2 Comments to 'So Bob Corker was right?'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
:: Trackbacks/Pingbacks ::
No Trackbacks/Pingbacks
So Bob Corker was right?
Posted By katie allison granju
Well, it looks like Bob Corker may have been right about the impact the stimulus payments would have on the U.S. economy.
From the AP:
A flood of economic stimulus payments pushed the federal budget deficit to an all-time high of $165.9 billion in May.
The Treasury Department reported Wednesday that the May deficit was more than double the imbalance in May 2007. That reflects some $48 billion in payments as part of the government’s $168 billion effort to give the economy a jump-start and keep the country from falling into recession.
For the first eight months of the budget year, the deficit totals $319.4 billion, slightly below the all-time record for this period of $346 billion, set in the 2004 budget year.
(As for me, I will be enjoying a stimulus-check-funded beach vacation next week…)
Jun 11th, 2008
Well, we all have to remember some important things here with regard to the budget and deficits:
1) The constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws and make financial appropriations. No other portion of the federal government is permitted to do this. That means House Representatives and Senators can pass “Thou Shalt Not” laws(which do not always cost very much) and laws that establish programs or pay for wars (which always do cost a lot). Most of the “Thou Shalt Not” laws were passed many years ago—not much left to do there. That leaves program laws and wars. We all want our House Representatives and Senators to be working hard for us, otherwise we would accuse them all of being “slackers” and vote them out of office. No one likes a lazy employee, especially one supported by our tax dollars. Therefore, all Congressmen can do to look like they are on the job for us is pass program laws that cost a lot of money and fund wars that cost a lot of money. Think about it.
2) In light of No. 1 above, we suddenly realize that ALL Congressman are COMPELLED to spend. They really have no choice. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. That is why both the Republicans and Democrats (as well as a few Independents) have spent us so deep into a blackhole. Therefore, the only real issue is not whether Federal government spending will occur. The only real question left is WHAT the money will be spent on.
3) The Republican Party and Democrat Party each has its “pet things” to spend money on. For example, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party (led by people like George W. Bush) have long stated quite publicly that the “only legitimate function of the federal government is to protect the lives and property of the American people.” Therefore, they oppose almost every program law that has ever been thought up (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, and really just about everything else). The only problem here is this. If Congress can only spend money to fund the police and armed forces and if the only legitimate function of government is the protection of lives and property, it forces the nation to be put on a CONTINUOUS WAR FOOTING—always in a war or always getting ready for a war. That is what we have been seeing for the past 8 years and is what we will continue to see if we keep electing these right wing Republicans to office. Now, I will be the first to admit that wars are sometimes necessary. In fact, I consider myself to be a hawk on national defense, and I was a big supporter of the Iraq War until it went totally stupid on us. However, even I have to say that it is too expensive and highly impractical to put an entire nation on a PERPETUAL war footing infinitum ad nauseum. It is a well known fact that Hitler was going to rename the Third Reich as “Germania.” He envisioned it as a vast conquored empire with restless populations that would have to be kept in check. Therefore, it would be necessary to be on a CONTINUOUS WAR FOOTING where moms would be gladly and constantly sending off their blond, blue-eyed children to defend the empire against armies of insurgents. Sound familiar? In my mind, our current crop of right wing Republicans is about as close to real Nazis as one can get in a true and well-working constitutional democracy/republic like ours. Fortunately, we have checks and balances that prevent their worst tendecies. I do not say that lightly.
4) On the other end of the spectrum, the Democrat Party likes to spend money on program laws (just a reminder here of the earlier point—Congress is compelled to spend your money—the only question is on what). They feel that government can fix all of the world’s problems and create a peaceful utopia. This is not smoke and mirrors for some hidden agenda. They really do think that they can do this. We all know that this is probably not true, probably not possible, and something of a pipe dream. Like most things in real life, you have some winners, some losers, and some draws. Unemployment insurance was a winner and has been around for years doing a really good job for working Americans who lose their jobs. On the other end, welfare programs costed too much and encouraged too many people to become dependent on a government dole while discouraging personal initiative to make one’s own life better. When new program laws were tried out and were found to not work, the Democrats were more inclined to just keep the broken program and keep throwing money at it because a few people were being helped rather than fix the broken program to help more people or kill it in favor of something that might work better. And yes, new programs often result in tax hikes to pay for them. The Democrats may claim that they want to raise taxes on just the top 1% of wealthy people, but the truth is that just about everyone’s taxes will go up at least some as a result of their new programs. You can count on that. Just like the right wing Republicans on their extremities, there is a minority (about 15-20 percent just like the GOP) of extreme left wing Democrats who do have really crazy ideas about euthanasia for old people, communal living, hugging trees rather than cutting a few to build bookcases, and eating an all-vegetable diet so cows can have longer and better social lives in real grass fields. Fortunately, for you and me, there are a lot more Democrats and Republicans who do not subscribe to the “nut case” ends of their parties. On the Democrat side, the more normal people, who are really more like you and me, are sincere in wanting to help other people. It is not driven by Marxist fantasies. In fact, I suspect that the only Marx that most of them know anything about is Groucho. Instead, it is driven by a Bible that they take seriously when it says to “…do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If they have good healthcare, they would like to find a way to get good healthcare for someone who does not. It’s just the neighborly thing to do.
5) Therefore, in the voting booth this fall, we have a choice between two political parties that are both mixed bags—some good ideas—some just plain crazy. The only thing we know for sure is that Congress, no matter which party is in office, is COMPELLED to spend your money. Otherwise, they would be accused of sleeping on the job. The only question is WHAT they are going to spend that money on as we slide ever deeper into national debt. Do you want to spend it on four more years of continuous war? Do you want to spend it on a stab at healthcare for everyone that might work or fall flat on its face? Only you can decide this on November 2. However, remember this. Your choice is not between a Democrat or a Republican. Your choice is about WHAT you want all of that Federal money to be spent on for the next four years.
6) Here is one last fascinating thing that you do not hear much about. Back in the early 1990s, I spent way too much time watching C-Span. I saw numerous Ph. D. economists who would come right out and tell you that they thought federal budget deficits were no problem and that they did not care if they went on forever. I thought that was really odd because it seemed to defy logic and good fiscal sense—and economists are pretty straight-laced people on the whole and are very concerned about such things. After thinking about it, I realized something. Most of our deficit money is borrowed from foreign governments. Certainly, at some point, they might decide to quit lending money to us if we could not pay the interest on the debt or if we defaulted on the loans. However, are they really going to send over a collection agency to the front door of a nation that can shove 35,000 nuclear warheads up their ass and set them off inside just a few minutes. I do not think so—and neither do those economists.
Well, we all have to remember some important things here with regard to the budget and deficits:
1) The constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws and make financial appropriations. No other portion of the federal government is permitted to do this. That means House Representatives and Senators can pass “Thou Shalt Not” laws(which do not always cost very much) and laws that establish programs or pay for wars (which always do cost a lot). Most of the “Thou Shalt Not” laws were passed many years ago—not much left to do there. That leaves program laws and wars. We all want our House Representatives and Senators to be working hard for us, otherwise we would accuse them all of being “slackers” and vote them out of office. No one likes a lazy employee, especially one supported by our tax dollars. Therefore, all Congressmen can do to look like they are on the job for us is pass program laws that cost a lot of money and fund wars that cost a lot of money. Think about it.
2) In light of No. 1 above, we suddenly realize that ALL Congressman are COMPELLED to spend. They really have no choice. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. That is why both the Republicans and Democrats (as well as a few Independents) have spent us so deep into a blackhole. Therefore, the only real issue is not whether Federal government spending will occur. The only real question left is WHAT the money will be spent on.
3) The Republican Party and Democrat Party each has its “pet things” to spend money on. For example, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party (led by people like George W. Bush) have long stated quite publicly that the “only legitimate function of the federal government is to protect the lives and property of the American people.” Therefore, they oppose almost every program law that has ever been thought up (social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, and really just about everything else). The only problem here is this. If Congress can only spend money to fund the police and armed forces and if the only legitimate function of government is the protection of lives and property, it forces the nation to be put on a CONTINUOUS WAR FOOTING—always in a war or always getting ready for a war. That is what we have been seeing for the past 8 years and is what we will continue to see if we keep electing these right wing Republicans to office. Now, I will be the first to admit that wars are sometimes necessary. In fact, I consider myself to be a hawk on national defense, and I was a big supporter of the Iraq War until it went totally stupid on us. However, even I have to say that it is too expensive and highly impractical to put an entire nation on a PERPETUAL war footing infinitum ad nauseum. It is a well known fact that Hitler was going to rename the Third Reich as “Germania.” He envisioned it as a vast conquored empire with restless populations that would have to be kept in check. Therefore, it would be necessary to be on a CONTINUOUS WAR FOOTING where moms would be gladly and constantly sending off their blond, blue-eyed children to defend the empire against armies of insurgents. Sound familiar? In my mind, our current crop of right wing Republicans is about as close to real Nazis as one can get in a true and well-working constitutional democracy/republic like ours. Fortunately, we have checks and balances that prevent their worst tendecies. I do not say that lightly.
4) On the other end of the spectrum, the Democrat Party likes to spend money on program laws (just a reminder here of the earlier point—Congress is compelled to spend your money—the only question is on what). They feel that government can fix all of the world’s problems and create a peaceful utopia. This is not smoke and mirrors for some hidden agenda. They really do think that they can do this. We all know that this is probably not true, probably not possible, and something of a pipe dream. Like most things in real life, you have some winners, some losers, and some draws. Unemployment insurance was a winner and has been around for years doing a really good job for working Americans who lose their jobs. On the other end, welfare programs costed too much and encouraged too many people to become dependent on a government dole while discouraging personal initiative to make one’s own life better. When new program laws were tried out and were found to not work, the Democrats were more inclined to just keep the broken program and keep throwing money at it because a few people were being helped rather than fix the broken program to help more people or kill it in favor of something that might work better. And yes, new programs often result in tax hikes to pay for them. The Democrats may claim that they want to raise taxes on just the top 1% of wealthy people, but the truth is that just about everyone’s taxes will go up at least some as a result of their new programs. You can count on that. Just like the right wing Republicans on their extremities, there is a minority (about 15-20 percent just like the GOP) of extreme left wing Democrats who do have really crazy ideas about euthanasia for old people, communal living, hugging trees rather than cutting a few to build bookcases, and eating an all-vegetable diet so cows can have longer and better social lives in real grass fields. Fortunately, for you and me, there are a lot more Democrats and Republicans who do not subscribe to the “nut case” ends of their parties. On the Democrat side, the more normal people, who are really more like you and me, are sincere in wanting to help other people. It is not driven by Marxist fantasies. In fact, I suspect that the only Marx that most of them know anything about is Groucho. Instead, it is driven by a Bible that they take seriously when it says to “…do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” If they have good healthcare, they would like to find a way to get good healthcare for someone who does not. It’s just the neighborly thing to do.
5) Therefore, in the voting booth this fall, we have a choice between two political parties that are both mixed bags—some good ideas—some just plain crazy. The only thing we know for sure is that Congress, no matter which party is in office, is COMPELLED to spend your money. Otherwise, they would be accused of sleeping on the job. The only question is WHAT they are going to spend that money on as we slide ever deeper into national debt. Do you want to spend it on four more years of continuous war? Do you want to spend it on a stab at healthcare for everyone that might work or fall flat on its face? Only you can decide this on November 2. However, remember this. Your choice is not between a Democrat or a Republican. Your choice is about WHAT you want all of that Federal money to be spent on for the next four years.
6) Here is one last fascinating thing that you do not hear much about. Back in the early 1990s, I spent way too much time watching C-Span. I saw numerous Ph. D. economists who would come right out and tell you that they thought federal budget deficits were no problem and that they did not care if they went on forever. I thought that was really odd because it seemed to defy logic and good fiscal sense—and economists are pretty straight-laced people on the whole and are very concerned about such things. After thinking about it, I realized something. Most of our deficit money is borrowed from foreign governments. Certainly, at some point, they might decide to quit lending money to us if we could not pay the interest on the debt or if we defaulted on the loans. However, are they really going to send over a collection agency to the front door of a nation that can shove 35,000 nuclear warheads up their ass and set them off inside just a few minutes. I do not think so—and neither do those economists.