Ken Nelson

Virginia will pass a budget that is SMALLER than 2006 – actually shrinking its spending:

But many Republicans believe that the budget crisis offers the long-awaited opportunity to pare down spending in a state that has taken on too much.

"There’s no question this is scaling back," said Del. M. Kirkland Cox (R-Colonial Heights). "I think some of it is structural and won’t come back."

Naturally the Washington Post and the Democrats whine that children will die:

Many Democrats believe that the state’s new spending priorities abandon its most vulnerable residents citizens, and will have an impact that could extend well beyond the current two-year budget cycle.

What they should have written was that “Democrats had unspoken fears about how many votes they would be able to buy in coming election cycles”.

I predict Virginia will do just fine and nobody will die. In fact, I suspect they could go to 2000 budget levels with nil effect on day to day life.

Good on you VA – Bob McConnell and Chris Christie might make a great 2012 ticket!

We borrowed money from China to pay for this fabulous piece of work

In World War II the nation borrowed so that we and the world could remain free from tyranny.

Last year we borrowed to fund bad art.

Time to stop that don’t you think?

I don’t like license plates. I don’t like vehicle registration. They are just money makers for the state and generally pains in the butt. What does a license plate do? It identifies the car. Does it identify the driver? No.  Does it prevent stolen cars? Nope. Just change the plates, about a 1 minute operation.

Just think about it… do you need a license plate? Do you use them? Who uses them? The Government!  Do they use them to help you?

The only thing license plates and registration stickers do is make money for the state, give police a reason to stop you, and in general cause you pains in the butt once a year times every vehicle you own. 

If I were Governor of Utah one of the things I’d love to get rid of is vehicle registration and the bureaucracy it creates.  I’d also eliminate license plates, but permit any store to sell Utah plates with random numbers on them for traveling in other states.

Some states, like Georgia, are buying automatic license plate readers that automatically scan license plates in parking lots or even while driving looking for hits on BOLOs and expired registration. They sell it as a theft aid:

Last October, Lt. Scott Burke of the Portsmouth, Va., Police Department said he took one of their new systems out for a test, and in 33 minutes got a "hit" on a sedan reported stolen in a carjacking.

But the real reason is so they can make money finding expired tags. And ultimately to track your movements.

We need to pay for roads, but with driving ubiquitous, road infrastructure should be paid for out of general taxation.

License plates pose a privacy and government intrusion risk – they should be eliminated.

25 years later the headline is finally right

I hope Obama is more like Ronald Reagan than Jimmy Carter.

Why?  Reagan was a good talker but was ineffective at changing the long term course of the country. Carter was a dope but managed to ruin foreign policy for us perhaps permanently.

I don’t like Ronald Reagan. I don’t idolize him. I think he was a good talker but ineffective. He compromised and set the nation on the path to ruin.

Reagan’s peak ineffectiveness came in 1986…

But Ken… he lowered tax rates. Well, sure, the rates might have been higher early in Reagan’s terms, but there were lots of deductions and loopholes. Only dopes paid the actual printed rate.

Then it all changed. 1986 came. A cruddy year. The Space Shuttle crashed and our income tax rates were cut along with most deductions/loopholes. Simplification.

He got rolled on this. They lowered the rates, and took away the deductions. But now they’ve raised the rates again, but where can you hide money now?  My financial guys show me things that make my eyes bleed they are so complicated and expensive.

Federal spending, as a percentage of GDP and debt as a percentage of GDP, have all risen dramatically since Reagan and 1986.

Also in 1986, Senator Alan Simpson, recently resurrected to further screw the country on Obama’s “don’t’ cut the deficit” panel, sponsored a bill to let illegal’s become citizens. Reagan signed it and with the stroke of a pen gave California and its 56+ electoral votes to the Democrats.

He got rolled again!  He’d already given government a path to more money. And then he ensured the people most likely to grow government would have the California Assembly and Governors office, as well as a much better shot at being President. We see the result now as we worry if California’s expected financial failure  will ruin just it, just its region, or the entire country.

1913’s income tax set up the long term ruin of the country. Ronald Reagan’s terms weren’t a speed bump on the way to ruination – they were  gas on a fire.

So the next time someone goes on about Reagan, tell them to shut the hell up, they don’t know what they are talking about.  A cult of personality isn’t endearing even if nominally conservative.

My daughter and I discussed colleges this morning. She said Harvard, maybe. Or Yale. I told her… hmmm I’ve never met anybody dumb from MIT, CalTech or Stanford. I’ve met plenty of idiots from Harvard. And I’ve known a few people from Yale, they all seemed smart, but few seemed trustworthy.  We agreed that the colleges just enhanced whatever showed up and then got on to other topics.

But case in point arrived a little later today as I perused a blog by Greg Mankiw, a professor of Economics at Harvard. He seems a nice and smart fellow that I’m sure is an excellent teacher. I read his blog regularly.  But I notice that sometimes he pulls bone head things out of the sky. For instance, he has an obsession with Pigouvian taxes, ignoring that taxing negative externalities just shifts the problem to defining negative externalities!

But I digress.

I’m going to take issue with his recommendations for Conservatives on Obama’s Fiscal Commission.

He maintains that since tax raises are “inevitable” that Conservatives should be willing to give on them and get other stuff in return.

The fiscal commission is giving the Democrats something of very high value: political cover for a major tax hike.  If Republicans are going to give them that, they should get something very big in return.  If the conservatives on the commission could achieve my five goals above, it might be a deal worth talking about.

Let me stipulate that Professor Mankiw is probably smarter than me. He knows more about economics than me.  But… I’m going to disagree with him vehemently on this Commission.  It isn’t, really, an economics issue. It is a will issue. I have it. Our politicians need it.  Perhaps Professor Mankiw and I basically disagree that injecting will into our politicians is doable.

My view on this commission:

• He assumes that “conservatives” will be on it. Alan Simpson may be a Republican, but he isn’t a conservative.  He is a career politician, a creature of D.C., with a propensity to spend, and he made lots of crappy deals in the Senate with liberals. He is on it because he has shown a propensity to be rolled before.  Which leads me to my next point…
• That he is on the commission means he has already been rolled. This Commission is cover for a group that wants to raise taxes. We need not provide them any. Make them do it themselves and take full public pride in doing so.
• I also disagree that we can’t cut spending enough to cut the deficit. Most spending in the deficit is new THIS YEAR. Clearly we don’t need it. As to the remainder…  I could easily cut a Trillion dollars out of our budget. EASILY.
• Eliminate TARP and Stimulus spending.
• shift social security age forward, index to life expectancy.
• Eliminate Dept of Education
• Eliminate Dept of Energy
• Eliminate Dept of Commerce
• Eliminate SBA
• Cut Dept of State by 30% (it is up 40% in recent budgets)
• CUT all other departments, including DoD back to 2008 levels

There did it. Wasn’t too hard. And I didn’t raise taxes.  And you know what… if you do the above and we still have a deficit, go ahead and raise taxes.

As to this commission… there will always be Republicans stupid, or dishonest, enough to help Democrats raise taxes.  That is why the Tea Party must succeed in changing almost completely the mindset of those in Congress.

I hope we can do it.

Oh… and as to tax increases… I’d take my chances on a sovereign default rather be targeted by more tax increases.  I’ll probably do okay after the fall.  I’m not so sure about Harvard professors.

I like Bill Frezza’s idea:

"If elected I promise to vote "No" on any bill that proposes to expand government power for any purpose. I promise to vote "No" on any bill whose net effect does not reduce government spending. I promise to vote "No" on any bill whose net effect does not reduce federal taxes."

Frankly, if a candidate says that, all the rest falls into place.

Trouble is… Obama would claim that his bills meet this test. Politicians lie.

A corrupt failed state

Illinois, political home of record of Barack Obama, and one of the most corrupt states in the country, has an 12.8 billion dollar deficit.

A “civic” group  focused on Illinois governmental spending and operations proposes this plan:

• cut spending 2.1 billion
• raise taxes   7.9 billion
• keep spending fixed for a year

I don’t like this plan a lick. They exempt the biggest parts of Illinois budget from cuts – Medicaid and education. And it raises taxes at exactly the wrong time. Finally… here is what happened when they got 2 billion more dollars from the Feds from the “stimulus bill”:

The proposed level of operating appropriations from
all funds in fiscal year 2010 is $52.9 billion, compared
to a fiscal year 2009 appropriation of $50.8 billion
once additional spending related to the federal
recovery is accounted for. This represents an
increase of $2.0 billion over fiscal year 2009, nearly
all of which is accounted for by increased federal
funding related to the Recovery Act.

When they get new money… they SPEND IT.

Ken’s plan???

• 20% across the board cut – this cuts spending $10 billion
• spending kept flat til deficit paid for

I’d also recommend complete replacement of all Illinois politicians with random people chosen from outside Chicago.

What’s missing from Ken’s plan?  New money. They don’t need it. They will just waste it if they get it.

BTW: Ken’s plan will work for any state – you listening California?

I’ve gotten paychecks since 1982.  Every paycheck I’ve received has had FICA taken from it, and supposedly placed in a “trust” for me when I retire.

But that isn’t what happened. Instead the money I’ve paid in has been “lent” to the United States Government to fund its operations.

The amount I’ve paid in isn’t small – hundreds of thousands of dollars. But I will likely receive none of it back, or if I do get any of it back it will be in inflated dollars worth far less than I contributed.

Every Republican politician, except Ron Paul, has voted for budgets and spending that used my stolen money.  Why should I support any of them?  How are they not thieves of similar ilk to the Democrats? Ronald Reagan did it too – one of the reasons I don’t idolize him like so many other misguided conservatives.

I want my money back. Why shouldn’t I be mad as hell about 3 decades of theft?  Why should I trust any of them?

 
Sorry Vegas, have some of Ken’s money

Obama showers $1.5 billion dollars on Las Vegas to offset his stupid gaffes on travel to Vegas.  How fun it must be to spend other people’s money!

Now people that bought houses they couldn’t afford will get my money. Money I could have used to buy a larger house, or an extra investment house, but now will go to those who weren’t so wise with their money.

It gets old – this war on the productive, earnest and careful citizens.

Joseph Stack’s straw broke today. He burned down his house, apparently with wife and daughter in it. They escaped. He then stole a small airplane and flew it into the IRS offices in Austin, TX. He died. Nobody in the building died.

His “manifesto”/suicide note can be read here. Some call it “insane”, and parts certainly are rambling and incoherent, but other parts cut right to the bone:

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system?  Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand.  Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand.  The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is.  If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

Given how many “We can help you fight the IRS” ads I see on TV, and given my personal experiences with the IRS and their erroneous, evil, ways, I’m surprised we don’t have more Joseph Stacks.

I’m not condoning what he did, he does seem to have “snapped”, but I can sympathize, and empathize, with the stress and futility he felt.

You see, I too, believe that all this will end in violence. I’ve stated that fear many times on this blog, while at the same time stressing my personal situation didn’t warrant it yet.

So you can call Mr. Stack insane, or whatever your political sentiments rationalize, but you can’t hide that millions of people feel the same futility he did – and when situations become futile, violence is next.

So don’t condone it. Don’t support it.  But also don’t be surprised by it.

Yeah… lets give him more money. GREAT idea!

Tyler Cowen suggests that now may be time for a VAT:

3. I would prefer spending cuts, but voters seem too irrational to be willing to cut spending; here the libertarian argument comes back to bite us on the bum.  They might be willing to cut spending once a financial crisis arrives (though maybe not), but then there will be days or only hours for decisive action.

4. We could, for now, wait and postpone fiscal reform.  That means encountering a sudden collapse some number of years from now.  We will then clean up the budget in some way, but under a TARP sort of mood rather than what we might do today.

He throws bones to both sides, promising 1/2 the new money for deficit reduction, and 1/2 for stuff Democrats want.   I can assure you that the 1/2 called “spending” is the only part you have a 100% chance of getting.

The biggest problem with the deal is that Congress will lie their way around the deficit reduction part of it. They will put stuff “off the books”, or call some spending “investment” and throw it on the balance sheet as an “asset” or some other nonsense.

The basic problem we have, with a VAT or without, is we have a corrupt political class symbiotically dependent with 1/3 or so of our citizenry.

We can’ t trust them with our money now, why give them more of our money in the future?

Overall Rep Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap” plan isn’t bad compared, for instance, to where our road heads now. There are BIG problem with it though. It isn’t constitutional and  he doesn’t focus enough on spending cuts. Or at all really. No surprise there. He’s a politician. The thought of not spending other people’s money probably didn’t cross his mind.

The plan website is at http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/

He intends to stops entitlement spending growth by locking in benefits for people over age 55. For the rest of us, the economy better perk up… as we will be relying on private savings plans.  He plans to perk up the economy with a lower taxes and a VAT on business. Like those won’t grow.

Overall, something will have to happen. But I’m concerned about two kinds of taxes – over time they will both raise.  I’d rather see a change like this only in concert of a balanced budget amendment forcing lower spending. In other words, when hell freezes over.

I don’t like the plan very much because it is still largely unconstitutional and it is VERY vulnerable to progressive meddling by those who want to “help” constituents with other people’s money.

Frankly, we might be better off with our current government crashing and replaced by multi-state countries (Utah, AZ, NM, TX) that are run properly than with this sort of zombie progressive state.

Ryan would have you believe that over time liberty would reign, but he is naive – if the instrument of taking remains in place it will be used.  Of this we have ample historic evidence.

A proper plan would remove the power of the government to take unevenly from the people. If everybody feels the pain, the takings will only be for the common good which is the Constitutional intent.

Obama open to tax hikes on those earning less than $250K.

Of course he was lying.

But wouldn’t it be better if he CUT SPENDING??

He is lying scum that is hell bent on helping just those that vote or donate to him. He isn’t President for all of us. He is a narcissistic sociopath causing irrevocable damage. If you voted for him you should be ashamed of yourself for being stupid, gullible, or anti-American – or the case of some I know – all three!

You’ve earned the right to a nasty fall today Barry. Make it a doozy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

I notice a few things…

First… WAY TOO MUCH GREEN, which means a growing budget. The budget should be shrinking.

Two… much of this WE COULD DO WITHOUT

Three… Most of it is constituency buying.

1913 ruined us.

Joe Biden, with AGI averaging over 200K, donated just $283 dollars per year to charity.

Barack Obama, with AGI of almost $250K, donated just $2,187 dollars per year to charity.

Meanwhile the average regular Jane & Joe, with less than $30K AGI donated $1900 annually.

So Joe and Barack love to spread around other people’s money, but squeeze their own wallets tight.

These people should be despised, not praised.

H/T/ Carpe Diem