President Trump's Budget

Trump’s budget

Everywhere I turn, I am seeing cries and lamentations about President Trump’s first budget. First of all let’s be clear about what we are talking about. What was issued in the press is what is referred to as a “skinny budget” meaning there are no details only large-scale bottom-line numbers. So the devil will be in the details in the full budget released in the coming months.

Talking about the substance of the budget is likely to get people who are fiscally conservative into a great deal of hot water. Cries about cutting the NDA or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting or the EPA or any number of smaller budget items is likely to drown out any sort of logical discussion of the size and scope of the federal government and therefore its budget. But what is interesting is the fatal lack of understanding of the federal budget. There are so many programs that overlap other federal programs, state and local programs, and even private efforts that cutting most of these budgets won’t have any effect on the folks who supposedly receive federal funding. For example the NEA’s relatively small budget is used support museums, libraries, research, and other activities. But the truth of the matter is, like any other large organization, a large chunk of money goes to pay salary for employees. To be fair though, only about 20% of the NEA’s budget goes to salaries and program support, which is really good for any organization. But the NEA is an organization dedicated to spending tax dollars on, let’s be honest here, largely left wing and liberal meaning concerns. Politically, among Trump supporters and fiscal conservatives, this does not sit well with probably a majority of Americans.

As for the notion that cutting meat NEA is going to close museums across the country nothing could be further from the truth. A little less than half of the NEA budget, about $72 million in fiscal year 2017, is given out in direct grants. There are, according to Google, more than 35,000 museums in the United States. Even assuming every museum applies for indirect grant from the NEA each museum would receive a paltry $2,057.14. That’s it. For most museums that won’t even pay the electric bill for a year. Of course, not all museums apply for NEA support, and any museum that relies solely on funding from one source, probably does not deserve to remain open.

So let’s not kid ourselves that cutting the NEA means that even one museum will close. Yes, I know support for the humanities is important. Yes, I know that museums are important. But that does not mean the federal government should be taking tax dollars in spending on supporting museums.

Of course the NEA is but one victim of President Trump’s budget suggestion. I could spend several posts talking about and defending the budget cuts why they should be done and what the marginal effect would be. But politically, people need to understand, this is not going to be the final budget not by any stretch of the imagination. This is a negotiating tool. That is it. If more people took the time to read Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal” they would have a far better understanding of how the president works. He knows he’s not going to get all of this. He knows that things that he wants to cut will be put back into the budget. But the document does do several things: it shows his base, his voters, that he is doing what he said he would do. Politically it’s refreshing. For far too long Congress and the president have tried to tinker around the edges of budgets but never really reducing anything. At least this president is willing to wield a mighty axe in the budget process. It takes bold stances to affect change.

Personally, I would like to see Pres. trump and Congress tackle what is really going to break the bank from a budget standpoint and that his entitlements. But to do that is going to take an absolute willingness to take a beating personally and professionally in the press and before voters. That may take more courage than anyone in the elective office currently has. But we certainly need someone to do that.

Never fear, this skinny budget is just one step in the process, a process that is ultimately and finally controlled by Congress. The question will be, does the President have the guts to veto spending bills that completely disregards his priorities? That will be an interesting test.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

Show Your Work Congress

Last night, I had a long conversation with the Peanut, my oldest daughter, about her math homework.  She had gotten a failing grade, 55%, on a math homework assignment, despite she whined, getting all the answers right (which I have no doubt she did).  What was the reason she failed?  Well, she failed to follow the instructions and show her work, which was spelled out in the instructions.

That was what was running through my head when I read this brilliant idea via Mark Tapscott:

Few things are more characteristic of business as usual in Washington, D.C., than closed doors. Nothing will do more to end business as usual than opening them to C-SPAN cameras.

With the "fiscal cliff" of sequestration approaching, now is the perfect time to establish a precedent: The bigger the deal, the more important it is that negotiations be done in public.

It took about 12 seconds after the 2012 campaign winners were declared for the maneuvering toward a "grand bargain" to begin among President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker John Boehner.

Everybody professes to favor compromise, but without open negotiations there is no way to know who actually offers concrete compromises and who merely talks about them.The essential antidote is to let C-SPAN's cameras cover the negotiations gavel to gavel, with open news conferences after every bargaining session.

The only reasonable alternative to the cameras would be making public a complete transcript of every word said during the talks, with no opportunities for participants to "revise and extend" their remarks.

Of course, the participants will say they can't deal in candor if their work is made public.  Well, tough noogie chuckleheads, you are elected representatives and we as you employers have a right to see your work.  Just like the instructions on my daughter's math homework, she has to show her work, our representatives and elected officials need to show their work.

The only way they can ever hope to get out of the 10-20% approval rating doldrums is to engender faith in their work, and start doing it out in the open.

__________________________________

Check out my soccer blog at Nutmegs and Stepovers

The Debt Ceiling--Can I Raise My Debt Ceiling Too?

Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty argues against raising the debt ceiling and makes a common sense suggestion for Congress--pay our debts first.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Sunday and in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Pawlenty challenged even leaders in his own party, who have said Congress must increase the federal debt ceiling rather than risk a default that could send interest rates skyrocketing and the economy back into recession.

Mr. Pawlenty said Congress should pass legislation that would put interest and debt payments ahead of other federal spending and allow the federal government to pay its creditors as tax revenue flows in. With the surge of tax payments that come in between April and June, that would at least buy time to try to cut spending dramatically, he said.

This makes sense to me, because that is how real people do it.  Look, when you and I get paid, we have to prioritize our payments.  Maybe you put a savings deduction or a religious tithe first, but at the top of your (and my) payment list is things like:

Mortgage/rent
credit card debt payments
food
utility payments

Regardless of how you do things, normal people pay their debts before embarking on new spending.  The federal government should be the same.  If the government pays its debts first and only then addresses other spending or new spending, they will find themselves with less money to play with.  Congress then pays the debts  (thus securing the long term financial health of America) and then can spend the rest in a fiscally responsible manner (we hope).

Makes sense--you know like real people sense.

Farm Subsidies and School Lunches

Mona Charen, writing in the Washington Examiner, was discussing the manner in which the commentariat on the right took a recent comment by First Lady Michelle Obama out of context when talking about school lunches and healthy eating. A fair number of people, particularly those on the right chastise the First Lady for trying to tell us how we should eat better. I for one think Mrs. Obama's message is a good one, I don't even mind the appearances the First Lady has made in psuedo-PSAs on the Disney Channel (my kids favorite channel) on thinks like eating healthy snacks or managing portion sizes. I believe her efforts come from a good place and I don't really have a problem with the fact that sometimes she and her family like french fries.

Having said that though, I am not a big fan of some of Mrs. Obama's chosen methodology, such as expanding school lunch programs. I became even less enamoured of the idea when I read this bit from Charen's piece:

Obama is correct that school meals are loaded with saturated fat, salt, and sugar. She notes that children receive half of their daily calories from school lunches. Most kids don't eat breakfast at school, which means that school lunches are larded up with calories.

 So let's follow the government's logic here a bit.  As noted by Charen, the government nutrionistas tell us that 1 in 3 American kids are overweight or obese.  That is bad, but then we read that children get half their daily caloric intake from school lunches.  That is one meal out of, presumably 3 meals and snacks probably, and kids get 1/2 of their calories from a school lunch--a government program.  So, partially to blame for the high obesity rate in this country is----that's right, the government.


So naturally, to fix the problem we are going to--expand that same government program that gives our kids half their calories a day.  There are even some people who want to expand beyond just school breakfasts and lunches and go right into dinner as well.  Can you imagine the blobs for kids we would get then?  (And don't get me started on the lack of Physical Education to burn some of those calories off).

Compounding the school lunch problem is the farm subsidies that go along with it.  The government spend $13 billion dollars a year now on the school lunch program buying those fatty, dairy-laden, fat-dripping, high caloric lunches for our ever more obese kids.   We subsidize dairy and meat farmers who then provide the basis for the high caloric school lunches and breakfasts.

How did this happen? Was it just that before the Obamas came to town, the feds were misguided about what was good for kids? Or was it something about the way government operates?

Is it an accident that school lunches are so heavy on cheese and meat?

No. The National School Lunch program, enacted in 1946, was devised with two goals in mind. The first was to subsidize farmers by purchasing huge blocs of "excess" commodities in order to keep prices up.

Only secondarily did the government intend to help feed hungry children. Subsidies are, to paraphrase President Reagan, the closest thing to immortal life in this world.

So while America's children were getting heavier and heavier, particularly low-income children, federal programs continued to heap pizza, French fries, and cheeseburgers onto their plates.

So we pay subsidies to farmers to keep the prices artificially high for their products and then the government, presumably pays those artificially inflated prices--essentially paying twice for the products.  It gets better, Mrs. Obama and the nutritionistas want to expand the the school lunch program by some 35%, adding another $4.5 billion into the program to, I hope, buy more fruits and vegetables for the school lunch program.  That expansion will include, no doubt, subsidies to fruit and vegetable farmers to keep their prices higher and then the government will pay those higher prices.  Of course, the School Lunch Program is not going to stop by the dairy and meat products that it already subsidizes.  The program is just going to add more calories to our kids plates, although it will be healthier calories.


Does anyone else see the folly in this?  Does anyone else see the billions wasted?  I think it terrific that we are looking to trim our collective waist lines and put some healthier food on our children's plates.  But we also need to think about trimming the size of our national wallet and this is not the way to do it.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/2010/12/will-mrs-obama-downsize-your-kid#ixzz192iuazRN

Ugh!! Farm Bill Subsidies Could be Windfall

Washington Post notes some other junk in the Farm Giveaway Bill.

A major new program in the recently enacted farm bill could increase taxpayer-financed payments to farmers by billions of dollars if high commodity prices decline to more typical levels, administration and congressional budget officials said yesterday.

snip

The final details of the new program were approved at the end of four months of House-Senate negotiations over the legislation and received almost no attention during floor debate last week. The voluntary program guarantees farmers a subsidy if they suffer losses because of low prices or poor crops.

Since the amount of the subsidy for 2009 is tied to recent record prices, farmers could reap a windfall if prices drop suddenly.

"I don't think many people on the House side who voted for the farm bill realized there were $16 billion in potential higher costs in there," said Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Charles F. Conner. "The budget exposure is tremendous."

A blog item posted Monday by the agricultural magazine Pro Farmer described the new program, known as Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE), as "lucrative beyond expectations," and said it is a "no brainer" for farmers to sign up for it.

The Agriculture Department estimates that subsidy payments to corn farmers alone could reach $10 billion a year if prices -- which have been $5 to $6 a bushel -- were to drop to $3.25 a bushel, a level seen as recently as last year. The $10 billion figure assumes most farmers would participate in the program, a view disputed by key lawmakers.

Okay, at the first, I am a huge opponent of farm subsidies, largely because they do more to keep food prices higher than anything else. I don't mind crop insurance, flood insurance or other insurances, but not subsidies.

Second, it is important to remember that most of these farm subsidies don't go to the "family farmer" but to corporations that do most of the farming in this country. It is corporate welfare at its worst. The notion that "most famers" would not sign up for the program is rediculous. If the government were going to give me money when the price of anything I own or produce falls, you can bet I am going to sign up for it. It is free money!!!

Third, as the agriculture secretary pointed out, the bill has a huge budget exposure of probably more than $10 billion.

When are lawmakers going to wise up and really start talking about cutting back on all the giveaways. When is someone going to step up to the plate and really present the absolute ludicrousness of these subsidies and government spending.

4 Out of 5 Believe Government is Wasteful

The fact that some people think the government is wasteful is not news, but when 83 percent of people think that if the govnerment had more money they would waste is news.

Efforts like Porkbusters and even the news media focusing on wasteful government spending is starting to take its toll. Good.

Follow Up on the School Supply Tax

Last week, I wrote this post, in which I complained about the additional "tax" levied on parents and students in the form of school supplies for general class use instead of for the child's personal use.

I got an email comment from Dew which reads:

Stop! What is with you whiny anti-tax activist types? So you don't like paying for school supplies for your girls and the supplies that help them learn, should have thought about that before you had them.

I don't have children and don't plan to have children, but I still pay for your kids education through my taxes, and for the most part that doesn't bother me. I'd like your girls, and all the children of today, to be well educated and I am willing to pay for that. What do I get out of it? Hopefully, educated leaders for the future of our country and an educated workforce that continues to drive the economy. Heck I don't care what they do, the mere fact that education has also sorts of positive social impact is enough for me to keep paying without complaining. That is until I hear someone complaining about the unfair burden placed on them by the demands of our evil schools.

Here's an idea, how about if those of us without children, including all those who have not yet had children, those who don't intend to have children, and those whose children are grown and out of school stop paying any taxes related to your daughters' education? Let that happen for just two years (you of course now get to pick up the full bill) of your children's education and I bet you never complain again about the over burdensome extra school taxes you pay today.

There are two reasons why I chose to respond to Dew. First, these kinds of comments just tell me that they have not read the full post. Had Dew read the full post they would have seen these sentences:

I pay a pretty penny in federal, state, and local taxes that support my local schools. I do so grudgingly and did so even when my kids are not in the schools.

Taxes for public education are a fact of life and one that while I don't like to pay taxes (who really, really does anyway), I pay them to support important public work--like schools.

But my real reason for responding is to discuss a few points about Dew's comments. I realize something that Dew never will, that people with children pay a fair amount in extras in our society, and not just in school supplies or things like that. I realize that having children incurs a significant financial burden, a burden I not only willingly shoulder but I am happy to do so since the benefits of children far outweigh the cost.

The last few sentences of Dew's comment and others like it generally irriate me. Such comments imply that I am unwilling to pay for my child's education. I am more than willing, even to the point of considering private school if that is the best course for my children. So that means I would have to choose a private school and still pay taxes to support public education, in effect paying twice, or more than twice, my fair share. The problem with such a scenario of course is that while I have the means to either pay out of pocket for public school or a private school, not everyone can. Dew seems to indicate that only people who can afford children should have them, which is a violation of their freedoms, which would probably offend the liberal sensibilities of Dew.

My beef with the school supply list is simple. With the money that I pay and people like Dew pay in taxes, there should be plenty of money to buy common use supplies, like tissues, hand sanitizers, dry erase markers or chalk and other materials. If I buy tissues or a small bottle of hand sanitizer for my child, that is my expense and my choice. If other parents are unwilling to do the same, that is their choice. The state of Maryland spends nearly $9,000 per student in education expenditures, all of which comes from local, state and some federal taxes. Is it too much to ask that those taxes pay for common use supplies? Why can't the school be more effective in budgeting its funds?

The Club For Growth's RePORK Card

Admitting to the fact that Club for Growth has a political agenda, the RePORK card doesn't hold very good news for most Congressmen or the American taxpayer:

The Club for Growth has compiled a RePORK Card of all members' votes on all 50 anti-pork amendments (see below). 'Taxpayers have a right to know which congressmen stand up for them and which stand up for the special interests,' said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. 'Unfortunately, the Club for Growth RePORK Card shows that most congressmen care more about lining their buddies' pockets than they care about protecting American taxpayers.' Some interesting numbers to consider:

• Sixteen congressmen scored a perfect 100%, voting for all 50 anti-pork amendments. They are all Republicans.
• The average Republican score was 43%. The average Democratic score was 2%.
• The average score for appropriators was 4%. The average score for non-appropriators was 25%.
• Kudos to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) who scored an admirable 98%-the only Democrat to score above 20%.
• Rep. David Obey (D-WI) did not vote for his own amendment to strike all earmarks in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill. Rep. Obey scored an embarrassing 0% overall.
• 105 congressmen scored an embarrassing 0%, voting against every single amendment. The Pork Hall of Shame includes 81 Democrats and 24 Republicans.
• The Democratic Freshmen scored an abysmal average score of 2%. Their Republican counterparts scored an average score of 78%.

Here is the list of zero percenters (Appropriations Committee members in Bold):
Abercrombie (D-HI-1)
Aderholt (R-AL-4)
Alexander, R. (R-LA-5)
Altmire (D-PA-4)
Andrews (D-NJ-1)
Arcuri (D-NY-24)
Baca (D-CA-43)
Baker (R-LA-6)
Baldwin (D-WI-2)
Becerra (D-CA-31)
Bishop, T. (D-NY-1)
Boucher (D-VA-9)
Boustany (R-LA-7)
Boyda, N. (D-KS-2)
Butterfield (D-NC-1)
Calvert (R-CA-44)
Capito (R-WV-2)
Capuano (D-MA-8)
Carson (D-IN-7)
Conyers (D-MI-14)
Costello (D-IL-12)
Cramer (D-AL-5)
DeLauro (D-CT-3)
Diaz-Balart, L. (R-FL-21)
Donnelly (D-IN-2)
Edwards (D-TX-17)
Ellsworth (D-IN-8)
Emerson (R-MO-8)
Etheridge (D-NC-2)
Frelinghuysen (R-NJ-11)
Gilchrest (R-MD-1)
Gonzalez (D-TX-20)
Green, G. (D-TX-29)
Grijalva (D-AZ-7)
Hall, J. (D-NY-19)
Hastings, A. (D-FL-23)
Hinchey (D-NY-22)
Hinojosa (D-TX-15)
Hirono (D-HI-2)
Hodes (D-NH-2)
Holt (D-NJ-12)
Inslee (D-WA-1)
Israel (D-NY-2)
Jackson, J. (D-IL-2)
Kagen (D-WI-8)
Kaptur (D-OH-9)
Kennedy, P. (D-RI-1)
Kildee (D-MI-5)
Knollenberg (R-MI-9)
Kucinich (D-OH-10)
Kuhl (R-NY-29)
LaHood (R-IL-18)
Lampson (D-TX-22)
Levin, S. (D-MI-12)
Lewis, Jerry (R-CA-41)
Lipinski (D-IL-3)
McCollum (D-MN-4)
McIntyre (D-NC-7)
McNulty (D-NY-21)
Michaud (D-ME-2)
Mollohan (D-WV-1)
Murphy, C. (D-CT-5)
Murphy, T. (R-PA-18)
Murtha (D-PA-12)
Napolitano (D-CA-38)
Obey (D-WI-7)
Olver (D-MA-1)
Ortiz (D-TX-27)
Pallone (D-NJ-6)
Pascrell (D-NJ-8)
Pastor (D-AZ-4)
Payne (D-NJ-10)
Peterson, C. (D-MN-7)
Peterson, J. (R-PA-5)
Price, D. (D-NC-4)
Rangel (D-NY-15)
Regula (R-OH-16)
Rehberg (R-MT-AL )
Renzi (R-AZ-1)
Reyes (D-TX-16)
Rogers, H. (R-KY-5)
Rogers, Mike D. (R-AL-3)
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL-18)
Roybal-Allard (D-CA-34)
Ruppersberger (D-MD-2)
Ryan, T. (D-OH-17)
Sarbanes (D-MD-3)
Serrano (D-NY-16)
Sherman (D-CA-27)
Shuler (D-NC-11)
Snyder (D-AR-2)
Thompson, B. (D-MS-2)
Tiahrt (R-KS-4)
Towns (D-NY-10)
Udall, T. (D-NM-3)
Van Hollen (D-MD-8)
Velazquez (D-NY-12)
Visclosky (D-IN-1)
Walsh (R-NY-25)
Walz (D-MN-1)
Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL-20)
Watson (D-CA-33)
Watt (D-NC-12)
Welch (D-VT-AL )
Wilson, C. (D-OH-6)

It is the Appropriators that set the standard and when both the Chairman and the Ranking Members don't take to heart the need for fiscal restraint and reducing pork, do we really expect everyone else in Congress to do so?

President Urges Congress to Set Proper Transportation Priorities

At the White House Press Conference, President Bush rejected the idea of increasing federal gas taxes by a nickel or more in order to pay for highway bridge repair:

President Bush dismissed Thursday raising the federal gasoline tax to repair the nation’s bridges at least until Congress changes the way it spends highway money.

“The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first,” Bush said. “That’s not the right way to prioritize the people’s money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities.”

The President is completely accurate on this matter.

If one were to look at the location of and amounts spent on transportation and infrastucture construction in congressional districts, you would find a very, very high correlation to the membership of the Committees. The prioritization of projects is very much similar to the earmarking issue as well. Members on transportation committees take care of themselves and their consitutents first. While I have no problems with Congressmen bringing home the bacon so long as they are above board about it, those tasks should be last on the list of priorities.

The sad thing is that it has taken the deaths of Americans for us to come to the conclusion that the way Congress does business is not about the American people first, but about politicians first.

SCHIP Reauthorized and Expanded

Yesterday, the House passed the reauthorization of the ?State Children's Health Insurance Program in a largely party line vote. As passed, this bill is not only unnecessary, but foolhardy in its scope and plans.

No one, not even the most callous anti-big government libertarian can sensibly argue against the original purpose of the program--to provide health insurance for poor children, those with families up to 200 percent of federal poverty level, or about $40,000 per year for a family of four. But as the Arizona Republic points out, SCHIP has expanded far beyond its original purpose:

The problem is that SCHIP has expanded beyond its original scope, as so often happens with federal programs. In the early years, many states couldn't use all their SCHIP money, so the feds permitted excess funds to be used by other states to extend coverage to children beyond 200 percent of the poverty level and even adults.

In Arizona, the SCHIP plan is called KidsCare. A Government Accountability Office study found, however, that 56 percent of the people enrolled in "KidsCare" were actually adults.

Fifteen states now provide SCHIP coverage for children above 200 percent of the federal poverty level, and 14 states cover adults.

Congressional Democrats propose not only to fund these existing expanded programs but provide enough funding for other states to substantially expand eligibility, as well. In all, Democrats are proposing to more than double SCHIP funding, allowing universal coverage up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level, as Gov. Janet Napolitano has proposed for Arizona.

That would provide coverage up to a family income of about $60,000 a year. Since the median family income in the United States is just over $46,000, this reaches well into the middle class.

Now there are a fair number of Americans without health insurance, around 45 million according to most published reports and that number fluctuates a fair bit, between 43 million and 47 million depending on the year and employment conditions. A not insignificant number of these, indeed most, of these Americans without health care are working poor. Most states provide a method by which these working poor can buy into Medicaid for health insurance purposes.

Expansion of the program essentially doubles up the health care spending and places a burden upon the states. Granted, SCHIP money is provided by the federal government in grants to the states, but expansion of the program to cover people up to 300% of federal poverty level

The problem with the whole matter, of course, is paying for it. The Arizona Republic points out that the program is funded by stupidity:

To pay for the SCHIP expansion, Democrats are proposing to raise tobacco taxes by up to 61 cents a pack.

Tobacco taxes are highly regressive. So, basically, Democrats are proposing to tax the poor to pay for the health care of the middle class.

Tobacco taxes are also highly uncertain. Health-care advocates like them because the evidence is that they do reduce consumption. However, states and the federal government have already loaded up various programs, many involving health care and children, on their backs. The odds are very strong that tobacco taxes will not produce the revenues being obligated.

Increasing the tax on cigarettes does several things over the long haul. First, it is a disincentive for younger people to start smoking and keep smoking--it is simply too expensive a habit. If fewer people are buying cigarettes, there are fewer cigarette taxes collected. Thus there is less money for programs like SCHIP.

Second, higher taxes achieves one of the government's other efforts--reducing smoking. Some people who smoke now may make the calculation that it is too expensive and attempt to stop smoking, with the same attendenat consequences.

Third, higher cigarette taxes disproportionately affect poor people, the same people who Congress is trying to cover. A $.61 increase in cigarette taxes can be absorbed by richer people without a great deal of impact, but not poor people.

But has anyone in the Democratic party ever tried to reconcile their taxation of tobacco and the reliance on the continued sale of tobacco with their goal of stopping smoking for the health reasons? Sounds to me that they are of two minds about this.

The expansion of SCHIP to cover poor adults was an abomination in and of itself. Increassing the eligibility to 300% of poverty level is unnecessary and wasteful given the fact that other options exist. To fund it with already overburnened cigarette taxes is simply shortsighted.

Earmarks Disclosure--Media Getting on Porkbuster's Bandwagon

CNN, often an apologist or at least a tacit collaborator in liberal efforts had gotten the message on earmarks. Don Surber has links to the CNN story on the matter. Here is one quote from a reporter talking to Anderson Cooper, when the reported called every Capitol Hill office about the member's earmarks:

68 flat out refused. 6 told us they did not make any earmark requests. But the majority, 316, never responded. We should note that some we called were downright hostile.

. . . I called Congressman Rangel’s office. I got one of his press aides. Before I could even answer the question, said no. I know what you’re going to ask me. No. And he said, good day. Then, hung up on me.

Look some earmarks are worthy efforts and no Congressman should be ashamed about bringing home money for improved roads, schools or police programs. The problem that we as Americans face is that too many earmarks just smell wrong because we don't know what is going on.

The more and more people start asking the questions, the more likely we are to see real reform.

So Much for Ending Earmarks

The House Appropriations committee approved $153 million in earmarks yesterday in an unusual session dealing with earmarks.

The unusual session was made necessary after Republicans forced Democrats to reverse plans to insert pet projects into bills before House debates rather than add them in closed-door House-Senate talks when it would be too late to challenge them.

Of more pressing importance to lawmakers, however, is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., have issued an edict cutting the amount of money devoted to earmarks in half. Obey denied all earmarks when passing a wrap-up spending bill earlier this year.

"Many members will be disappointed," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., chairman of a panel responsible for local clean water and sewer grants and national parks projects.

Republicans are especially feeling the pinch. Now that they're in the minority, they only get about 40 percent of the money for projects rather than the 60 percent they enjoyed when controlling Congress. The fact that earmarks are being cut in half doubles the pinch.

Cutting earmarks by 50 percent would be nice, if we had a way to measure that cut--which we don't.

Secret Service Strained

Given the large field of candidates, I am not surprised, but I didn't think it was this bad:

The U.S. Secret Service expects to borrow more than 2,000 immigration officers and federal airport screeners next year to help guard an ever-expanding field of presidential candidates, while shifting 250 of its own agents from investigations to security details.

Burdened by the White House's wartime security needs, the persistent threat of terrorism and a field of at least 20 presidential contenders, the Secret Service was showing signs of strain even before the Department of Homeland Security ordered protection for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as of May 3, the earliest a candidate has ever been assigned protection in an election season.

Its $110 million-plus budget for campaign protection -- two-thirds more than the record $65 million it spent for the 2004 election -- was prepared when the service did not expect to be guarding Obama or anyone else until January. The agency has already been forced to scale back its efforts to battle counterfeiting and cybercrime.

snip

And while the 2008 campaign gets going, the service is also gearing up for January 2009, when President Bush is set to leave office; officials are mindful of the 1993 assassination effort by Iraq against his father, former president George H.W. Bush. The service has begun training agents to fill 103 full-time slots as to be part of the current president's retirement detail.

"You've just ticked off what you might say are unprecedented challenges," said David G. Carpenter, formerly the head of Clinton's Secret Service detail and assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security and now vice president of global security for PepsiCo.

The stresses come as the agency's duties have grown faster than its funding.

Not surprising. Even a quick influx of agents now will not help since it does take a while to train them.

Military Spending Not In Tune with Needs

From American Thinkers, Gerd Schroeder:

On the 17th of May, Congress, in a 397 to 27 vote, has forced the military to cut $32.1 billion from its budget over the next five years. The biggest hit is aimed at the Army, which is currently shouldering most of the burden in the war. One may think that this is acceptable reduction of an annual budget of roughly $538.5 billion (including the $100 billon being withheld by Congress). However the question is why the military is being forced to cut back in a time of war?


Many in Congress love to crow about how the military is getting run down in maintenance, retention, and training. Yet the same people are refusing to give the military what it needs to heal itself, conduct a war, and stay ahead of the rest of the world.


Congress is taking $26 billion dollars from the American People, to buy votes to fund the Congress's new policy game of, "lose the war". However, one could rightly say that Congress is taking from the budget of the US Military in the form of $32.1 billion from 2008-2013 in funding, to pay for the pork that they are dolling out to shiftless members of Congress to buy votes for a policy that will severely damage National Security, otherwise known as withdrawal from Iraq.


Many people seem to have forgotten what the American Military has been recently asked to do. Here is the short list.

• Increase the US Army by 30,000 soldiers;
• Fight a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in many other diverse places around the world against our Islamic fascist enemies;
• Keep the military technology ahead of the rest of the world to maintain a overwhelming conventional overmatch to competitor nations;
• Secure the seas for safe passage of ships to provide economic security to the nation and the world;
• Increase the Marine Corps and Army by almost 100,000 over the initial 30,000 mandated increase;
• Have the best trained Military in the world;
• Provide every technology we can to protect our fighting men and women;
• maintain air superiority; and
• fight two conventional regional wars simultaneously.

This all takes money.

While $538.5 billion dollars is a great deal of money to the average American, the military budget is still less than 4% of the GDP. Compare that to the Cold War funding (between 13.1 and 4.6% of GDP) or WWII (about 40% of GDP). The military doesn't even have the money to do the missions that it is asked to do now; yet Congress, somehow, sees fit to cut the military budget. It is as if we are in wonderland, and Congress is painting the roses red in an effort to cover up their increasingly damaging policies.

Gone are the days of the infamous $1500 toilet seats and $500 hammers. The military budgetary process is very restrictive and regulated from within, and from without by the CBO, and GAO. The money that the DoD asks for is required by the demands of Congress.

Good questions to be asking for a Congress that "supports the troops."

Immigration Bill Costs...We Don't Know

Bruce Kestler notes that the Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan group of experts who provide the cost estimates of legislation, has not released an estimate of how much the Immigration proposal will cost. One estimate is $2.5 trillion over 18 years or $139 billion per year. Admittedly that comes from a conservative think tank and is probably a worst case scenario, but if that is even in the ball park, Congress needs to sit up and take a good hard long look at this bill.