Doing your homework

It’s a slow day for news, at least so far. Here, for your viewing pleasure, is today’s submission by Glenn McCoy. Enjoy!

According to Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), it’s been over 800 days since the federal government had a budget. The dems had total control of Congress since 2007. Why has there not been a budget? One isn’t needed when you pass bills with built-in spending authorizations. Can we say TARP? Obamacare? Stimulus packages 1 and 2?

Repost: Would the world end if the US debt limit isn’t raised? No.

This was originally supposed to appear on Thursday, May 12th. Goggle/Blogger, in all their wonder, deleted it.  Fortunately, I found a copy.  Here it is as it was supposed to appear.


The default boogyman card is being played again.  The last time it was used was during the Continuing Resolution debate a month or so ago. RINO John Boehner swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.  The dems are playing it again to get the Debt Limit raised higher than the current $14.2 Trillion limit.

Austan Goolsbee, Chief Accountant of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, claims that the country would be in “instant default” if “we hit the debt limit.” 

Goolsbee Says Tying Debt Ceiling to Spending Is ‘Quite Insane’

May 11, 2011, 10:49 AM EDT

By John McCormick
May 11 (Bloomberg) — Linking efforts to reduce long-term federal deficits with a congressional vote to raise the government’s debt limit puts U.S. credit at risk, President Barack Obama’s chief economic adviser told a Chicago audience.
“To tie this to the debt limit is, in my view, quite insane,” Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said today to the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders.

Yes, I suppose to a lib, anything that would limit spending is insane.  The truth is that the government wouldn’t automatically default—unless Obama purposely did so.

You see, the US government still has an income. US Revenues for this current year are projected to be over $2.2Trillion.  The problem is the dems want to spend over $3.8Trillion.

Have you heard about these nuts who think that the world is going to end in May?

Which is to say, Austan Goolsbee is full of it. He told the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce: “If we hit the debt ceiling, we default.”
No, we don’t.
Debt service accounts for about 7 percent of federal spending. Current revenues will more than cover that, regardless of whether the debt ceiling is raised. We can pay our debts  — and our troops, too — out of present revenues. But if we fail to raise the debt ceiling, we’re going to have to economize on some other things: discretionary spending, for sure, but probably also Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. But here’s the thing: Any meaningful budget-reform deal is going to have to address discretionary spending, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in the long term. There is no way around that. (Defense spending needs to be cut, too, but defense is a different thing from farm subsidies and NPR money: a core national priority. You don’t lump national defense in with national embarrassments such as the Small Business Administration or research grants for Obama’s magic unicorn-powered economy.)
Default? No.
In truth, the federal government expects to collect $2.2 trillion in revenue this year. The problem is that it wants to spend $3.8 trillion.
You can do a lot with $2.2 trillion. You can fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, debt service, unemployment, welfare, and national defense at their 2008 levels. My recollection of 2008 is that it was not exactly a time of Spartan fiscal discipline.
Funding the majority of the federal government at 2008 levels is not “default.” It’s not anything like default. It’s not in the same category of things, events, or concepts as default.
So, don’t buy what Austan Goolsbee is selling.
(Go here for the complete column.)
You’ll note in Willianson’s column, servicing the US debt is only 7% of Federal spending. Not servicing that debt is what would cause the government to default. Reaching the debt limit has nothing to do with forcing the government into default.  It’s how the remaining money is spent that determines whether the government defaults. There’s a lot that can be done with the existing revenue stream and still service that debt.  
Yes, there would have to be spending cuts.  That’s what has the libs all in a tizzy! If we revert to the 2008 budget (and if you have any memory of that time, you’ll remember that Bush wasn’t a miser and spent like a democrat,) we could reach that goal.
Will that happen?  It’s unlikely.  There are too many spineless RINOs, like Boehner, still in office.  They’ll roll-over and pass some taxes to get those “mean” MSM types of their backs. As long as they think it will be forgotten by election time, they think they can rollover without penalty.         

Am I being too pessimistic?  Perhaps. But when the ‘Pubs have control of the house and still elect a RINO like Boehner as Speaker of the House, the more I believe we need to make a full sweep and flush all the ‘Pubs out.
Perhaps it is time for a third party. It’s apparent the ‘Pubs aren’t listening.


I’m writing this on Wednesday.  According to reports the current CR, or Continuing Resolution, will expire on Friday.  If nothing is done, the government will shutdown.


Nothing dire will happen contrary to the protests from dem pols.  Locally, Sen. Claire Mcaskill (D-MO) claims the shutdown will mean “thousands and thousands” of Missourians won’t receive paychecks.  What she didn’t say was those Missourians are government workers.

If those workers are so critical, let’s wait and see just what happens.  I’ll bet there won’t be any noticeable difference.  It will be a good opportunity to see who is really needed and who isn’t.  Those are critical to the working of the government will be paid.  Those who aren’t, won’t.

Just so you’ll understand what a government shutdown means, here’s something to make it more understandable.

Update: Obama was asked what he was doing to help the senate reach an agreement. His reply was basically, “Not my problem,” as he prepared to leave DC for some fund-raising speeches in Philadelphia and New York.

Ryan’s Budget Proposals

I introduced this topic yesterday.  I didn’t know any details then but today some have been released.  The dem/lib idiots have started their expected, “People will DIE!!!!”, BS as usual.

Social Security was untouched. Medicare and Medicaid was.  The changes to Medicare was to eliminate it in its present form and provide direct subsidies to retirees to underwrite healthcare insurance premiums. Retirees can choose any insurance plan that fits their needs without having an unwanted socialist mandate crammed down their throats.  Medicaid would be changed to block-grants to each state.  The states would manage Medicaid in any manner they deem appropriate.

Tax rates would be reduced with a top level coming down to 25%.

The plan reduces the highest-in-the world corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and the top individual income rate to the same level. The lower corporate tax rate would reverse the flow of jobs to foreign countries, and the lower individual income tax rate would improve incentives for workers and businesses to produce more and for investors and businesses to create new jobs. 

The federal budget would be frozen at the 2008 spending level. It also includes reducing corporate welfare, Pell grants (which would negatively affect my daughter’s education towards a Nursing degree,) reduces the federal workforce by 10% and some farm and food-stamp subsidies.

Will these reforms get passed?  Unfortunately, it’s unlikely.  Harry Reid still has control of the Senate and Obama has declared he’d veto it.  Regardless, it’s a very good start.  The next step is negotiations, the give and take.
My response to the give and take is to give as little as necessary and take everything the dems let slip through.  I end this post with this from Gary Varvel.
And just so you understand what the proposed cuts in the Continuing Resolution talks compare to the total budget, here is brief, clearly understood explanation from Michael Ramirez.

The Time of the Long Knives

Representative Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget committee, is expected to release his 10-year budget plan. Supposedly it will do three things. First it will freeze the federal budget to the 2008 level. Second, it will include a major overhaul of federal entitlement programs. Third, it will cut $4Trillion dollars out of the budget over 10 years.

It’s about time.

If that second item occurs, Mrs. Crucis and I WILL be affected. We’re both retired and receive Social Security money.  We’re not old enough for Medicare. I’d prefer to retain my health insurance, if possible, from my old employer.  It’s much better, although much more expensive, than Medicare.

I haven’t seen Ryan’s proposal yet. I think I’ll wait until I can hear the lib screaming here in my basement office.

In the mean time, here’s a little something by Bob Gorrell for your viewing pleasure.

National Endowment for the Arts

I like political cartoons.  I have a dozen or so artists that I check every day.  Today’s offering is from Michael Ramirez.  Ramirez, by the way, once worked for the Los Angles Times until he wouldn’t knuckle under to their orders to support the libs.  Now his cartoons are shown on The Investment Business Daily website.