101 worse next year”. Next year it will be 150 worse…and then 300 worse the year after that…and 600 worse the year after that, and so on. When you’re bankrupt, as we are, piling on more debt has massively worse effects than piling on a bit of debt when you’re solvent.
Right now, we’re living in a fool’s paradise where we’re pretending that another round of fiat money and usury will fix the problems wrought by fiat money and usury. We need a complete shift in our attitudes – a complete understanding that only by living within our means can we survive.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
17 Responses to “Our National Bankruptcy”
Caucus of Corruption
Of course the poltical will is not there, mainly because politicians, primarily liberals, have built their base by promising those entitlements, and the fear of taking those away and losing that base is just too much to risk. But obviously spending cuts are exactly what the doctor ordered to relieve the budget strain. However, there are two sides to the ledger, and revenue growth also needs to be part of the equation and that can be achieved in many areas, by getting the government the hell out of the way. Healthcare for example. Think of the private sector growth that could be realized by easing, or eliminating state restrictions on insurance carriers, allowing them to compete in every state with personalized plans. Not only would there business’s grow, but their pay rolls and revenues would grow which in turn would mean more payroll taxes and income taxes to the states and feds, and more people could afford insurance.
The problem is not a short fall of taxes, the problem is a short fall in the basic understanding of how a free market economy can innovate, employ and sustain a lean, competent, and effective government.
These commie bast*rds are gonna ruin all our lives…
On a somewhat related note:
The announcement by Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith that he is switching to the Republican Party is just the latest warning sign that the Democratic Party — my lifelong political home — has a critical decision to make: Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.
And ohio still thinks the democrats are a party of centrists. Really, we have people like sadie, the forkers, and even ohio and other left wingers, to thank for the indies and moderates fleeing the democrats. 2010 will be the year, conservatives, and not RINO’s win back this country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/23/AR2009122302439_pf.html
Keep
this is a thought out planned COUP.
This will destroy us from within. 0bomb0 was nothing but a trojan horse to take over the country by marxism.
They caught us asleep and I fear nothing short of open rebellion, and removal of them at gunpoint will work.
I fear nothing short of open rebellion, and removal of them at gunpoint will work.
Neo, I’m not QUITE at that point yet. There’s a rage building at the grass roots that I think needs to be given a chance for a couple election cycles.
Spook
Oh I agree,
that is the LAST thing I want,
im just afraid there are people who wont wait for the process (aka…some tim mc veigh,) and trigger something we all do not want to live through.
There will be no need for armed insurrection as Obama and the democrats have already exposed themselves as far left ideologues, and it’s too late to try and become moderate now. The old expression: Fool me once, shame on me, Fool me twice, shame on you, will be the obstacle that faces the dems in 2010 and 2012. Can Obama actually begin to preach fiscal discipline now? Hardly.
Neo,
One thing you can virtually bank on is that any domestic acts of violence will be perpetrated by fringe individuals or groups, regardless of which side of the political, ideological or religious spectrum they come from.
Once the militia movement faded in the 90’s and Eric Rudolph was apprehended, there has been minimal noise from the far Right. The far Left has been pretty quiet too. The most likely source of domestic violence, IMO, will be from home-grown radical Islamist groups. But you can bet that, should suicide bombings, road-side bombs and other terrorist acts begin to occur in America, Rahm never-let-a-good-crisis-go-to-waste Emmanuel and the boys will be ready to pounce on the situation to expand the power of government and limit the freedoms of the very people they work for.
Crickets from our Lefties on this thread. Anyone else notice that they don’t comment too much on economic issues. Either they are economically ignorant or, in their gut, they know what’s coming, and the reasons for it are indefensible.
retiredspook,
“December 26th, 2009 at 7:23 pm Crickets from our Lefties on this thread.”
I’ve been wanting to comment all day, but I’ve been very busy.
While I understand Mark’s reasoning and I have to give him a lot of credit for even including Defense as a place to cut (something most conservatives won’t even consider), I have to ask; If we did what you ask, what are you going to do with the hundreds of thousands of government employees you lay off, especially during a major recession?
Don’t get me wrong, I believe we need to look at our government and start cutting back, but is this the best time?
Casper,
Each dollar spent in excess of revenues is like another hand grenade thrown at the American economy. As I said, we can cut the cost of employees by cutting wages or cutting staff or a combination of these things – but the cuts must happen.
You’re right that a lot of us conservatives won’t go for a cut in defense – but it must be done, and the fact that I’m offering it shows how serious I am. I even considered whether or not we should withdraw from Afghanistan for fiscal reasons – I came down against that as the fiscal cost of fixing the situation after a withdrawal would be greater than the cost of staying.
I’m in dread fear of a 20 year economic depression if we don’t put our house in order very quickly. Think it can’t happen? Its happened in Japan for the past 20 years – though they’ve masked the effects by borrowing and printing money…but for Japan, as for us, that line of “credit” (as it were) is exhausted. Keynsian economics has proven itself a complete failure.
Essentially, we have to think in terms of cutting $1 trillion from the FY 2010 budget. This will require an approximate 33% reduction in spending – and it can’t be across the board, as some areas are too vital for that sort of cut. But every department and agency of government can and must undergo budget cuts.
Mark,
I agree with you that we need to make some cuts, but that still doesn’t account for what happens to the hundreds of thousands of government employees you want to lay off. What would you do about them?
Casper,
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t consider it an issue. By balancing the budget we’ll free up the wealth necessary to get wealth-creation restarted in our economy and that will absorb, in time, both the private and public sector employees who have been let go. Keeping people on the payroll on borrowed dollars is simply not a viable option.
Mark,
You have posted several threads about unemployment. If we made the kind of cuts you are talking about I would guess that it would increase unemployment a couple of percentage points at eh least. Shouldn’t there be some kind of plan on what to do to help the transition? Of course we could just pull another Arrow Trucking.
Mark,
We Americans live beyond our means as it is, but if the government has their way, we won’t be living by any means at all. Only the few elite in Washington will be spared, as they have stoled, and stoled, and stoled from the American people.
So, before we can make any cuts at all, we must first get the power structure d-throned, and brought back down to size.
But I am full on board with you in cutting expenditures in those areas that you mentioned, after all, it is conservatism that decides best on how to distributing funds, and that is, by putting the spending in the hands of the people, away from the government as far as humanly possible.
On Afghanistan, I’ve been thinking about that for days now, wondering … would it not be better to just pull back, and allow a large jet fleet to go in and perform an aerial assault with smaller ammunition in and around the outskirts of the civilian areas where the terrorist outliers are located and then use the larger artillery by performing a second aerial assault on the mountainous regions in strategic locations where terrorists are likely in hiding…you know, we could really demolish those mountains, creating small craters in the mountains visible from the air.
I don’t know, but it just looks to me like it would be an ever trickier situation on the ground, when we could save ourselves time and get more accomplished by taking a larger and more safe bite at one whack. And besides, going after the Taliban, it’s like going Ring-around-the-Rosie with them knowing the terrain like the backs of their hands.
Casper,
If we don’t balance the budget, pronto, then the resulting crash will give us unemployment at Great Depression levels. Think in terms of 25% unemployment. If balancing the budget raises it to 15%, we’re still better off…especially as we’ll then be in position to get out of it a lost faster.
Jeremiah,
There is lots to be said in favor of a pull back, but in war only men on the ground conquer.