A Canary is Silent But the Fat Lady Sings

Former Ohio State quarterback Art Schlichter was arrested Friday in Columbus after a state trooper found cocaine in his car, according to court records.

***

Zoom fatigue is real! When people talk face-to-face, they respond to yes-or-no questions in 297 milliseconds, on average, but this number jumps to 976 milliseconds when talking over Zoom. This imperceptible delay interferes with the neural mechanisms that govern the normal back-and-forth of human conversation, and the body’s physiological response is fatigue.

***

A robotic lunar lander is scheduled to launch in the early morning hours of Wednesday. If all goes well, it will become the first American spacecraft to set down softly on the moon’s surface since the Apollo 17 moon landing in 1972.
It is also the latest private effort to send spacecraft to the moon. Earlier attempts have all ended in failure. But the company in charge of the latest effort is Intuitive Machines of Houston.

***

A Canary is Silent But the Fat Lady Sings

Congressional Budget Office published its annual 10-year Budget and Economic Outlook. In a country that thinks its border is 'secure,' such information will likely be ignored. 

But...according to the CBO’s latest estimates, in 2024 the U.S. government will pass a grim and once-unimaginable milestone. The federal debt has gotten so large that spending on interest to service that debt will exceed federal spending on national defense.

In the CBO’s long-term projections, interest payments will become the largest line item in the budget—exceeding even spending on federal health care programs—sometime in the 2040s. It’s very likely that sometime between now and then, global financial markets sour on U.S. Treasury bonds as a sound investment, leading to an unprecedented and dangerous economic crisis with rising interest rates, higher inflation, and social turmoil.

Federal Interest Costs Now Exceed U.S. Defense Spending

(Estimated $ billions, 2022–2034)

Net Interest (2024 projection)

Defense (2024 projection)

Source: Congressional Budget Office

Graphic: Avik Ro in Forbes

Tiger, Tiger

The Left is balanced in their imbalance.

Sanders' universal health care comes in at $32 trillion in government spending over 10 years. Add to that free college, student loan forgiveness, and a guaranteed jobs program and the tab totals $42.5 trillion, according to the Manhattan Institute economist Brian Riedl, formerly a Senate Finance Subcommittee staff member.
The federal government currently collects $44 trillion in tax revenues over 10 years. The current progressive agenda would require doubling that. The 70%  tax hike on the rich would raise, at most, $720 billion over 10 years, according to Mark Mazur, a former Treasury Department official now at the centrist Tax Policy Center. That sounds like a lot of money, but $720 billion is a mere sliver of the $42.5 trillion cost of the progressive agenda. There just aren't enough rich taxpayers.

These people historically have solved technological problems--like global warming--with technologies that don't exist. Now they are going to pay for fixing problems by taxing people who don't exist. A fearful symmetry.

The New Budget

From the rugged Veronique de Rugy in Reason on the new budget deal:

 

"The bipartisan budget deal that the senators proclaimed so proudly yesterday would add $300 billion over two years to discretionary spending, not counting emergency funds and other add-ons. It would yet again burst the budget caps that Republicans negotiated in 2011 during a debt ceiling deal in exchange for giving more borrowing authority to the Department of Treasury. The debt ceiling would be hiked once again, allowing the Treasury to keep borrowing without asking Congress for an increase. Legislators wouldn't even have to pretend they care about how fast our national debt is growing.
Trillion-dollars deficits are coming back fast and probably are here to stay. And this time you can't blame that on a recession or a major war. It's a direct result of a Republican spending binge—an unwillingness to couple tax cuts with reductions in spending.

...we've repeatedly witnessed Republican hawks make deals with Democrats that amount to mutual back scratching: You can spend more at home if we can spend more abroad. This week's deal resembles those earlier ones in many ways, except that it's even worse. Military spending caps were $549 billion. The Senate wants to jack that up to $629 billion, with an addition $71 billion for war supplementals and emergency funding. The total for this year would be a cozy $700 billion, rising to $716 billion in the 2019 fiscal year.
In exchange, the Democrats get to hike nonmilitary spending by $131 billion over two years. The spending cap in this area stood at $516 in the 2018 fiscal year. It will now be $579 billion, with an extra $12 billion for war supplementals. That results in a sweet balance of $591 billion this year and $605 billion in the 2019 fiscal year. All this extra money will be spending on largely bipartisan priorities, such as infrastructure and the opioid crisis. The deal will probably pass in the House, despite the objections of the Freedom Caucus.
Worse still, the Republican leadership is trying to sell this spending spree as a bipartisan budget victory."

​
How many of our problems would be solved by the simple added sentence on every ballot, "None of the above."

Off-Budget

There will be over one trillion dollars in budget deficit this year but that does not include the so -called "off-budget expenditures.” 

Much of what the government spends is done out of its official budget, i.e. "off-budget." These expenditures do not affect the official deficit that is discussed in the press when the Rube-publicans are in office. They do affect the amount of cash the government needs. Where does it get that cash? It borrows it by issuing Treasury paper.

Off-budget expenditures pay for a variety of programs: Social Security, the US Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are among the more familiar ones. But the category also includes things like disaster relief spending, some military spending, and unfunded liabilities that turn into actual costs. Federal student loan guarantees sometimes force the government to disburse cash. That is an off-budget outlay.
Off-budget outlays have risen in part because they include Social Security benefits, and the Baby Boomer generation is retiring. But the other categories mentioned above have grown as well, and they are increasingly problematic.

So the recent interest in deficit spending, a hallmark of Democrat administrations, now has revealed the truth: The Rube-publicans are no more likely to manage government costs than Democrats. And the anxiety about deficits, which appear so partisan, may actually be legitimate. Perhaps the press has always felt the Rube-publicans would take the bullet and impose unpopular but necessary discipline on the nation. Now it is clear that will not happen and we are left without a rescue.

The "off-budget" problem is only a peak into a very disorderly house which shows not only a mess but a mindset that encourages it.

Social Diamonds in the Rough

Buried in the silliness over the dreaded sequester impact on White House tours is a significant point. Since the deprivations of sequester are appearing more and more politically inspired, responsibility for the tour cancellations have shifted again and again, amazingly at very high levels. But underneath these shifts is a profound social problem: Lying. Insincerity.

Now many just slough the mendacity off as "politics as usual." And it might be. But reverting to the lowest common denominator does not make something justifiable or right. Or desirable. It creates a corrosive cynicism in the culture, a culture that, at its core, has high aims and ideals whether we admit it or not. Those ideals must be maintained for the culture to be maintained.

Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Congressional questioners were haranguing each other about the Benghazi mess and when Mrs. Clinton finally screamed, "What difference does it make?" the question hung there until it became rhetorical.

But the answer was, "Truth. Truth makes a difference."

http://steeleydock.blogspot.com/2009/04/mendacity.html

Slouching Toward the Sequester

Sequester, the evil beast, continues to advance on the calender. Many are at risk. The Office of Management and Budget reports the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) will lose $2 million from its $20 million budget--but, as Reason magazine's Mike Riggs points out, the NDIC shut down in June 2012. (n.b. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the largest office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. The Director of the OMB is a member of the President's Cabinet. The main job of the OMB is to assist the President to prepare the budget. These guys did not know a 20 million dollar segment of the government, that they fund, was gone.)

Oops.

Well, anyway, things will be bad. We can not manage the tiniest of cuts from budget growth, let alone the budget. And there will be lines at airports. But with half the country not paying taxes, it is unlikely many Obama voters will be in airplane lines. They probably are at home--or have their own planes.

So, at times of stress, the government turns its displeasure upon its citizens.

Sequester Rhymes with Fester

A huge and malignant evil is stalking this great land. Its name cannot be spoken. That is to say pronounced. It is the feared and dreaded sequester. Its origin is apparently, like the flu, unknown. But it is of a great and terrible power. Who can name it? And what evil thing bore this foul beast?

“The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.” But apparently, as he mentioned this weekend, it has something to do with owning airplanes.

Bob Woodward, no friend of Republicans, reports in his last book that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — whom Woodward calls the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government. Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.
Mr. Obama "misremembers." A transparent curtain can be fragile.

Now, what kind of numbers are we talking about? What cuts will cause this feared crisis?

Federal budget 2012: 3,728,000,000,000.00 (Trillion)

Federal budget 2013: 3,795,600,000,000.00 (Trillion)

2013's budget increase over 2012: 67,600,000,000.00 (Billion)

Money "sequestered" from 2013 budget: 85,400,000,000.00 or 17,600,000,000.00 if you exclude the money added to last years budget.

% sequestered of 2013 budget: 2.2%  Or 0.004% of the budget of 2012.

So the crisis predicted is going to be caused by a 2.2% reduction in the 2013 budget. But that budget is 67 billion dollars higher than last year's. So most of the sequestered money will come from the increase in the budget from 2012 to 2013. So the crisis predicted will be the result of a decrease in 17.6 billion dollars, or 0.004% of the budget of 2012.

Now, just for reference, the tax increase on Americans for this year will be 1.4% on those making $40,000, 1.6% for 50,000, 1.7% for 100,000. So Americans will lose from their incomes, at a minimum, 1.4% from taxes. They will have to make due.

And the government can not make due with a decline of 0.004%? The giant brains in Washington can not adjust to that without a crisis?

If that is true, we have no hope.

The Mayans and Us

1. "There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." John Adams
2. Government deficit spending would provide additional market demand, pushing prices up and stimulating more hiring. Public-works projects would “prime the pump.” This policy would continue until “full employment” was attained.--after Keynes

Two tribes have emerged on the political landscape. One believes that government must spend to stimulate growth regardless of the money available and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. The other believes that the government must adhere to a budget, avoid debt and allow the creation and destruction of the marketplace to occur and that anyone who does not believe this is a traitor. These tribes do not share any vision, cannot compromise, have no respect for the other and believe their solution is the only possible way for the nation to go. More, they think the problems facing us, if not solved by their particular solution, will destroy us.

Are we becoming a group of apocalyptic cults?

http://steeleydock.blogspot.com/2010/06/g-20-tug-of-war.html

Government Money: Where It Comes From and Where It Goes

There are 312 million citizens in the United States, 147 million submit tax forms, 69 million paid no money on those forms and 78 million did pay money. Therefore 66% of tax form submitters paid taxes.

50 million people receive money from medicaid, 46 million from medicare, 52 million from social security, 5 million from disability, 7.5 million unemployment, 44 million from food stamps and 24 million from "tax credit." The average individual receiving money given--not paid--from the government receives 20 thousand dollars a year.

One can see that the straight charity activity of the government would be quite manageable had the government not decided to become an insurance agency in medicare and social security.

The Balanced Budget Amendment

The balanced budget amendment notion has never made sense other than as ironic anti-government revenge. Certainly no one can think that a government, with a fluctuating economy and uncertain international responsibilities, can manage its budget closely enough to be balanced regularly. It would be like a business without a line of credit. And, of course, it gives legislators the ultimate excuse to raise taxes to fulfill their balanced budget requirements as they deal with the new and unexpected cost that arose. But it does turn government on its head by creating a legislative straitjacket to produce a desired end, just like government does all the time.

But, irony aside, it is an admission of failure. You can not legislate competence or good will or good motives. Those qualities are found, not legislated, and are in men, not laws.

No Lobbyist Left Behind

While we are being told always that the independent voter is the crucial piece to any successful campaign and election, we see in Washington two sides negotiating from positions hostage to their peripheral antagonistic bases. There is no plan to solve a problem; there is only maneuvering to force the opponent into repudiating some position that will outrage its already outraged support. The majority watch helplessly as the intense hourly evaluation of "no progress" is dutifully reported. Problems that have been apparent for more than a generation are being ignored as if a wreck was slow motion and could be suddenly reversed on demand.

Years ago Michael Crichton wrote a book connected to the question of global warming and opined that the American political system was dependent upon creating arbitrary crises before anything could be done and what was done usually had a random connection to problem solving. We were "a state of fear."

One of these days we will need a statesman or two for more than theater.

The Budget of a Thousand Cuts

The following numbers are a summary of this year's budget and where the money goes. The hubbub centers on how to deal with the deficit, decrease spending or raise taxes. Now I am very opposed to the transfer of financial decision-making from earners with a vested interest in the result to politicians pretending to have no non vested interest in the results but I look at this simple chart and I can not figure out where the spending cuts will come from. I simply see no alternative to a grossly inefficient tax increase with its attendant decrease in productivity and taxes. That translates into a slow, gradual decline of GDP and living standards for the producers.

National Budget: 3.83 Trillion $

Non-discretionary Budget: 2.417 Trillion $
Components:
1. Social Security: 730 Billion $
2. Income Security: 580 Billion $
3. Medicare: 491 Billion $
4. Medicaid: 297 Billion $
5. Interest Nation. Debt 251 Billion $
6. Vets Benefits: 68 Billion $

Discretionary Budget: 1.415 Trillion $
Components:
1. Military National Security: 895 Billion $
2. Nonmilitary Security: 520 Billion $

http://steeleydock.blogspot.com/2010/05/budget-and-citizen-cuts.html

Budget and Citizen Cuts

Some numbers. The budget for the U.S. in 2011 totals 3.834 Trillion dollars. This can be broken down into Discretionary and Non-Discretionary Spending.

Non-Discretionary Spending is made up of those expenses that have been agreed to or contracted; expenses that cannot be avoided without disruption. These include a) Payment on the National Debt: 251 Billion, b) Vet Benefits: 68 Billion, c) Social Security: 730 Billion, d) Income Security (Dept. of Labor): 580 Billion, e) Medicare: 491 Billion, f) Medicaid 297 Billion. Total: 2.417 Billion Dollars.

Discretionary Spending is more arbitrary and reactionary; these expenses are current non-contractual costs and are military. They include a) Military National Security: 895 Billion, b) Non-Military National Security: 520 Billion. Total: 1.415 Trillion.

The debate over the direction of the government has been poorly focused but seems to be generally concerned about federal government growth of responsibility with a parallel growth in size, expense and influence. (Some would refer some of these areas to the states.) So apparently these people hope to cut the expenses. Where? Social Security? Medicare? These programs were started not as "entitlements" but as "investments", "savings accounts". People put money in with the expectation of taking money out later. And, having done that, they did not save that money themselves. Payment on the National Debt? Medicaid? Where will the cuts come from? The Military? And all of these expenses are rising as the population grows older. And the Debt Service: It is 251 Billion this year but rates are low and the deficit this year will be at least 1.2 Trillion Dollars and there is no reason to think it will be lower next year. All of these expenses are permanent and rising. How will this be solved?

There has been some scorn leveled at those who want less spending because of this very conundrum. But it is unfair to blame these people because they can not solve this problem now. The problem was initiated long ago. The problem is that the government has promised more to its citizens than it can deliver. It is no more complex. The complex part occurs when the government stops or decreases its payments. Then the burden of cutting the costs will slide away from the complainers and return to those who created the problem: The elected officials. They will have to decide where the cuts will come, whose promise to renege on, which citizen to sacrifice.