Group items tagged

Excellent youtube interview! "Mark Levin has just published his much-anticipated book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Three of his eleven proposed Constitutional amendments appear below, and a Sean Hannity interview of Levin appears at the bottom of this post. Levin's book is centered around the Constitution's Article V (aka "Article 5″). That article specifies two methods for amending the Constitution. Just briefly - In the first method of creating amendments, Congress proposes and the States dispose. In the second method of creating amendments, the States propose and the States dispose. The second method has never been used successfully, although there have been many attempts.  It is that second method that the Founders provided as a remedy for an overreaching federal government. In the second method, neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Supreme Court have any voting or veto authority whatsoever.  The states are in full control. Period. It is, by design, the ultimate override for an over-spending, over-taxing, over-regulating, and increasingly dictatorial and lawless federal government. Clearly, its time has come. In that second method, Congress has at most a mere ministerial role.  Of course Congress is very protective of its power, and could, through delay and inaction, attempt to convert their mere ministerial role into a de facto veto power, halting any attempt for a state-driven amendment action. Apparently Congress has done exactly that many times, acting in bad faith and contrary to the Framers' spirit and intent for Article V which is clearly expressed in the Federalist Papers. Legal scholars have been trying to find a way around the federal government's intransigence, so far with little success. Now more than ever, it is time for We the People to bring the power of Article V to the center ring of American politics. That starts with awareness, and Levin's book will br

"Our examination of the future of public debt leads us to several important conclusions. First, fiscal problems confronting industrial economies are bigger than suggested by official debt figures that show the implications of the financial crisis and recession for fiscal balances. As frightening as it is to consider public debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP, an even greater danger arises from a rapidly ageing population. The related unfunded liabilities are large and growing, and should be a central part of today's long-term fiscal planning. "It is essential that governments not be lulled into complacency by the ease with which they have financed their deficits thus far. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the path of future output is likely to be permanently below where we thought it would be just several years ago. As a result, government revenues will be lower and expenditures higher, making consolidation even more difficult. But, unless action is taken to place fiscal policy on a sustainable footing, these costs could easily rise sharply and suddenly. "Second, large public debts have significant financial and real consequences. The recent sharp rise in risk premia on long-term bonds issued by several industrial countries suggests that markets no longer consider sovereign debt low-risk. The limited evidence we have suggests default risk premia move up with debt levels and down with the revenue share of GDP as well as the availability of private saving. Countries with a relatively weak fiscal system and a high degree of dependence on foreign investors to finance their deficits generally face larger spreads on their debts. This market differentiation is a positive feature of the financial system, but it could force governments with weak fiscal systems to return to fiscal rectitude sooner than they might like or hope. "Third, we note the risk that persistently high levels of public debt will drive down capital accumulation, productivity growth and lon

Conn puts the numbers into the context of events and issues.  Good read. Today President Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will convene for the first time at the White House. Tasked with making recommendations to Congress that would put the budget in primary balance by 2015 and "meaningfully improve" our nation's long-term fiscal outlook, the commission meets a little over a month after Congress approved a new $2.5 trillion health care entitlement that the Obama administration now confirms will increase our nation's total health care spending. This is a now familiar pattern for the White House: first enact record breaking levels of deficit spending, then turn right around and promise austerity sometime in the future.

"What's really remarkable is that we've seen the biggest drop in the burden of government spending since the end of World War II. Heck, the fiscal restraint over the past five years has resulted in a bigger drop in the relative size of government in America than what Switzerland achieved over the past ten years thanks to the "debt brake." At this point, some readers may be wondering who or what deserves credit for this positive development. I'll offer a couple of explanations. The first two points are about why we shouldn't overstate what's actually happened. 1. The good news is somewhat exaggerated because we had a huge spike in federal spending in 2009. To use an analogy, it's easy to lose some weight if you first go on a big eating binge for a couple of years. 2. Some of the fiscal discipline is illusory because certain revenues that flow to the Treasury, such as TARP repayments from banks, actually count as negative spending. I explained this phenomenon when measuring which Presidents have been the biggest spenders. But there also are some real reasons why we've seen genuine spending restraint. 3. The "Tea Party" election of 2010 resulted in a GOP-controlled House that was somewhat sincere about controlling federal outlays. 4. The spending caps adopted as part of the debt limit fight in 2011 have curtailed spending increases as part of the appropriations process. 5. In the biggest fiscal loss President Obama has suffered, we got a sequester that reduced the growth of federal spending. 6. Many states have refused to expand Medicaid, notwithstanding the lure of temporary free money from Uncle Sam. 7. Government shutdown fights may be messy, but they tend to produce a greater amount of fiscal restraint. And there are surely other reasons to list, including the long-overdue end of seemingly permanent unemployment benefits and falling defense outlays as forces are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan. The bottom line is that the past

Excellent analogy.  My take on the fiscal cliff is that we have an agreement in place, signed off on by Obama, the Democrats and the Republicans.  Let's hold to it.  Hold the line.  And under no circumstances raise the debt limit.  Bring home the troops.  Make the spending cuts in the sequestration agreement.  Replace that idiot Speaker of the House Boehner with Representative Darryl Isa.  Freeze Obama with his own agreement, and then dig our way out of this by stopping the socialist spending spree. "In the movie Usual Suspects, Keyser Soze is confronted with the fact that his wife and children would be an impediment in dealing with his business competitors. In a way the House GOP finds itself in the same position as Keyser Soze. Our home has been invaded. Our family despoiled. And we are facing a never ending series of ever increasing demands from the criminals who have abused us. Sometimes the only way out of a dilemma is by clearing the table and starting again from scratch. At midnight on December 21, 2012 the United States will be faced with what is being called the "fiscal cliff." In short this cliff is composed of several parts. 1. The payroll tax reduction passed in 2010 will end. 2. The temporary tax rates passed under President Bush will lapse. 3. Obamacare's taxes will come due. 4. The Alternative Minimum Tax will expand to many more taxpayers. 5. Extended unemployment benefits will expire. 6. Some $78 billion in federal spending will be sequestered. 7. Medicare "doc fix" will expire. There are several sets of sacred cattle here. The GOP is primarily interested in protecting the tax cuts and Defense spending. The Democrats are primarily interested in preserving the social spending and free stuff for their base. This time around the Democrats, in their never ending paean to class warfare, are insisting that the Bush Tax Rates for the wealthiest Americans be allowed to expire. The GOP should not negotiate on this. This will put the GOP

Nice graphic depicting the "fiscal cliff" that our country goes over on January 1, 2013.  The looming tax hikes are through the roof, yet, all Obama and big media can talk about is raising taxes even higher.  Does it matter how fast the economy goes over the cliff?  Do we really need Obama's extra push of even higher taxes?  Amazing. The graphic is really good, but Americans for Prosperity also provides two "Take Action Today" options: ........ Concerned about Out-of-Control Spending? ........ Concerned about Congress RAISING TAXES? The trickle-down-government economics that Obama practices now needs a massive BAILOUT.  Just like with the Banksters, it will be the taxpayers who once again are FORCED to bail out Obamagov. Excerpt: "The 112th Congress's lame duck session presents several threats to economic freedom.  From billions in new and higher taxes to Congress going back on its agreement to finally reduce spending, the biggest fiscal issues are all in play right now.  Check out the links below to learn more about what's at stake and how to contact your members of Congress."

Good post from Roy Filly collecting the facts about our out-of-control federal spending problem.   "What stunned House Speaker John Boehner more than anything else during his prolonged closed-door budget negotiations with Barack Obama was this revelation: "At one point several weeks ago," Mr. Boehner says, "the president said to me, 'We don't have a spending problem.' " [...] The president's insistence that Washington doesn't have a spending problem, Mr. Boehner says, is predicated on the belief that massive federal deficits stem from what Mr. Obama called "a health-care problem." Mr. Boehner says that after he recovered from his astonishment-"They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system"-he replied: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem." He repeated this message so often, he says, that toward the end of the negotiations, the president became irritated and said: "I'm getting tired of hearing you say that." We had a spirited argument a few posts ago about who was at fault for our annual trillion dollar deficits. I stopped arguing because it became clear to me, at least, that it doesn't matter who is at fault. We are spending much more over the past 10 years (and my chart only goes to 2010). As of December, our federal government borrowed 46 cents of every dollar it has spent so far in fiscal 2013. Blame whomever you like. No nation can survive with a fiscal plan that calls for such massive spending. Blame Bush, if that makes you feel better, but our Chief Executive Officer is Barack Hussein Obama and it is his job to solve the problem, not kick the can down the road. We are out of road. When our CEO states that "we don't have a spending problem" as I look at the chart above it does not inspire confidence."

Exceellent repub of Mike Shedlock's wonderful article describing the 3 Schools of Economic Wizardry.  Includes a simplified but exacting view of the "why and how"  the Keynesian and Monetarist Wizardry Schools wreck havoc on the world.   ... Keynesian Voodoo Wizards ... Monetarist Voodoo Wizards ... Austrian Realists Remember the voodoo motto: "If it doesn't work, keep doing more of it, even if that is what got you in trouble in the first place!" ..... Excerpt: Once upon a time (today), in a land not so far away (USA), there lived a trio of economic wizards (economists), whose names shall remain anonymous (Paul Krugman, Greg Mankiw, Ben Bernanke). A fourth wizard, Murry Rothbard, is no longer among the living but resides in the netherworld. The above wizards seldom agree with each other because they come from competing schools of wizardry. Three Schools of Economic Wizardry 1. Keynesian School of Fiscal Voodoo and Witchcraft 2. Monetarist School of Monetary Voodoo and Witchcraft 3. Austrian School of Sound Money, Sound Economic Principles and Common Sense. "Dark Arts" Wizardry The first two wizardry schools belong to a class of wizardry promoted to aspiring wizards as the "Dark Arts." Philosophical Beliefs Keynesian wizards believe governments can spend their way to economic health and although fiscal deficits may matter at some point in time, they never matter now, in practice. Monetarist wizards believe money will cure any and every problem if enough is dropped from helicopters and interest rates held low. Austrian wizards believe that economic problems are created by unsound money, haphazard loans, excessive debts, and government manipulations. Keynesian and Monetarist wizards believe in the voodoo principle "the problem is the solution if only you do more of it." The former relies primarily on fiscal voodoo; the latter relies primarily on monetary voodoo. Austrian wizards do not believe "the problem is the solution," no matter ho

Everything you know about FDR, The New Deal and the Great Depression Banking Crisis is wrong!!!! "From David Stockman's Contra Corner. Remarks to the Committee For The Republic, Washington DC, February 2014 (Part 4 in a 6-Part Series) Go to Part 1. The Great Depression thus did not represent the failure of capitalism or some inherent suicidal tendency of the free market to plunge into cyclical depression-absent the constant ministrations of the state through monetary, fiscal, tax and regulatory interventions.  Instead, the Great Depression was a unique historical occurrence-the delayed consequence of the monumental folly of the Great War, abetted by the financial deformations spawned by modern central banking. But ironically, the "failure of capitalism" explanation of the Great Depression is exactly what enabled the Warfare State to thrive and dominate the rest of the 20th century because it gave birth to what have become its twin handmaidens--Keynesian economics and monetary central planning. Together, these two doctrines eroded and eventually destroyed the great policy barrier--that is, the old-time religion of balanced budgets- that had kept America a relatively peaceful Republic until 1914. To be sure, under Mellon's tutelage, Harding, Coolidge and Hoover strove mightily, and on paper successfully, to restore the pre-1914 status quo ante on the fiscal front.  But it was a pyrrhic victory-since Mellon's surpluses rested on an artificially booming, bubbling economy that was destined to hit the wall. The Hoover Recovery of 1932 Worse still, Hoover's bitter-end fidelity to fiscal orthodoxy, as embodied in his infamous balanced budget of June 1932, got blamed for prolonging the depression.  Yet, as I have demonstrated in the chapter of my book called "New Deal Myths of Recovery", the Great Depression was already over by early summer 1932."

It's an overall concept I've designated as the Democratic Bankruptcy Paradox: The paradox by which every democracy eventually goes bankrupt-regardless of the people's will and intention of keeping it from going bankrupt. That's why it's a paradox: The citizens of a democratic state are supposed to control its destiny. They obviously do not want their nation to suffer bankruptcy-yet in spite of their will and intent, democratic states always go bankrupt. Always. This post will outline my proof of why this is so. I will first explain the logic of my Democratic Bankruptcy Paradox theory, and how it is derived from a rather recently articulated problem in philosophy called the discursive dilemma, or sometimes the doctrinal dilemma; an aspect of group agency that has been used primarily in legal theory, but which I've realized has some fairly interesting-and radical-applications to macro-economics and public finance in representative democracies. I will then explain how the discursive dilemma, when applied to macro-economics and fiscal policy in a democratic regime, leads to the Democratic Bankruptcy Paradox. It is here that I will prove two general conclusions: * One: Democracies always act in a fiscally incoherent manner. * Two: Democracies always go bankrupt-without exception.  Finally, I will show how my Democratic Bankruptcy Paradox theory applies to the American case, and explain why the U.S. governments at the local, State and Federal level spend more than they bring in-even as their citizens uniformly oppose this state of affairs.

Amazing interactive chart that enables a comparison of the many different budget proposals circulating Washington DC.  Amazing and loaded with specific data - yet simple and easy to use.  Many thanks to the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget!!!!  Awesome. excerpt: "The U.S. national debt is rising to unsustainable levels. The need to address this critical challenge with a long-term, comprehensive approach is evident in the many fiscal plans that have emerged. Many of these plans share common ideas, but many differ in important aspects. With our interactive comparison tool below, you'll be able to compare all the existing plans by category and even compare up to three plans side-by-side. This tool is a useful reference as policymakers debate solutions to our fiscal challenges."

Funny but a year ago we were hearing quite a bit of noise about the "End of Capitalism".  Today, the world is looking at the "End of Socialism".  How quickly things change. Six Impossible Things I have written several letters over the years about the basic economic equation GDP = C + I + G + (Net Exports) Which is to say, that Gross Domestic Product in a country is equal to total Consumption (personal and business) plus Investments plus Government Spending plus next exports. This equation is known as an identity equation. It is true for all countries and times. Now, gentle reader, I am going to spare you a few pages of algebra and cut to the chase. Let's divide a country's economy into three sections, private, government and exports. If you play with the variables a little bit you find that you get the following equation. Domestic Private Sector Financial Balance + Governmental Fiscal Balance - the Current Account Balance (or Trade Deficit/Surplus) = 0 This equation was introduced to you a few months ago in an Outside the Box written by Rob Parenteau. We are going to review this briefly, as it is VERY important. Paragraphs in quotes will be from that letter. As Rob noted, "...keep in mind this is an accounting identity, not a theory. If it is wrong, then five centuries of double entry book keeping must also be wrong." By Domestic Private Sector Financial Balance we mean the net balance of business and consumers. Are they borrowing money or paying down debt? Government Fiscal Balance is the same: is the government borrowing or paying down debt? And the Current Account Balance is the trade deficit or surplus. The implications are simple. The three items have to add up to zero. That means you cannot have both surpluses in the private and government sectors and run a trade deficit. You have to have a trade surplus.

Looking at the Facts.... on Dec 28, 4:18 PM said: Economy Comparison: William J. Clinton (WJC); George W. Bush (GWB) Average annual GDP growth: W.J. Clinton: 3.6%; G.W. Bush: 2.6% Real median household income: WJC: grew by $5,825; GWB: fell by $1,273 Unemployment: WJC: 7.3% -> 4.2%; GWB: 4.2% -> 6.5% Non-farm employment: WJC: 22.7 million jobs; GWB: 3 million jobs (worst record of any US president in 70 years) Poverty rate: WJC: fell 3.5% (6.4 million fewer people) GWB: rose 1.3% (5.4 million more people) Federal Spending as % of GDP: WJC: 22.1% (fiscal 1992) to 18.4% in 2000; GWB: back up to 20.8% -2006 Total executive branch employment (does not include classified numbers for CIA, DIA, NSA, & other intelligence agencies; does not include outsourced jobs): WJC: down by almost 450,000 (2.225 million -> 1.778 million); GWB: up by almost 100,000 (to 1.872 million). Federal Debt: WJC: inherited deficit of $290 billion -> surplus of $236 billion (fiscal 2000); GWB: increased by almost $3 trillion (as of 2006) Public Debt as % of GDP: WJC: -16.4%; GWB: +4.4%

AFP is an excellent branch of the American Tea Party Movement.  The Grassroots tools are very good, and the group leadership effective, trustworthy and patriotic.  "The Great One", Mark Levin is a founder of AFP and remains very involved with the day to day operation.  Although i'm a contributing member, one of the things i most appreciate about AFP is that when they launch a contact/letter surge, unlike many other "grassroots" operations, there is no charge for the contact.  AFP is an easy and affordable way to contact those who took an oath to represent us and defend our Constitution.  Good group! excerpt: Americans for Prosperity™ (AFP) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP Foundation) are committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process. AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state, and federal levels. The grassroots activists of AFP advocate for public policies that champion the principles of entrepreneurship and fiscal and regulatory restraint. AFP Foundation is committed to educating citizens about economic policy and a return of the federal government to its Constitutional limits. AFP Foundation's educational programs and analyses help policymakers, the media, and individual citizens understand why policies that promote the American enterprise system are the best way to ensure prosperity for all Americans. To that end, AFP and AFP Foundation support: Cutting taxes and government spending in order to halt the encroachment of government in the economic lives of citizens by fighting proposed tax increases and pointing out evidence of waste, fraud, and abuse. Tax and Expenditure Limitations to promote fiscal responsibility. Removing unnecessary barriers to entrepreneurship and opportunity by sparking citizen involvement in the regulatory process early on in order to reduce red tap

Audio of one very incredible moment.  On the Monday Oct 17th, 2011 show, Rush Limbaugh declared his full support of the Ron Paul Fiscal Plan that includes $1 Trillion in budgetary spending cuts, bringing home the troops, and the full neutering of the EPA.

Mike Whitney always tells it like it is.

Defense spending --- the elephant in the budget debate room that mainstream media ignores.