Federal Government’s Financial Condition Worsened by $12.7 Trillion in 2022

From Truth in Accounting, April 19, 2023- A new analysis of the latest Financial Report of the U. S. Government found that the federal government’s overall financial condition worsened by $12.7 trillion in 2022. While this financial report provides a clearer picture of the government’s financial information than the annual budget referenced in the president's State of the Union address, Truth in Accounting believes this report is incomplete.  For example, while the 2022 reported budget deficit was $1.4 trillion, this audited financial report indicated the federal government had a $4.2 trillion deficit, which is called a net operating cost in the report. The report also indicates the federal government only owes Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries $207.8 billion. Truth in Accounting believes that the federal financial report should include a Social Security liability of $47.7 trillion and a Medicare liability of $64.3 trillion, which are the benefits to be paid over the next 75 years minus the related taxes collected. 

Unknown to most people, the federal government does not believe it owes any beneficiary any Social Security and Medicare benefits beyond the checks that are about to be written. That is why the Treasury Department only included $207.8 billion of Social Security and Medicare liabilities on the federal balance sheet. According to government documents, recipients do not have the right to any benefits beyond those currently due. Laws to reduce or stop future benefits can be passed at any time. 

Proper accounting records a liability if it is probable the amounts will be paid, and the amounts are estimable. Truth in Accounting believes it is probable that the government will pay the promised Social Security and Medicare benefits, and the Social Security and Medicare trustees estimate the amount of the benefits to be paid. 

Government officials have made repeated financial decisions that have left the federal government with a debt burden of $146 trillion, including unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises. That equates to an $880,000 burden for every federal taxpayer. Because the federal government would need such a vast amount of taxpayer money to cover this debt, it received an “F” grade for its financial condition. 

For more, follow this link.

Top Stories

President Obama’s Budget: A Mountain of Debt, Regulation & Taxes

Phil Roe

by Congressman Phil Roe, M.D. 1st District Tennessee - President Obama unveiled his proposed $4.1 trillion budget for fiscal year 2017 this week, and it’s clearer than ever the president’s priorities don’t align with those of the American people. His proposal increases spending by more than $2 trillion, never balances and raises taxes by $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years. President Obama said that this budget is about looking to the future, but the only thing that would move forward under this proposal is the skyrocketing debt owed by future generations. I have some good news to share though: the president’s budget is dead on arrival here in Congress.

Among the short-sighted priorities outlined in his budget, the president wants to double funding for clean energy projects from $6.4 billion to $12.8 billion over five years and proposes a new $10-per-barrel tax on crude oil, which could translate to 24 cents more per gallon at the pump. In East Tennessee where people rely on their vehicles to get to and from work, school and other activities, a steep increase in the cost of gas could send an already struggling economy further south.

I was also disappointed that, in some areas where there could be common ground, the president appears to ignore good, bipartisan work that’s been done in Congress. For example, the president’s proposal would increase funding for cancer research by $1 billion with the goal of developing a cure for cancer. I wholeheartedly agree we should increase funding to research better treatments and cures for diseases, which is why I supported the 21st Century Cures Act when it passed the House last July. However, given the fact there are 10,000 known conditions and diseases and we only have cures and treatments for 500 of them, these investments must be strategic and smart. I hope that the president will work with Congress to get the 21st Century Cures bill across the finish line.

On education, the president’s budget pushes new, expensive proposals rather than focusing on the implementation of important reforms that have already been agreed to in Congress. The president said that real opportunity begins with education, and I couldn’t agree more. A high quality education is critical for our children and grandchildren’s future, and I was proud to have helped develop the bipartisan bill the president signed to get the federal government out of the classroom, replace No Child Left Behind and stop Common Core. There is still much work to do to move these important reforms forward, but the president would rather spend billions of dollars on new programs.

Finally, while I’m glad to see the president request an increase in funding for the Department of Defense, I’m still extremely concerned that the president has yet to present a clear, concise plan to defeat ISIS and to position the U.S. as the leader on the world stage. Under President Obama’s watch, the threat ISIS poses to the United States at home and abroad has grown, and we’ve seen aggressors like Russia and North Korea attempt to grow their influence on the world stage. As I’ve said before, we live in the best country in the world, and it’s time we start acting like it and stand up to rulers like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.

Overall, the president’s budget proposal is filled with one disappointment after the other. The picture on the cover of his budget is a mountain, and I can’t think of a more appropriate symbol. This budget fails the American people and will leave our children and grandchildren with a mountain of debt, regulation and taxes. This kind of reckless spending is what caused our national debt to skyrocket, and I will continue to oppose the president’s budget and support proposals that fund conservative priorities while cutting spending and balancing the budget.

Top Stories

How Tennessee Congressmen voted on the budget deal.

Representatives
District 1: Phil Roe (Republican), No
District 2: Jimmy Duncan Jr. (Republican), No 
District 3: Chuck Fleischmann (Republican), No
District 4: Scott DesJarlais (Republican), No
District 5: Jim Cooper (Democrat), Yes
District 6: Diane Black (Republican), No
District 7: Marsha Blackburn (Republican), No
District 8: Stephen Fincher (Republican), No
District 9: Steve Cohen (Democrat), Yes

For more on the budget deal, read this article in The Tennessean. 

Top Stories

Sen. Alexander voted yes and Sen. Corker voted no on the budget deal.

The Tennessean - Tennessee’s Republican senators split their votes early Friday on a two-year budget agreement, a reflection of how the issue of government spending levels has divided the GOP.
The deal, which prevents the government from defaulting on its debts and allows for an $80 billion spending increase over two years, passed the Senate 64-35 about 3 a.m. Friday. (link)

Top Stories

About the $1.01 trillion spending bill and how the TN U.S. House delegation voted.

Last night the House of Representatives passed a massive $1.1 trillion spending bill that funds the government though September 2015. The vote was 219 to 206.  Tennessee's U.S. House delegation split there vote. "Yes" votes came from Republican Reps. Diane Black, Stephen Fincher, Chuck Fleischmann and Phil Roe.

"No" votes were Republican Reps. Marsha Blackburn, Scott DesJarlais and John Duncan and Tennessee's two Democratic representatives Steve Cohen and Jim Cooper.

The bill passed in the last minutes avoiding a government shut down.  More Democrats voted against the bill than Republicans.  President Obama personally lobbied Democrats to support the bill.  Democrats opposed the bill primarily because of two issues: The bill modified campaign finance laws and allows wealthy donors to increase the amount they may contribute to political parties; and, the second issue was that it reversed a portion of Dood-Frank, removing the prohibition on banks engaging in derivatives trading. 

Republicans who opposed the bill primarily opposed it because it contains $1.2 billion for agencies to deal with the large number of unaccompanied immigrant children who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border recently. The spending caps that lawmakers and the White House agreed to last year are adhered to in the bill. The bill funds all of the government except the Department of Homeland Security which has jurisdiction over immigration enforcement. That department is only funded through February. When Congress reconvenes in January, Republicans will control the Senate and have a greater majority in the House and will then take up the funding of that Department.

The way I see it, based on what I know about it at this time, this was a good bill.  No bill is perfect and no one gets everything they want.  Our history with government shut downs is that Republicans usually get the blame.  We were wise to avoid a government shut down. Of course, Congress could have just passed a continuing resolution for a few weeks and then taken up the budget in January. Also the criticism that the bill was hurriedly passed rather than deliberated has merit. On balance however, I think passing the bill was the best course of action.

The bill cuts the EPA and it significantly cuts the IRS and directs the IRS to not engage in targeting organization seeking tax-exempt status based on the ideology of the organization. The money to be spend to deal with the influx of illegal unaccompanied immigrant children is money that will relieve the burden placed on State and local governments due to this influx.  Not funding those services would not have undone the policy of allowing the unaccompanied children into the country. They are here and not going to be sent back, this spending addresses the cost they are imposing on the country.

By passing everything except the Department of Homeland Security, once the Republicans control the congress then they can deal with that issue.  Republicans by voting for this bill denied the President the ability to implement his new amnesty program and it assures that twhen the budget of the Department of Homeland security is taken up that the focus will be on amnesty instead of various other budgetary issues.

For more on this budget issue see these links: here, here, here, and here.

Top Stories

It is April 15th. Where does all of that tax money go?

It went primarily to pay for government benefits.

Source: Office of Management and Budget.

Top Stories

Obama budget calls for $27 million for AMP, a $60 billion boost in spending, new taxes, deficit of $27.5 trillion by 2024.

Obama budget raises spending, taxes

Washington Times, March 4, 2014- Saying he’s optimistic the economy and the government’s fiscal picture have finally turned the corner five years into his tenure, President Obama announced a $3.9 trillion 2015 budget Tuesday that calls for tax hikes and a $60 billion boost in spending next year.

The federal government would run a $564 billion deficit in 2015, which would be a record low for Mr. Obama’s tenure. But the deficit would remain at about half a trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years, meaning debt would continue to pile up. By 2024, Mr. Obama projects gross debt would be $27.5 trillion. (link)

Amp funding: Obama's budget recommends $27M

Nashville Business Journal, March 4 2014- President Barack Obama's budget includes $27 million in funding for the project in fiscal year 2015, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced Tuesday.
Nashville Metro applied for $75 million in funding through the Federal Transit Administration's Small Starts grant program last September. As the biggest piece of the $174 million project, Dean had previously called the federal funding the most critical.

Holly McCall, an MTA spokeswoman for the Amp, said in a tweet that the amount was "better than I expected," and anticipates the remaining federal request to come in the next two fiscal years. (link)

Top Stories

Metro's debt load is bigger than ever. It is time to stop borrowing money. Just say NO!

Councilman Charlie Tygerd has warned about it in very specific terms and a handful of councilmen such as Josh Stites and Emily Evans have expressed concern from time to time, but Metro's debt continues to rise.

A few months ago the Council defeated an effort to finance part of Metro's employee pension liability but last council meeting, the council voted to authorize borrowing to purchase lap top computers. With the $623 million Music City Center, the $17 million east bank Riverfront Park development,$65 million Sulphur Dell ball park, the $32 million ice hockey facility in Antioch and other projects, Metro has taken on an unprecedented level of debt. With proposals to build a new $40 million Riverfront Park expansion and amphitheater, a $15 million pedestrian bridge across the Gulch, a $175 million-plus AMP bus rapid transit line, there appears to be no end in sight.

I am not opposed to all of the above mentioned projects. Any of the above already build or funded or any of the proposed projects may have merit individually.  I am not one who opposes everything. During my service in the Council in the 80's, I voted for the Convention Center and River Front Park. As a citizen of Nashville, I supported Music City Center. I believe Nashville has more going for it than most cities and I believe the Center will pay for itself.  I initially did not oppose the Sulphur Dell deal and believed the financial package looked like it would not cost the city. It appeared the new revenue would pay for the bonds.  It was not until the developer refused to guarantee he would follow through on his commitment, that I turned against the project.

The cumulative impact of the above projects are troubling. When we issue general obligation bonds, we are pledging the full faith and credit of the city.  Our property tax rate must be sufficient to cover our debts. If debt service takes more and more of the city revenue, that leaves less and less for police and fire and education and maintenance. Unfortunately, I have little confidence in our Council to slow the rate of debt accumulation.  One of the least meritorious projects recently funded, in my view, was the $32 million Antioch ice hockey facility, yet all of the Council, including the handful of conservatives, people like Robert Duvall, Duane Dominy, Josh Stites, Charlie Tygerd and any one else you can name- all of them, voted for it.  Other than refusing to borrow to finance city pension, I do not know of a single time the current or immediate previous Council said no to borrowing money.

It is time to say no. We are already in danger of having our bond rating downgraded.  If there is another downturn in the economy or if the convention business falls off or if we loose our minor league baseball franchise, we could be in serious trouble. In my view the city needs to put  all proposed new capital spending projects on hold. Wait a while and see how the revenue is flowing. Try to pay off some debt before we take on new debt.  I would immediately  pull the plug on the Amp, and defer the riverfront amphitheater and the pedestrian bridge.

I fear that if the next Mayor we elect is someone like Megan Berry, we will continue the policy of greater and greater debt and I do not think that policy is sustainable. There will be a day or reckoning if we continue down this path.  I don't know what it would take to get a Council that would say "no" to new spending.  The "conservatives" on the Council, for the most part, vote just like the progressives. We need to elect a mayor who will be fiscally responsible. 

Below is a recent Nashville Scene article that addressed this issue:  Metro's debt load is bigger than ever before — something critics say can't be sustained. 

Top Stories

Corker Votes Against Spending Bill. Alexander votes for it. Marsha Blackurn votes for it.

U.S. Senator Bob Corker was one of 17 Senators who voted against final passage of a $1.012 trillion discretionary spending bill. He released the following statement:

I cannot support a funding bill that violates the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order over the past several years.  Instead of building on the gains we made in 2011, limiting discretionary spending, I’m very disappointed the Executive Branch and Congress continue to push for higher spending levels, like those contained in this bill, without enacting meaningful changes to mandatory programs that our country so desperately needs.

The Senate voted 72-26 for the measure.  All 53 Democrats, two independents and 17 Republicans voted for the bill. The 26 votes against it were all cast by Republicans. It increased spending by about $26 billion over fiscal year 2013, with most of the increase going to domestic programs.

Below is the list of Republicans in the Senators who voted in favor of the bill:  Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Dan Coats (In.), Thad Cochran (Miss.),Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Richard Shelby (Ala.), David Vitter (La.), Roger Wicker (Miss.). (All Democrats voted in favor.)

Here are those Republicans who voted against it: John Barrasso (Wyo.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Bob Corker (Tenn.), John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Ted Cruz (Texas), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Dean Heller (Nev.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Jim Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), John Thune (S.D.). Pat Toomey (Pa.).

The bill passed the House by a vote of 359-67. Sixty-four of the 67 votes against it were Republicans. More House Republicans voted for the spending bill than voted against it.  In the House, five of Tennessee's 7 Republican's voted for the Bill. they are: Marsha Blackburn,
Chuck Fleischmann, Diane Black, Phil Roe, and Stephen Fincher. 

Voting against the bill were John Duncan, Jr, and Scott DesJarlais. Only three Democrats voted against the bill and none of the three were our Tennessee Representatives. To see how all members of the House of Representatives voted, follow this link. 

Top Stories

What if a Typical Family Spent Money like the Federal Government?

Top Stories

Senate passes budget deal: Alexander and Corker vote "no."

U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement on his vote against the Ryan-Murray budget agreement:

I voted against the budget agreement because it avoids the federal government’s most urgent need: reducing the growth of runaway entitlement spending. Instead, it spends savings that should be used to strengthen Medicare, pensions, and the air transportation system. It is particularly troubling that the budget agreement takes money from pensions in a way that treats military retirees worse than the civilian federal employees.
It would have been better to pay for this agreement with a small part of the $1 trillion in entitlement savings that Sen. Corker and I have identified in our ‘Fiscal Sustainability Act,’ or with entitlement savings suggested in the president’s budget.

Although I can’t support it, I appreciate the efforts of Rep. Ryan and Sen. Murray to bring certainty to the budget process, which is why I voted Tuesday to allow a Senate vote on their agreement, which had passed the House with two-to-one Republican support. In addition to its failure to address growth of mandatory entitlement spending – such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – Alexander cited four major objections to the budget agreement. Alexander objected to the agreement because it:

• Cuts $22 billion in 2022 and 2023 in Medicare reimbursements to doctors and other health care providers, for savings that may never materialize.
• Increases pension premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by $7.9 billion, to pay for unrelated spending.
• Cuts the annual cost-of-living benefits for military retirees under the age of 62 by 1 percent, to pay for unrelated spending. This would impact current retirees, as opposed to new hires as in the case of changes to civilian federal employee pensions.
• Increases by $12.6 billion airport security fees – which generally get passed on to airline passengers – to pay for unrelated spending. Such fees should be used to improve airport security.

In February, Senators Alexander and Corker introduced the “Fiscal Sustainability Act,” S. 11, to reduce the growth of entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) by nearly $1 trillion in the next decade in order to improve the programs’ solvency. The bill incorporates many of the recommendations made by President Obama’s Debt Commission (Simpson-Bowles) as well as by former Republican Senator Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, budget director for former President Clinton.

Also voting against the budget deal was Senator Bob Corker. Corker issued this statement:

Because of the Budget Control Act, for three years in a row, Congress has spent less on discretionary programs than the year before.  While I appreciate the dilemma Paul Ryan was in, it's disappointing the misguided strategy of the House this fall weakened our hand on fiscal issues and that House appropriators indicated they were unwilling to live within the budget discipline laid out in the sequester.   So with the afterglow of the ‘bipartisan’ deal fading, I think everyone can see this budget deal busts the budget caps by $45,000,000,000 in the first year alone without making meaningful changes to mandatory programs, violating the only real progress we have made in getting our fiscal house in order and demonstrating that Congress continues to lack the discipline to control spending even in this small way.  Spending now and paying later is the cause of our deficit problems, not the solution.

Senator Corker also voted against cloture, which was the vote to end debate on the budget deal. Majority Leader Harry Reid filled the amendment tree on the bill on Sunday, allowing no amendments and no debate.  Since there was no debate and there were no amendments, Corker did not feel it was appropriate to support cloture. Senator Alexander, on the other hand, did support the cloture motion.

The Senate vote on the budget deal was 64-36.  Among Republicans, 36 voted "no" and only 9 voted in favor.

In the House, the vote was 332 to 94 with Republicans voting in favor 169 to  62. Tennessee's delegation supported it 7-2 . The "no" votes were DesJarlais and John Ducan. Marsha Blackburn, Diane Black and the rest of the Tennessee Republicans voted for the deal.

This is very interesting. Many tea party Republicans praise Marsha Blackburn and view Alexander and Corker as "RINO."  In this instance, the more conservative vote, the position advocated by Heritage Action and other conservative activist groups, was a vote against the budget deal.

I do not think one can say with certainty which was the correct way to vote. My heart is with those who voted "no," but my head is with those who voted "yes."  I understand those who cast a principled "no" for the reasons expressed by Corker and Alexander above.  On the other hand, the logic of voting "yes" was strategic. If we had not approved a budget compromise, the reasoning goes, we would have faced another government shutdown. Republicans would have gotten the blame and Republicans would have suffered in the 2014 election. It is better to keep the 2014 election focused on the failures of the Obama administration, Obamacare and issues that divide the parties, rather than defend and explain a government shut down. To eventually prevail on cutting the size of government and reducing the debt, Republicans must retake the Congress.  A "yes" vote was thought of as strategically, the wise thing to do, in order to win in the long run.

I just wish their had been a more unity among Republicans and more of them would have voted the same way. Either vote, I think was defensible, I just wish they would have gotten on the same page. One good think to come out of this vote however, is that the ultra conservative pressure groups cannot criticize Alexander and and Corker for this vote. When some who they do not like voted the way they wanted them to, and when some who they really like voted the way they did not want them to, I think that weakens the power of the ultra conservative pressure groups and I am beginning to think that is a good thing.


To view the roll call of the Senate vote, follow this link.  To view the complete roll call of the House follow this link: Final Vote Results for Roll Call .

Top Stories

Lamar Alexander to cosponsor balanced budget amendment

U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander on Wednesday announced he will be an original cosponsor of a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“For eight years as governor, I balanced Tennessee’s budget, and other states balance their budgets—I don’t see why Washington can’t do the same,” said Alexander, a Tennessee Republican.
The second-term senator said the federal government is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends, and that’s money the country dosen’t have.


“We must make tough decisions now to fix the debt,” he said.

The proposal by Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, would require that the president submit, and Congress pass, a balanced budget. It would require a supermajority vote in both the House and Senate to raise taxes or increase the debt limit.

It also would cap spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product, which is roughly equal to the historical revenue average of 18.1 percent of gross domestic product. Under President Obama, spending was nearly 23 percent of GDP, according to the Congressional Budget Office, a press release said.

The release said the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that, by 2025, every tax dollar the federal government collects will go toward entitlement spending like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, as well as interest on the debt.

“The Medicare trustees have said that within 12 years, the Medicare program will not have enough money to pay all of its hospital bills,” Alexander said.

Alexander and fellow Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker have introduced the “Dollar for Dollar Act,” which would reduce the growth in entitlement spending by $1 trillion. He also is an original cosponsor of the “No Budget, No Pay Act,” which would cut off pay to members of Congress if they don’t pass a budget and all 12 appropriations bills by the beginning of the fiscal year Oct. 1.

Top Stories

'No budget-no pay' legislation passes with bi-partisan support

Today the House passed No Budget-No Pay legislation with bi-partisan support.

The bill will require the House and Senate each to pass a budget, and Member pay will be withheld if they fail. It's time for the Senate to act. It has been almost four years since the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a budget, That is an outrage.

 I believe in giving credit where credit is due. While I disagree with Jim Cooper more often than I agree with him, without his efforts this would have never passed. Congratulations Jim Cooper.

 Jim Cooper's 'No budget, no pay' legislation approved in House as part of debt ceiling extension

The Tennessean ‎

The idea, first introduced by Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville, during the last Congress, was part of the bill passed in the House to suspend the ..

Top Stories

Marsha Blackburn: Why I voted 'no'.

Friends-

From my first day in office, I’ve promised you that you might not agree with every vote I take, but you’ll know why I did it. Last night, I voted “No” on HR 8. The so-called deal to avert the fiscal cliff did nothing but impose devastating tax increases without including any meaningful spending reductions. To vote for this bill would have been a vote to make a bad situation much worse.

The problem in Washington is not that we tax too little, it’s that we spend too much. This bill increases our debt by nearly $4 trillion over the next decade. I recently supported the Spending Reduction Act that passed the House before the Holidays. Unfortunately, like most House-passed legislation this year, the Spending Reduction Act never saw the light of the Senate.

For the future of our children and grandchildren, we have to exercise fiscal restraint. I know it's what my constituents expect from me. It's time to draw a line in the sand. We can't afford to keep spending money we don't have on programs the American people don't want. We also must make serious reforms to entitlements, stabilize the trust funds, and work to restrict regulatory authority. I could not vote for legislation that refused to focus on these critical issues.

My best,

Marsha

Here are two videos from interviews I did this morning where I discussed my vote against the bill: America's Newsroom and CNN Starting Point. Please watch and pass along to your friends, family, and neighbors.

Top Stories

Cato: Grading the Fiscal Cliff Deal: Terrible, but Could Be Worse

January 2, 2013, by Daniel J. Mitchell - The faux drama in Washington is finally over. The misfits in Washington reached a deal on the fiscal cliff. Republicans and Democrats managed to come together and decide that they should get a bigger slice of what the American people earn.
 
Gee, what a surprise. First, the good news: … …

Oh, wait, there isn’t any.

 Now for the bad news.(link)

My Comment:  While the fiscal cliff deal really stinks, and there is a lot not to like about it such as the $1 spending cut for $10 in revenue, and the pork-laden goodies in the bill, and the increase in taxes, this is only a temporary fix to avoid what would have been worse. I am not going to judge too harshly those who supported the deal. Sure, the can was kicked down the road, but only for two months. At the end of February, the Congress must vote on raising the debt limit. Congress can again argue spending and revenue all over again. 

There does come a time when the adults must threaten to tear up the credit card unless real budget discipline is shown and if discipline is not shown, then the adults must follow through and tear up the credit card. If we keep putting off the necessary spending cuts, then we will have a major crisis. It is inevitable that our borrowing and inflating of the money supply will have consequences. We cannot continue our prolific spending like this for ever. Unless we can get the Democrats to address the problem of government spending and show willingness to address entitlements, then we might as well have the crisis now rather than later. For the next round, I hope Republicans hold firm and risk default if there is not serious effort to address entitlement reform and reduce spending.

Top Stories

The Fiscal Cliff 'deal' was a pork-laden rip off says ALG

Jan. 2, 2013, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government, a non-partisan group dedicated to limiting the size and scope of government at all levels, blasted members of Congress who voted in favor of the tax increase measure that passed both the Senate and House of Representatives on New Year's Day.

Bill Wilson, president of the group denounced the law saying, "This so-called 'deal' is typical Washington, D.C., laden with pork including a subsidy for Obama's Hollywood buddies and even NASCAR, while increasing taxes on every working American. Incredibly the law will be classified as a tax cut because it passed after the Bush tax cuts expired, so in D.C. doublespeak, politicians will claim to have cut taxes when everyone's taxes are actually going up."

Aninitial analysis of the legislation utilizing estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation conducted by ALG showed that while the tax increases on those making more than $400,000 a year will generate approximately $30 billion in revenues a year, the cost of servicing the projected increased federal debt of $1.2 trillion will actually eat away about 88 cents of every new dollar raised.

"By avoiding actually dealing with Washington's spending addiction, they have raised taxes to do little more than pay the increased interest on the debt over the next year. Meanwhile, the head-in-the-sand types on Capitol Hill will be clamoring to spend this 'new money' on their favored special interests. We are truly through the looking glass."

View online here: http://getliberty.org/fiscal-heroes-and-zeroes/

Attachments:

"Landing on the fiscal rocks below," by ALG senior editor Robert Romano, Jan. 2, 2013 at http://netrightdaily.com/2013/01/landing-on-the-fiscal-rocks-below/

Senate roll call on H.R. 8 at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251

House roll call on H.R. 8 at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00251

Top Stories

Senator Bob Corker: Any Fiscal Cliff Deal Today Will Be 'Irrelevant

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said Monday anything that happens in the final stages of fiscal cliff negotiations is "really inconsequential." It wasn't pessimism, though: "It really doesn't matter. It's going to happen. We will have a solution."

Top Stories

The Beacon Center on The Mayor's Taxing Budget

In response to Nashville Mayor Karl Dean’s proposal to raise property taxes by 13 percent, Beacon’s graphics team has put together an infographic on the mayor’s proposed budget. You can view it below or click below to download your own PDF copy.
Click here for a PDF of “The Mayor’s Taxing Budget”

 

Top Stories

Obama says GOP budget would close "hundreds" of national parks.

Obama told a gathering of newspaper editors in Washington that the GOP budget would leave needy children to starve, cut 10 million college students' financial aid payments, close hundreds of national parks, and even prevent weather forecasters from spotting deadly storms. (link)

The United States has 58 national parks. (link)

Top Stories

Draconian Sequestration Budget Cuts and the National Debt

Top Stories