Wily Democrats Ramped Up Spending Baseline Almost 18% In 2009

The Tax Policy Center here provides a useful history in pdf format of federal outlays and revenues going back to 1940.

After taking complete control of the federal purse strings in January 2009 with the election of President Obama, the Democrat-controlled House and Senate proceeded to ramp up federal spending almost 18% in 2009 compared to 2008, from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. You can see from the chart that expenditures have continued at that new, higher level ever since, despite the fact that revenues have not recovered. Is this the height of irresponsibility, or what? It certainly is one of the more baneful consequences of one party Democrat rule. Now you understand why Democrats won't pass budgets. Continuing this excess using continuing spending resolutions keeps their names out of the papers.

You'll notice on the revenue side for 2008 and 2009 that the government's income from taxes of all sorts declined almost 17% while these expenditures were being dramatically increased at nearly the same rate, opening up a gigantic fissure in the government fiscal landscape. Revenues declined by $419 billion between 2008 and 2009 while expenditures increased $535 billion. The revenues declined due to the bursting of the housing bubble, the ensuing financial panic and the massive unemployment which followed. Nearly 11.31 million Americans lost their full time jobs between November 1, 2007 and December 1, 2009. People who don't work don't pay taxes. With federal outlays already running over $450 billion in excess of revenues, you can understand why the deficit in 2009 swelled to over $1.4 trillion, and continues elevated at that level every year since. Deficits for fiscal years 2009-2012 will top well over $5 trillion in the end. At the Bush-level of deficit spending, the number would have been closer to $3.5 trillion.

In exchange for that astounding liability we have fat bankers not prosecuted for their crimes; bigger banks more dangerous than ever; fat government salaries at every level compared to the private sector; crony capitalism in banking, autos and healthcare; 5 million homes repossessed in seven years; over 12 million officially unemployed; over 2 million per year leaving the labor force for Social Security disability, reduced lifestyles, poverty, or retirement; nearly 48 million on food stamps; GDP struggling to average 1% per year under Obama, the worst performance in 65 years; interest rates near zero destroying returns on retirement capital; an exploding wave of reduced work in the form of impermanent contract and part-time labor; and on and on.

And what's hot on the web right now?

"Where's my refund?" 

"We're going to get a recovery, because the amount of deficit spending taking place, a corpse would sit up."

"We're going to get a recovery, because the amount of deficit spending taking place, a corpse would sit up."

-- Martin Walker, May 2009

Mish Admits The Hard Lesson Of Fighting The Fed And Global Central Banking

It's always refreshing to read someone who admits to being wrong. That is a person who is open to the world and learns from it, and that is a person you want to read because you can learn something too.

Here's Mish:

I surely underestimated the effect of global coordinated liquidity move[s] by central bankers virtually everywhere (US, EU, UK, China, Australia, Canada, etc.). The result was we had a 10-year stock market rally in three years. ... [But t]he fact of the matter is Fed tail-chasing policies combined with fractional reserve lending and moral-hazard bailouts have amplified the crest and trough of every boom and bust.

Mish admits he can't predict the next bust which will be a doosie, but he's flat-out asserting we're already in a recession for one key reason: 

Fiscal stimulus from Congress is not coming.

The significance of that must not be ignored, as many of us ignored its opposite back in May 2009 as told by Martin Walker of UPI:

"We're going to get a recovery, because the amount of deficit spending taking place, a corpse would sit up."

Keep your powder dry.

Interest on Federal Debt Topped $454 Billion in Fiscal 2011

So says the US Department of the Treasury here.

With fiscal 2011 receipts running at $2.3 trillion according to Treasury here, interest payments now represent 20 percent of federal revenues. Since we're spending $1.5 trillion more than we presently took in, you could say that almost a third of this deficit spending is interest payments.

Total US government debt is running at approximately $15 trillion, so an interest payment of $450 billion per fiscal year implies an interest rate of about 3 percent.

Double that interest rate to 6 percent and interest payments balloon to $900 billion and 40 percent of current revenues.

Mark Steyn recently had some unhappy, pornographic thoughts about that, here:

R.I.P.

[W]ere interest rates to return to their 1990-2010 average (5.7%), debt service alone would consume about 40% of federal revenues by mid-decade. That's not paying down the debt, but just staying current on the interest payments.

And yet, when it comes to spending and stimulus and entitlements and agencies and regulations and bureaucrats, "more more more/how do you like it?" remains the way to bet. Will a Republican president make a difference to this grim trajectory? I would doubt it. Unless the public conversation shifts significantly, neither President Romney nor President Insert-Name-Of-This-Week's-UnRomney-Here will have a mandate for the measures necessary to save the republic.








(source)

'Social Security's Long-Term Shortfall Grows About $1.2 Trillion Annually'

And by "long-term" the meaning is about 18 years.

So said Dennis Cauchon late in the spring for USA Today, here:

Social Security's long-term shortfall grows about $1.2 trillion annually — a sign of an imbalance between the number of young workers and older beneficiaries, according to the Social Security trustees' annual reports. The $21.4 trillion unfunded liability represents the difference between all taxes that will be paid and all benefits received over the lifetimes of everyone in the system now — workers and beneficiaries alike. This is the measure corporations and insurance companies use to assess financial adequacy of their retirement programs.

What this means is that this year and every year for the next two decades or so social security will be in the red annually to the tune of about $1.2 trillion, and government will have to borrow the funds to pay for that annual deficit spending.

Put another way, the social security scheme is a Ponzi scheme writ large. The pool of early fools putting up the dough for the few early, and very lucky, investors has now dried up so much that the program will run in deficit mode annually going forward, just like the rest of government has for years.

This will add significantly to the national debt, driving up interest payments on that debt and severely crimping the government's other spending options without massive injections of new revenues, aka higher taxes on the people.

In the short term, the $2.6 trillion in the social security trust fund (intragovernmental debt) would disappear in relatively short order under this analysis, say roughly in just over two years from now, except that the monies are invested in a mix of shorter and longer US Treasury securities which will reach maturity over a more or less longer period of time and thus force the program into deficit much sooner because redemptions are barred, compounding the pressure on the availability of funds for current year government spending.

The Tea Party Has Already Made The Democrats Blink on Tax Increases

"They’ve moved in other words, the Senate Majority Leader, far in their direction."

-- George Will, here

An excellent point, the premise of which is that politics is the art of the possible.

In point of fact not just once, either. The extension of the Bush tax rates from this crowd of left wing fanatics was no mean achievement.

The Tea Party speaks for many in wanting the deficit spending to stop. In view of the fact that deficit spending and enthusiasm for taxation are the cornerstones of the opposition, getting Democrats to relent on taxes late last year and again now is pretty good for just 20 or 30 fiscal extremists in the US House.

It should remind us all that imagination is important to political success. Michael Steele didn't have any in early 2010 when he opined that Republicans probably couldn't take back the House. Boy was he mistaken.

It would be a mistake to stop imagining that we can reduce spending. The only caveat is whether Obama  possesses enough character to refrain from defaulting on the debt. If he doesn't and does default, it could be blamed on overreaching by the Tea Party.

At a minimum, Obama's persistent extreme rhetoric threatening such a default should trouble more people. Even left of center types here and there are upset by his behavior, which is a good sign. It is nothing short of disgraceful that a president should talk this way, and it gives everyone over the age of forty pause.

I say that's a tactic, not a promise. Obama is going outside the experience of the enemy, one of Alinsky's rules.

The Tea Party should keep pressing the issue. And Republicans need to buck up and go on the rhetorical offensive. The farthest they should go is a clean debt ceiling increase of $1 trillion, which buys more time but doesn't give the president the space he wants, and needs.

The next crisis date is October 1, by which time we must have a budget agreed to by the Democrats to fund the next fiscal year. 

Social Security Tax Cut For 2011 Adds To Stress In A Government Shutdown

The revenue lost to Social Security, about $120 billion in 2011 due to the temporary tax cut, will be reimbursed to the Trust Fund from income tax withholding, over two years, not one. That means that with annual deficit spending already at $1.5 trillion, in a shut down there's even less cash flow to count on if $5 billion in funds are being siphoned off for this purpose monthly.

TheHill.com explains here:

The tax cut will put roughly $120 billion into workers’ pockets. Perhaps $90 billion of this, or three quarters, will be spent. This could provide enough of a boost to GDP to create more than 300,000 jobs. 

Also, the Social Security trust fund will be reimbursed for the lost revenue. Under the deal that President Obama worked out with the Republican leadership, funds from general revenue will replace the lost tax revenue for the next two years. This means that the tax break will have no effect on the long-term solvency of Social Security.

Doh!

More Than Half of Real GDP Through 2010 Came from Government Spending

From deficit spending, that is, measured in the hundreds of billions per year under George Bush, and now in the trillions in just two and a half years under Barack Obama.

It ain't worth it! And the country needs a growth strategy.

Seen here at The Department of Numbers:

The Great Stagnation

"[M]ore than half of our economic growth in the past ten years has come from government spending."

The Decline in Housing Equity to Date is About $7 Trillion

So says TNR here:

To date, the decline in house prices has destroyed nearly $7 trillion in housing equity. And prices are still falling. Homeowners are likely to see another $1 trillion in equity disappear over the next year.

The article is otherwise full of nonsense, recommending deficit spending in the range of $4 trillion per year to boost employment, and blaming the stall speed in job creation on the imminent cessation of the heretofore grandiose spending of the early Obama regime.

Gee, I had no idea that all the jobs ever created in this country were the result of deficit spending. Who knew?

Debt by Congress

"After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt."

-- Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010

111th Congress, 2009-2010, New debt = $3.22 trillion

110th Congress, 2007-2008, New debt = $1.96 trillion

Total new debt under Pelosi and Dems = $5.18 trillion

An increase of new debt of 134 percent over the historic deficits she was referring to, making hers, well, more historic:

109th Congress, 2005-2006, New debt = $1.05 trillion

108th Congress, 2003-2004, New debt = $1.16 trillion

Total new debt under Republicans        = $2.21 trillion

Proving once again that Republicans give less of the same, and Democrats more.

Full story here.

National Debt Up $5 Trillion Under Pelosi, $3.1 Trillion Under Hastert

The woman said in January 2007 that under Democrats there wouldn't be any more deficit spending but pay as you go instead. Yea right.

Under Hastert the deficit increased so much not because of war spending, but because of social spending, particularly on Drugs for Seniors, the largest expansion of government since the 1960s at the time.

You can't trust either party as far as you can throw them.

The story was reported here.

Individual Charitable Giving Declines Nearly 5% Between 2008 and 2009

Caroline Baum reports some interesting figures for Bloomberg.com about the relatively puny contributions people have made to the US Bureau of the Public Debt:

Last year, the Treasury received more than $3 million in gifts, the biggest annual take since 1995’s $7.3 million. ...

Public Law 87-58, “Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt,” was passed on June 27, 1961, in response to a generous bequest of $20 million dollar from an estate. ... Since then the single largest gift was $3.5 million in 1992, also a bequest from an individual’s estate.

In the first 10 months of fiscal 2010, which ends today, Treasury received $2.7 million in gifts.

For all the handwringing that goes on about the growth of deficit spending, you'd think the numbers would show a little more civic-mindedness, but they don't. Compared with giving to private charities, this tells you all you need to know about where people think their money will do the most good, and it sure isn't the government.

Boston College's Center on Wealth and Philanthropy reports the latest numbers:

Individual charitable giving in 2009 amounted to $217.3 billion . . . $228.5 billion total in 2008. ...

The American people still believe there is a huge need out there which government spending through forced taxation is not meeting, and despite that taxation they open their wallets to address it. But what should disturb more people is the recent decline in giving due to the financial meltdown, a casualty of this country's war on the middle class:

[T]he total decline in inflation adjusted dollars [was] $25.3 billion between 2007 and 2009.

Follow the links for the stories.

Our Liberty Is Not Abstract, But Sensible

Tony Blankley zeroes in here on the distinctive American attachment to the tangible, a disposition we inherited more from Rome than from Athens, from Antiquity not Modernity, from tradition not innovation, from Burke not Johnson:

March 10, 2010

An American Obsession with Freedom

By Tony Blankley

The publishing of the Declaration of Independence 233 years ago by our Founders was responded to in London by two of the 18th century's greatest minds: Dr. Samuel Johnson (after whom a literary age was named) and Edmund Burke (the intellectual father of modern Anglo-American conservatism).

Dr. Johnson made the harsh assertion that our Declaration was "the delirious dream of republican fanaticism" that, if sincere, would "put the axe to the roots of all government." Moreover, he went on, it was the rankest hypocrisy for owners of slaves to shout for freedom, or, as Johnson put it: "Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?"

But it was Edmund Burke who had the more profound insight. He recognized that it wasn't despite being slaveholders that American Colonists felt so powerfully about liberty. Rather, being in the midst of the obvious evils of slavery, those men who were free more fully appreciated their freedom. "Those who are free are by far the most proud and jealous of rank and privilege," Burke argued. Or, as Jedediah Purdy (from whose historically rich and ingenious book "A Tolerable Anarchy" I have abstracted these observations) put it: "Slavery made masters uniquely sensitive to any invasion of their independence."

These sensitivities -- sensibilities -- that Burke so shrewdly observed in 1775 continue to manifest themselves in American politics today as we fight over socializing health care, nationalizing industries, indebting our grandchildren, regulating and taxing energy creation and the other intrusions into what Americans have long considered not to be the government's business.

Burke would understand what Europeans (and many European-influenced Americans) in 2010 continue to scoff at as America's obsession with the slogan of freedom. Because although we Americans may talk about freedom as an abstraction -- and believe in freedom as an abstraction -- our politics come alive when we experience an intrusion into what John Adams called "the sensations of freedom."

As Burke explained: "Abstract liberty, like other abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favorite point which ... becomes the criterion of their happiness."

I believe that the rise of the Tea Party movement and the impassioned nature of American politics in 2009-10 is the result of the Obama administration's having, probably inadvertently, intruded into "some favorite points which becomes the criterion of (our) happiness."

That is to say, though the Democrats see their health care proposal as merely another step along a continuum of government action, a strong majority of the American people sense that the "quantity" of the intrusion has changed the "quality" of the intrusion.

What is seen, currently, as a basically private-sector health process with some government intervention has crossed over, in the Democrats' plans, into basically a government system. And, by being seen to have so crossed over, it is an attack on "some sensible object" (i.e. private-sector health care) in which our "Liberty inheres."

Similarly, the shift from less than $500 billion of annual deficit in the last George W. Bush year to a $1.5 trillion deficit in each of the first and second Obama years (and the proposed addition of almost $10 trillion of new public debt over the next decade) has -- by the increase in quantity -- changed the nature of public debt in such a way as to intrude into our sense of our fundamental liberty.

If the Chinese, by selling off our debt notes, can destroy our economy and way of life at a whim -- as the accumulating debt suggests is possible -- then what had been merely irresponsible, self-indulgent deficit spending by both Republicans and Democrats in the recent past has transformed into a fundamental threat to our liberty and our grandchildren's future.

The Obama administration and the Democrats crossed a line and touched a nerve in America's body politic. We sense our fundamental freedom endangered. And the response will be as remorseless as was our revolution against the British. Against all odds, the intrusion on those things around which our "liberty inheres" will be driven from our political midst. (It is not Waterloo, but Yorktown, that is likely to be the terminal point.)

The first hard step in that defense will be the election in November. The second, even harder step will be the rollback of already enacted debt and damage to our freedom. Defining the extent and detail of the rollback must be the agenda for the government's loyal opposition in this year's election. And the things to which we are loyal are our Constitution, our founding principles and the good institutions and social contrivances brought into being by those principles over our providential history.

The Return of the Pinkies From Columbia and Harvard

YOUNG PINKIES FROM COLUMBIA AND HARVARD,

DEPLETING THE RESOURCES OF THE SOUNDEST GOVERNMENT IN THE WORLD

PLAN OF ACTION FOR U.S.:

SPEND! SPEND!

SPEND UNDER THE GUISE OF RECOVERY BUST THE GOVERNMENT

BLAME THE CAPITALISTS FOR THE FAILURE

JUNK THE CONSTITUTION

AND DECLARE A DICTATORSHIP

(The Chicago Tribune, 4/21/1934)

Deficit spending in 2007: $ 162 billion

Deficit spending in 2008: $ 455 billion

President Barack Obama, elected 2008

B.A., Columbia University, 1983

J.D., Harvard Law School, 1991

Deficit spending in 2009: $1,400 billion

The Return of The Mummy

"We're going to get a recovery, because the amount of deficit spending taking place, a corpse would sit up." -- Martin Walker, UPI, 5/8/09 on "The McLaughlin Group"