Showing posts with label defense spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense spending. Show all posts

Friday, March 22, 2019

Headlines


World leaders tell Biden: We need you

EU regulators hit Google with $1.7 billion fine for blocking ad rivals

Finland world’s happiest country ... America lowest ranking ever ...

Harris: ‘Open’ to discussion on eliminating Electoral College

Trump administration withholds report justifying ‘shock’ auto tariffs

A day before it crashed, Lion Air’s Boeing plane was reportedly saved by off-duty pilot

The Conway Show! Trump rips ‘husband from Hell’ ...

Germany furious at U.S. ambassador for calling out low defense spending

Mueller’s old boss delays departure as probe wraps up

FedEx just warned the whole globe is slowing

Border battle: 1million illegals with final deportation orders — still remain in country ...

CNN stunned to find pro-Trump Latinos: We want longer and taller wall

Tuesday, October 04, 2016

Fire Hose Spending


President Obummer is leaving office the way that he came in... with crushing increases in our federal debt ... see: CNS News Article and above chart. Our national debt increased in just-ended fiscal 2016 by $1.42 trillion, compared to his first year in office, 2009, when our debt increased by $1.89 trillion ... driven mostly by an over $800 billion stimulus package. However, this current $1.42 trillion debt increase compares to a projected deficit for fiscal 2016 of $590 billion. Should not these two numbers be the same? Very perplexing ... especially since we are living a public relations lie that it is the size of our national deficits that count toward our fiscal prudence ... when it is really the growth in our national debt that counts most in judging our degree of peril.

Moreover, the difference is that in 2009 there was a rationale for all this fire-hose spending ... to help pull the United States out of the great recession caused by the housing bubble bursting. Now this country, theoretically is not in extremis, so why is our debt growing almost as rapidly ... and why is there such a disconnect between our deficits and the change in our national debt? I have found one brave soul who has tried to rationalize this difference ... see: Wolf Street Article. The possible explanations given therein ... from hidden defense spending to the Social Security surplus ... cannot account for this huge 2016 disparity of $830 billion between our current deficit and our increase in our indebtedness. This article concludes with no real explanation.

However. I think I might have the answer ... and that, like most roads to fiscal hell, is fuzzy accounting. By this I mean that our federal government has not established hard and fast rules in how to apply cash versus accrual accounting methods ... see: The Hill Article. So, as a result, different government agencies use whatever method is most advantageous to their spending desires. They can and often do spend cash on things (both needed and unneeded) and don't enter it in the books as an accrued expense until subsequent fiscal years ... or, less often, do the opposite. This is how our government could increase our debt by $340 billion in one single day last fall. It had accrued expenses until Congress passed the debt ceiling increase ... and then booked all this as cash out of pocket on the debt ledger. And, since these accrued expenses were not required to be shown under existing deficit cash accounting methods, they were hidden from Congress and the American public.

This is an insane way to run a government ... particularly one that can't seem to shut off the fire-hose spending hydrant.

Afterward: I realize I didn't address the second part of my query ... how come the $830 billion 2016 fiscal year disparity between our reported deficit and the increase in our debt? Perhaps the $150-$200 billion we gave to Iran may be part of this delta?


Monday, January 28, 2013

Six Old Men on Entitlement Reform

Not the Real Signers

This blog entry is an user-submission by a reader (Brad Stroup).  I must relay the fact that Brad is generally of the liberal persuasion … as are most of his friends.  But this areopagitica is very conservative in its tone and purpose.  I will not divulge the other five signers of this pledge other than to indicate that their first priority is their country.  Here is their argument for entitlement reform: 
We six old men [all from Tucson, Arizona)] oppose the “me first” culture of the elderly who demand no reforms in entitlement especially in “retirement” states like Arizona.  Most of us over 65 have been guaranteed subsidies in the form of Social Security and Medicare for the rest of our lives that far exceed our contributions.   If we include the “baby-boomers” retiring in the next few years, we elderlies have more annual income than people our age have ever had, and yet we expect the rest of you to take care of us in our leisure years.  Thanks to the profligate generosity of our nation over the past 50 years, we have created an approaching train wreck no one wants to face.  
The AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect old people at everyone else’s expense make no moral or economic sense.  The nation simply cannot afford Medicare and Social Security without some cost reductions.  Medicare co-pays to patients should be increased; Social Security retirement ages should be increased to 67 or 70.  Both entitlements should be means-tested so that those who have more do not take from those whose needs are great.  If we don’t reform these programs now, they won’t be there when younger people go to the window for benefits.
To my amazement, most of the return-e-mail dissenters to this pledge were usually liberals … often radical (and semi-famous) liberals … offering lots of AARP-inspired me-first excuses ranging from “I paid for this benefit and don’t you dare touch it” to “when defense spending is brought under control, then our entitlements will be affordable” (thinking defense spending represents “over 55% of Federal spending" – a liberal chimera.)  For the real facts, see: Heritage Foundation Analysis).  And, if you want to see how an uber-liberal mind works, please see the link I received back as justification for this original outrageous statement: War Resisters League Rationales.  I guess [too] many Americans believe Obama when he said [to Boehner], “[government] spending is not a problem.”

I have volunteered to Brad to be added to the “List of Six.”