I'm Teed Off Too

I'm back...let's not talk about where I've been...it's not that interesting. The life of a stay-at-home mom is just daily chaos, and it got the best of me last week.  But I'm back....

"[F]inally we have a governor who is as teed off as the rest of us at how government spending and taxes have skyrocketed over the past decade."

 - Reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger

Let's just say it.  I'm sick. Sick about the direction this country is going.  I'm just not happy about it. I can't see a silver lining anywhere...

Except in Jersey.  I don't watch Jersey Shore so I don't have any funny jokes about why on earth I care about New Jersey, but seriously, my eyes are on Jersey.  And it's because of THIS guy:

Governor Chris Christie. He is serious. He will not go back on his word. His state is in serious financial doom...and he's vowed to fix it without increasing the insane tax burdens his residents are already laden with.  There's a great opinion piece by William McGurn in The Wall Street Journal, chronicling some of Christie's defenses to his critics...their arguments to him and his no-nonsense responses...I LOVE them. 

Critics: The children will be the ones to suffer from your education cuts.

Christie: "The real question is, who's for the kids, and who's for their raises? This isn't about the kids. Let's dispense with that portion of the argument. Don't let them tell you that ever again while they are reaching into your pockets."

Critics: Why not renew the 'millionaire's tax'?

Christie: "The top 1% of taxpayers in New Jersey pay 40% of the income tax. In addition, we've got a situation where that tax applies to small businesses. I'm simply not going to put my foot on the back of the neck of small business while I want them to try to grow jobs by giving more revenue to New Jersey."

Critics: Budget cuts are unfair.

Christie: "The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word—which, coincidentally, is my 9-year-old son's favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—'unfair.' . . . One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?"

Critics: State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns.

Christie: "[L]et's remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that's just outrageous. And they're going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession."

I want to see this guy succeed. I want him to lead by example and buck the current trend of spend-money-we-don't-have. Buckling down, making cuts and giving the already taxed-to-death citizens a bit of a break will truly be the thing that pulls us out of this recession.

Source:
McGurn Opinion - Wall Street Journal

Government Lingo Excludes "Efficiency"

Anybody who disagrees our government is inefficient and has difficulties conforming to a budget, here is a prime example:

"Census Bureau over budget as heavy counting gets under way."  

 - Fox News

Do you remember seeing the Census commercials during the Super Bowl? Or what about the advanced letter reminding us the Census was on its way? The Census website touts both of these actions as "cost-savings in the long run," but that's hardly believable now. The Census is now over budget before the real meat of the program even begins.  

Fox reports: "Auditors also found the Census Bureau provided training to some 15,000 workers who either worked not at all or less than a single day -- at a total cost of $5.5 million."

Are you kidding? They can't even manage the training or the staffing plan.

Just think of this in reference to health care.  

Mark my words, it will be mismanaged from the get-go.  

Starting with the revenues. The taxes to support health care begin immediately. How much do you trust the money will be left alone for its intended purpose? Social Security is in a hole, Medicare is in a hole, just wait for it...Obamacare will follow suit.  

Anybody who thinks the President is correct on his Obamacare price tag should raise the projected expense a few 100 billion dollars. Thinking a government program can be managed efficiently is an oxymoron.

The only thing better than modeling a government program after a private sector one is to just back off and let the private company continue to manage it.  

Consider if the Census were opened up for bidding and contracted out to a private company...

Cheaper?  YES.  More efficient?  Undoubtedly.  

Source:
FOX: Census Bureau Over Budget
2010.Census.gov FAQ

A Union Snippet

"I don't think Boeing's in a position to make us pay more for our health care and stuff."

 - Casey Ferguson (Member of the Machinists Union)

Mr. Ferguson is right.  Boeing has had very little bargaining power when it comes to union negotiations.  And whilst health benefits are contracted for salaried employees and layoffs abound, the company is at the mercy of meeting the union demands to keep the company afloat...until now.  Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing's Commercial Airplanes Division was discussing the leverage the company has by adding a second production line in South Carolina.  If the Machinists Union in the Puget Sound chooses to strike, guess where the work goes?

South.  Both literally and figuratively.

Puget Sound union members will be out of a job, and the nuts and bolts of the work will proceed in South Carolina.

I don't believe Mr. Ferguson will be as confident if his union chooses to strike and Boeing says, "Fine. See ya!"

In January, Daniel Henninger had a great Op Ed in the WSJ. He gives a brief history on Unions and how their collective bargaining power has crippled the government's ability to choose how to spend OUR money. I think the application is equally important in terms of the challenges Boeing faces with the somewhat unpredictable Machinists Union.

Here are a few of Henninger's quotes:

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party.  That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force...Kennedy's order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.    

They broke the public's bank.  More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members' dues and spending it on  political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.

Feeding the public unions' wage demands starved other government responsibilities.  It ruined our ability to have a useful debate about any other public functions.  

In the words of my friend, "Public Service Unions will bleed this country dry."  And the sad part?  Union members have little choice when deciding to join. It is their only hope for not being black-balled in the market. But once workers join, they lose control. Members work at the will of the Union and their dues are spent on campaigns with which they may not personally agree...creating the problem Henninger illustrates above.

With a large population of Union workers, these members most always: vote for increased taxes (federal and state union workers), fight school vouchers (Teachers Unions), and promote Health Care Reform (Cadillac Tax exemption for Unions).  When they do, members often avoid a real debate of the issues, but rather choose to preserve their own jobs and salaries.  It becomes self-serving at the expense of the non-union public.

Our government is at the mercy of the unions.  It's no wonder our President has a cabinet full of public-sector gurus.  Not one of them is from the private sector. Who's best interest do they have in mind? [Sidenote: that says a lot about why they don't know how to run this country]

Such a large portion of federal funds are spent in a "public-sector vortex". Campaign contributions come at a price and with the Unions it's a heavy one. One that requires the use of my money to repay.

I'm glad Boeing is making some headway in exerting pressure on the unions and thereby taking greater control over the long-term health of their company.

Our government, unfortunately, is not.  

Sources:
King 5 News - Jim Albaugh
WSJ - Henninger
On Life and Lybberty

No One is Above the Law - Not Even the Legislature

"So even if you raise tax rates, revenue continues to go down.  Governor Corzine raised tax rates last year.  Revenue was down by $2 billion."

 - Governor Chris Christie, New Jersey

I've been fired up the last few days with New Jersey's new Governer Chris Christie's speech and repeated attempts to defend his plan to CUT SPENDING.  He is requiring cuts across the board and promises no tax hikes...and the press is ALL over him.  But he's not backing down.  Man, I respect this guy.  I wish my own state would take note...

Our Washington, like most states, is in a budget crisis and needs to close the gap.  Unfortunately, the only thing WA knows how to do is raise taxes.  

But what is embarrassingly unethical and ridiculously irresponsible is our legislature is ever so close to suspending a voter-approved initiative (I-960) which requires a two-thirds majority to increase taxes. They will now only need a simple majority.  The elected officials with power to raise taxes are changing the law to ease the process to increase taxes...circumventing the will of the people.

*tilting head*  

*shivering*

That is soooo not right.

Have you met a 15-year old on the cusp of driving?  One that knows the days, hours, minutes until they take their driving test?  What if these 15-year olds were given the power to change the legal driving age...do you think they would?  Um...yeah.  What about asking a 20-year old their thoughts on adjusting the legal drinking age?  Difficult decision?  Hardly.

Well, these representatives are the same!  They are changing the rules to improve their position and get what they want.  I-960 is a check on taxes. But now our representatives are willfully ignoring this check imposed by the people and giving themselves a free pass.  It's too dang easy.  Nobody wants to make the hard decisions.  Nobody wants to say no.  

The arguments for suspending I-960 sound so ridiculous to me!

Here from The Daily Evergreen Online, get a load of these statements:

"Republican demands to find solutions for the state debt without raising taxes are simply unrealistic.  Republican propositions would force the Legislature to make cuts across the board to all programs."

Oh, boo hoo!  YES...it's hard!  Have you had to sit down in your own family and make cuts across the board?  It's never easy.  Some programs will have to cut back...or become more efficient.  It's not impossible.  

"This proves lawmakers are not attempting to remove the democratic process, but allow for less debate and more action."

I do believe the root of the democratic process requires debate and discussion. Herbert Humphrey said, "Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent and debate."  Debate is necessary.  Rash action is damaging and almost always regrettable in hindsight.  

"By the time I-960 is reinstated, Washington state's economy may have improved so taxes can be lowered to previous levels."

Let me tell you something....

TAXES NEVER GO AWAY!!!  

I have no doubt in my mind if a tax increase is authorized to close our current gap we will live with it permanently.  This is so short-sighted and plain 'ole dumb.  

Now the other side...my side:

 

"Our system cannot withstand a tax burden that continually increases. There's a tipping point when there will be more people in the wagon than those pulling it.  The voters' approval of our taxpayer protection initiatives year after year is proof positive that politicians still aren't listening."  (Tim Eyman)

And this from the Yakima Valley News:

"The majority's willingness to tell citizens they know better is a slap in the face to hardworking employers and families.  This is just more evidence for folks who don't trust their government anymore."  (Rep. Charles Ross, R-Naches)

And just like New Jersey's Gov. Christie has said (paraphrasing)...when you raise taxes on people who are already struggling to meet the day-to-day challenges of maintaining a job and keeping their homes, you essentially drive them out.  When they get tapped out, they leave...and the government LOSES money.  

Sayonara, Washington!  

Be prepared for an exodus...and I'm on the list to leave if things continue to worsen (and I can convince the hubster!).   

Sources:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004366567_timeyman23.html

http://www.dailyevergreen.com/story/30976

Gov Chris Christie's soundbites

KNDO Yakima News

Buyer's Remorse

If this budget is Mr. Obama's first clear demonstration of his long-term governing priorities, then it's hard not to conclude that this spending boom is deliberate. It is an effort to put in place programs and spending commitments that will require vast new tax increases and give the political class a claim on far more private American wealth.

 - Wall Street Journal, 02/03/10

I keep wondering when all the folks who actually voted for "Hope and Change" start to get nervous and have a bad case of buyer's remorse.

The budget came out on Monday.  It's scary.  It makes me physically nervous and anxious when I think about it for longer than 2.1 seconds. Are you nauseated yet?

Do you remember this promise from the Obama Campaign:

"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase - not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." (Sept 08 Town Hall meeting in Dover)

Well, not that anyone's surprised, but taxes are going up.  WAY UP.  The only way to support Obama's spending plans is to increase taxes. He's going back on his word (again).

There are some great articles (linked below) talking about what the budget really means.  It basically means we will pay more...whether you make above $250k or not.  Here are some snippets:

Say goodbye to the Charitable Donation Deduction (people will STOP giving!).

Say goodbye to your marginal tax rate; it's going up.

Say goodbye to your investment earnings...the Capital Gains tax rate is almost DOUBLING!

Say hello to the Death Tax. [Sidenote: I heard a great discussion on the Michael Medved show a few weeks ago about this.  It literally blew me mind. The Federal Government believes they deserve a double dip on your earnings.  Once you die, they want to tax your entire estate AGAIN...and to the tune of 55%.  This WILL get its own post.]

Say goodbye to the College and Tuition Tax Credit....(This is $4k) GONE!

Say goodbye to the State-Sales Tax Deduction...GONE!  (this is a big one for my fellow Washingtonians)

People. Listen Up. Stay informed.  Talk to your friends.  Get the word out.

You are about to empty your pockets and hand over your hard-earned cash-o-lah to the government.

Sources and Goooood Material:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575039671922399114.html
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/79161-presidents-budget-seeks-an-end-to-tax-break-for-the-middle-class
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_020210/content/01125106.guest.html
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/01/20/obamas-broken-promises/
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/morning-bell-the-obama-budget-higher-taxes-higher-spending-and-more-debt/

Profits. Bad?

Seems backward, right?  All of this loathing of businesses because they earn a profit. The headlines and commentary over the past few weeks have been bugging me.  Those "banks on Wall Street" can't catch a break.  And now some of these bank executives are earning a bonus because they've turned a profit and that's bad?  Is this really criminal?

Um, hello?  Has anybody taken a basic economics class?

Well, I have...way back in the day, and I do remember this:

ECON 101

Profits:  goooood

Most companies use a system of quantitative/qualitative performance measures. If the measures are met they are rewarded. It seems logical for executives who made changes which allowed their companies to repay TARP loans and earn a profit deserve some type of compensation.  I would presume in most cases the bonus is well-deserved and based on a series of audits of their performance results.   Of course not everyone on "Wall Street" is good.  I'm not naive that corruption exists on Wall Street, but I also believe it exists on any street, including Pennsylvania Avenue.  It's easy to point the finger.

Now consider our government, which ignores spending control and instead expands programs and draws more loans.  The end result is a "company" further in debt with no outlook for profitability. Is anybody berating our government's compensation?  My big beef with some of our government entitlement programs is all this talk of expansion. Let's help Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment benefits, etc. reach MORE people for LONGER.  Does anyone see a problem in this?

*me raising hand*

The most successful welfare program does not tout how many people it can support, but how many no longer require its services.  Let's get people on their feet rather than in a state of never-ending dependency.  Welfare should be a short-term fix rather than a long-term solution.

I suggest we applaud the profitable businesses.  ANY profitable business, whether on or off Wall Street.  A profitable company is a company in position to add jobs.  Obama should reconsider his "Jobs Bill", (a fancy name change from 'Stimulus' which is now taboo after its utter failure last year) and focus instead on helping companies improve their financial bottom line.

That, my friends, is where the REAL jobs are found.

BEWARE! Gimmicks Ahead

Obama saying he will halt spending is like a woman saying she's only a little bit pregnant.

- Mark Steyn (Rush Limbaugh Show)

The State of the Union is tomorrow and the talk today is all about Obama's announcement to freeze spending. Initially I think, okay, great! Now that is what I'm talking about! But then I read the fine print...

Check the exclusions:

- Defense, Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security and foreign affairs

- Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security

- Job Creation spending

- A follow-up stimulus bill

- Health Care spending

Is it just me or does it appear the only programs left are federal port-a-potty cleaners and IRS lunch ladies?

And, my friends, there is no cutting going on here. This is simply halting spending for these programs at their existing levels for three years. It's obvious to anyone with half a brain this plan won't make a dent in our current $12 trillion debt (which is continuing to skyrocket). The Obama administration promises a savings of $250 billion over the next 10 years. Really? That's all you've got? That's about .058% of the budget...roughly half of one percent of the federal budget over that same time period.

IT WON'T HELP. As Mark Steyn said today, we are spending our children's and grandchildren's future. They won't understand the term "The American Dream" because there won't be one.

I love this quote: "Spending is a means of control...Spending is a liberty issue. Every time Obama takes money from you to spend on something the government does, that's a dollar that the state decides how to spend and the citizen doesn't."

Government does not get smaller, as evidenced by the lack of actual/physical/calculable cuts. It only gets bigger. And with each increase we see a little piece of a our liberty fly away, which is one of my main beefs with health care reform.

Even the mainstream media outlets are suggesting the freeze will have minimal effect on our national debt. Newsweek today said:

"Sure, it adds to the image of a president who's committed to reducing the deficit [REESE sidenote: Ummm...not sure what image Newsweek is referring to...in my humble opinion, I would say Obama has shown very little committment to reducing the deficit. Hello?], but it feels more like a gimmick than a realistic solution, particularly with a Congress more concerned about protecting its immediate political interests...than engaging in a cooperative attempt to tackle long-term economic issues.

Gimmick is probably the right word. We'll see what other gimmicks the president has up his sleeve at the State of the Union tomorrow. If Obama thinks this is being fiscally responsible, maybe he just doesn't really KNOW how large of a deficit we're dealing with.

Source:
Newsweek article
Mark Steyn on Rush
White House Briefing