-->
"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done."
Ronald Reagan




Showing posts with label Obama Spending Plan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Spending Plan. Show all posts

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Lurita Doan - Democrats' Assault on Language

For months, pundits and politicians have been saying that Americans have a math problem. They have a point, for Mr. Obama routinely champions the idea that running annual deficits in excess of $1 trillion dollars can be continued, simply by requiring Americans to pay $200 billion in taxes more each year. Anyone with a 3rd grade grasp of math has long ago come to the conclusion that even if Mr. Obama gets his way, huge annual deficits will remain, and the nation cannot sustain the current level of profligate spending indefinitely. Somehow, contrary to all known mathematics principles, and contrary to all common sense, in the mind of our president, the math works.

Now, even our language is under assault. Americans are no longer arguing about increasingly misleading and dodgy ways to represent the budget numbers, but are now battling over the meaning of the words being used by both sides in these arguments.

Consider Mr. Obama’s primary contention that the millionaires and billionaires (defined, without any sense of irony, as those making $250,000 a year) need to pay “just a little bit more” in taxes. The president contends that raising taxes to 39% on the top 2% will generate $1.6 trillion dollars over 10 years with no adverse effects to job growth.

  • Barack Obama, has said "We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more."

  • Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, has said: "people making all this money have to contribute a little bit more,"

  • Dick Durbin, Senate Majority Whip, has said; "let the tax rates go up to 39 percent", that's it's okay for the wealthy to pay "just a bit more".

  • According to Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), "At a time when middle class families continue to struggle, it’s only fair to call on the wealthiest Americans to pay just a bit more toward their fair share,” Murray said after the vote".

  • Peter Orszag (former head of OMB) claims: calling for the wealthy to pay "just a bit more" in order to achieve needed compromise on taxes and debt, is a reasonable and moderate approach.
However, in the Democrat's lexicon, what constitutes "just a bit more" changes dramatically when referring to calls for cuts of $400 billion in entitlement reform. Suddenly, much smaller calls for cuts of $400 billion are defined as imprudent "hacking away", "a gusher" and "hemorrhaging.", Yet, the president's plan to raise $1.6 trillion (or about 4 times that amount) in new taxes are described as “just a little bit.”

Remember the Paul Ryan Budget that called for $1.4 trillion in cuts to Medicaid? That plan was quickly called a "draconian", effort to punish the poor and elderly. If $1.6 trillion is defined by Mr. Obama as “just a little bit”, how then can a smaller number be defined as a draconian slash designed to punish? But, all of this, Mr. Obama tells us, is in the pursuit of a “balanced approach”.

Words do matter, and according to Socrates' Law of Identity, A=A. Or, as John Stuart Mill explains: "Whatever is true in one form of words, is true in every other form of words, which conveys the same meaning". So, if 1.6 trillion dollars is "gouging" and "draconian" when talking about entitlement spending cuts, then $1.6 trillion dollars is "gouging" and "draconian" when talking about tax increases.

We seem to have reached a sad impasse: even before members of Congress can agree on a course of action to avert the fiscal cliff, they need to agree on what words they use.

During the last election, Democrats proved their ability to inflame and to misdirect attention away from the president's failed policies, while obfuscating the very real financial crisis our country is facing. Inciting class warfare and racial tensions with the careful use of loaded words has become a Democrat stock in trade whenever there are difficult policy decisions to be made. The question is: how can Republicans negotiate with Democrats when the two parties clearly speak different languages?


Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Michelle Malkin - Presidential Power Grab

With little consternation or lasting opposition, the Obama administration has dramatically usurped congressional power at the expense of popular will and the rule of law. Numerous dastardly bureaucratic coups -- motivated by the president's progressive and political agenda -- have amazingly failed to engender a serious response.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, November 16, 2012

Fiscal Cliff - The Economics

U.S. President Barack Obama will hold his first press conference today (Wednesday 11/14/2012) since winning re-election and will state his case for a whopping $1.6 trillion in tax hikes to fight the fiscal cliff.

Democratic and Republican policy makers returned to Washington, D.C. on Tuesday with just seven weeks left to come up with some sort of compromise. If the two opposing sides fail to reach an agreement and the nation falls off the cliff, a recession in 2013 is guaranteed, the Congressional Budget Office has warned on a number of occasions.

Negotiations with congressional leaders will convene Friday.

But while Washington takes its time to argue over the fiscal cliff, businesses can't wait any longer.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Paul Ryan Discusses the Fiscal Cliff

Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) discusses efforts made to prevent the fiscal cliff from happening at the end of the year. "The president hasn't proposed a single solution [to the fiscal cliff] in any of his four budget submissions he sent to Congress,".

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

Barack Obama's 'Biggest Lie So Far'

"Since I've Been President Federal Spending Has Risen at the Lowest Pace in nearly 60 Years."
Barack Obama


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Crossroads GPS - Cutter Correction

"Today I'm pledging to cut the deficit we inheried by half by the end of my first term in office..."
Barack Obama - February 23, 2009

That simply did NOT happen. Not even close. The 2013 budget Obama rolled out in 2012 had more than one $1 trillion in deficit spending.

Deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00.

To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take the deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Barack Obama's Empty Promises - Debt and Deficits

Although the national debt under President Barack Obama has increased $4 trillion since he took office in 2009, as a presidential candidate in 2008 Obama criticized then-President George W. Bush for adding $4 trillion to the national debt, saying it was “unpatriotic” and also “irresponsible” to saddle future generations with such a large national debt.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion dollars for the first 42 presidents -- number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion dollars of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child,” Obama said on July 3, 2008, at a campaign event in Fargo, N.D.

“That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic,” said candidate Obama.



July 3, 2008
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

Paul Ryan on solutions that stand in solidarity with the poor

Discussion following Paul Ryan's Whittington Lecture delivered at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Bill Whittle - I'M TALKING TO YOU

At current spending rates, there will be no U.S. Economy by 2027. That's not Bill's opinion: that's the opinion of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, using the Obama Administration's own numbers, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner doesn't even bother to deny it.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Allen Barton - Ryan's Hope: A New Budget That Cuts Taxes and Curbs Spending

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) put forward a new budget the simplifies the tax code while cutting spending. Is it possible to clean up the federal balance sheet with just two tax rates of 10% and 25%? Find out as Allen Barton talks to Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine, and Terry Jones of IBD.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Tim Geithner to Paul Ryan: "We don't have a definitive solution... We just don't like yours"



NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

ObamaCare's Price Tag Nearly Doubles

“I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. (Applause.) I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.”
President Barack Obama


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, February 20, 2012

THP Videos - Paul Ryan - Presidents Budget is a Stunning Dereliction of Duty

President Obama has delivered the last budget of his term. Three of the four, including this one, were submitted late, shattering the previous record for an administration. Each of the four proposed more than $1 trillion in higher taxes on hard-working families and businesses, along with trillions in new spending and borrowing instead of a real strategy for growth and jobs. And — most disappointing of all — none of the four offered a credible plan to lift the crushing burden of debt, thus committing current and future generations to diminished prosperity and a nation in decline.

Although the White House claims to include $4 trillion in deficit reduction, the president’s budget actually contains virtually no credible deficit reduction at all. Under his plan, the government is projected to borrow $11.2 trillion over the next 10 years. This is roughly the same amount of debt we are expected to incur under realistic projections of current policy. The budget does not change our debt trajectory.

Instead, the president has used a series of gimmicks to create the illusion of fiscal responsibility. He exploits the winding-down of overseas combat operations to claim almost $1 trillion in “savings” over 10 years — money that was never requested by our military and was never going to be spent. Rather than propose actual spending cuts, his budget takes credit for $2 trillion in spending cuts that have already been signed into law. Further, it suggests replacing half of those cuts with a tax hike. When it comes to measuring tax rates, Pell grants and Medicare, his budget adjusts the starting line to satisfy his finish line.



NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

THP Videos - Paul Ryan - Credibility Deficit: President's False Claims Evaporate

The President continues to assert that policy changes proposed in his budget will result in $4 trillion in deficit reduction. The claim is simply false. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan unpacks the false claims and the gimmicks -- revealing a deep divide between reality and the Administration's rhetoric.


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Retired Geek - Barack Obama's Reckless Spending Addiction

President Barack Obama Thursday (January 12, 2012) formally asked the US Congress for another 1.2 trillion dollars in borrowing authority for the federal government. Under the new request, the debt limit would rise to $16.394 trillion, which the Treasury Department estimates will fund the government until late 2012.

When Barack Obama was a United States Senator, he said this about raising the debt ceiling: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
Senator Barack Obama
March, 2006

In 2006, then Senator Barack Obama described in perfect detail his 'OWN Reckless Spending' that has been the cornerstone of his Presidency.
  1. A Sign of leadership failure.
  2. A Sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.
  3. A Sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
  4. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.
  5. Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  6. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
  7. Americans deserve better.
Barack Obama is on 'Track' to become the 'Biggest Spender' in the History of Mankind and yet Obama continually insists that 'Spending is NOT the Problem'?.

Barack Obama's economic plan to reduce the United States debt and avoid bankruptcy, is 'Borrowing and Spending'.

The man President Obama chose to carry on the 'Obama Economic Policies' should something happens to him explains: “We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

President Barack Obama has been increasing the national debt during his presidency by an average of $4.24 billion per day ($4,240,506,004.34) putting him on a pace to increase the national debt by $6.2 trillion ($6,195,379,272,340.74) by the end of his term on Jan. 20, 2013, according to the debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That $6.2 trillion is more debt than was accumulated by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Bill Clinton combined.

The national debt was $10.6 trillion ($10,626,877,048,913.08) on Jan. 20, 2009, the day Obama was inaugurated. As of the close of business on Jan. 11, 2012, it was $15.2 trillion ($15,236,307,075,631.58.) In Obama’s first 1,087 days in office, the debt increased $4.6 trillion ($4,609,430,026,718.50)—or an increase of $4.24 billion ($4,240,506,004.34) per day.


RG (Retired Geek)

Related Post: Barack Obama Wants to Spend More Money
Related Post: Lurita Doan - New Spending Bill, More Fiscal Stupidity

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Friday, November 25, 2011

Dan Mitchell - Spending Restraint

Part 1: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both reduced the relative burden of government, largely because they were able to restrain the growth of domestic spending. The mini-documentary from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity uses data from the Historical Tables of the Budget to show how Reagan and Clinton succeeded and compares their record to the fiscal profligacy of the Bush-Obama years.

Part 2: Examples from recent history in Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand to demonstrate how it is possible to achieve rapid improvements in fiscal policy by restraining the burden of government spending.


Part 1: Lessons from Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton


Part 2: Lessons from Canada, Ireland, Slovakia, and New Zealand

Dan J. Mitchell, Ph.D.


Dan J. Mitchell, Ph.D. is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, Washington’s premier free-market think tank.
Visit his Website at: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Chris Edwards - Infrastructure Projects to Fix the Economy? Don't Bank on It.

In a recent television ad for her network, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow stands below the Hoover Dam and asks whether we are still a country that can "think this big" — Hoover Dam big. The commercial is built on the assumption that American greatness is advanced by federal spending on major infrastructure projects.

If I had my own television commercial, I'd stand in front of the wreckage of Idaho's Teton Dam,which, like the Hoover Dam, was built by the federal Bureau of Reclamation. The Teton Dam was based on shoddy engineering and a flawed economic analysis. It collapsed catastrophically in 1976, just a year after it was built.

Increased infrastructure spending has bipartisan support in Washington these days. President Obama wants a new federal infrastructure bank, and members of both parties want to pass big highway and air-traffic-control funding bills. The politicians think these bills will create desperately needed jobs, but the cost of that perceived benefit is too high: Federal infrastructure spending has a long and painful history of pork-barrel politics and bureaucratic bungling, with money often going to wasteful and environmentally damaging projects.


For plenty of examples of the downside of federal infrastructure, look at the two oldest infrastructure agencies — the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. Their histories show that the federal government shouldn't be in the infrastructure business. Rather, state governments and the private sector are best equipped to provide it.

The Corps of Engineers has been building levees, canals and other civilian water infrastructure for more than 200 years — and it has made missteps the entire time. In the post-Civil War era, for example, there were widespread complaints about the Corps' wastefulness and mismanagement. A 1971 book by Arthur Morgan, a distinguished engineer and former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, concluded: "There have been over the past 100 years consistent and disastrous failures by the Corps in public works areas ... resulting in enormous and unnecessary costs to ecology [and] the taxpayer."

Some of the highest-profile failures include the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927. That disaster dramatically proved the shortcomings of the Corps' approach to flood control, which it had stubbornly defended despite outside criticism. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was like a dreadful repeat. The flooding was in large part a man-made disaster stemming from poor engineering by the Corps and misdirected funding by Congress.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Reclamation has been building economically dubious and environmentally harmful dams since 1902. Right from the start, "every Senator ... wanted a project in his state; every Congressman wanted one in his district; they didn't care whether they made economic sense or not," concluded Marc Reisner in his classic history of the agency, Cadillac Desert. The dam-building pork barrel went on for decades, until the agency ran out of rivers into which it could pour concrete.

Looking at the Corps and Reclamation, the first lesson about federal infrastructure projects is that you can't trust the cost-benefit analyses. Both agencies have a history of fudging their studies to make proposed projects look better, understating the costs and overstating the benefits.

And we've known it, too. In the 1950s, Sen. Paul Douglas (D-Ill.), lambasted the distorted analyses of the Corps and Reclamation. According to Reisner, Reclamation's chief analyst admitted that in the 1960s he had to "jerk around" the numbers to make one major project look sound and that others were "pure trash" from an economics perspective. In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter ripped into the "computational manipulation" of the Corps. And in 2006, the Government Accountability Office found that the Corps' analyses were "fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data."

Even if federal agencies calculate the numbers properly, members of Congress often push ahead with "trash" projects anyway. Then-senator Christopher Bond of Missouri vowed to make sure that the Corps' projects in his state were funded, no matter what the economic studies concluded, according to extensive Washington Post reporting on the Corps in 2000. And the onetime head of the Senate committee overseeing the Corps, George Voinovich of Ohio, blurted out at a hearing: "We don't care what the Corps cost-benefit is. We're going to build it anyhow because Congress says it's going to be built."

As Morgan noted in his 1971 book, these big projects have often damaged both taxpayers and ecology. The Corps, Reisner argues, has "ruined more wetlands than anyone in history" with its infrastructure. Meanwhile, Reclamation killed wetlands and salmon fisheries as it built dams to provide high-cost irrigation water to farmers in the West — so they could grow crops that often compete with more efficiently grown crops in the East.

Taxpayers are double losers from all this infrastructure. They paid to build it, and now they are paying to clean up the environmental damage. In Florida, for example, the Corps' projects, along with federal sugar subsidies, have damaged the Everglades. So the government is helping to fund a multibillion-dollar restoration plan. In the West, federal irrigation has increased salinity levels in rivers, necessitating desalination efforts such as a $245 millionplant in Yuma, Ariz. And in a large area of California's San Joaquin Valley, federal irrigation has created such toxic runoff that the government is considering spending up to $2 billion to fix the damage, according to some estimates.

When the federal government "thinks big," it often makes big mistakes. And when Washington follows bad policies, such as destroying wetlands or overbuilding dams, it replicates the mistakes across the nation. Today, for instance, Reclamation's huge underpricing of irrigation water is contributing to a water crisis across much of the West.

Similar distortions occur in other areas of infrastructure, such as transportation. The federal government subsidizes the construction of urban light-rail systems, for example, which has caused these systems to spring up across the country. But urban rail systems are generally less efficient and flexible than bus systems, and they saddle cities with higher operating and maintenance costs down the road. Similar misallocation of investment occurs with Amtrak; lawmakers make demands for their districts, and funding is sprinkled across the country, even to rural areas where passenger rail makes no economic sense because of low population densities.

When the federal government is paying for infrastructure, state officials and members of Congress fight for their shares of the funding, without worrying too much about efficiency, environmental issues or other longer-term factors. The solution is to move as much infrastructure funding as we can to the state, local and private levels. That would limit the misallocation of projects by Congress, while encouraging states to experiment with lower-cost solutions. It's true that the states make infrastructure mistakes as well, as California appears to be doing by subsidizing high-speed rail. But at least state-level mistakes aren't automatically repeated across the country.

The states should be the laboratories for infrastructure. We should further encourage their experiments by bringing in private-sector financing. If we need more highway investment, we should take notes from Virginia, which raised a significant amount of private money to widen the Beltway. If we need to upgrade our air-traffic-control system, we should copy the Canadian approach and privatize it so that upgrades are paid for by fees on aviation users. If Amtrak were privatized, it would focus its investment where it is most needed — the densely populated Northeast.

As for Reclamation and the Corps, many of their infrastructure projects would be better managed if they were handed over to the states. Reclamation's massive Central Valley irrigation project, for example, should be transferred to the state of California, which is better positioned to make cost and environmental trade-offs regarding contentious state water issues. Other activities of these two agencies could be privatized, such as hydropower generation and the dredging of seaports.

The recent infrastructure debate has focused on job creation, and whether projects are "shovel ready." The more important question is who is holding the shovel. When it's the federal government, we've found that it digs in the wrong places and leaves taxpayers with big holes in their pockets. So let's give the shovels to state governments and private companies. They will create just as many jobs while providing more innovative and less costly infrastructure to the public. They're ready.


Chris Edwards


Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues. Before joining Cato in 2001, Edwards was senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee examining tax, budget, and entrepreneurship issues. Previously, he was a consultant and manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers and an economist with the Tax Foundation. Edwards' articles on tax and budget policies have appeared in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Investor's Business Daily, and other newspapers. He is the author of Downsizing the Federal Government and co-author of Global Tax Revolution. He holds a B.A. and M.A. in economics.

Visit Downsizing The Federal Government Website

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Lurita Doan - New Spending Bill, More Fiscal Stupidity

If Congress was ever in search for a theme song, it would surely be the 60’s hit by Sonny and Cher called—“The Beat Goes On”. Americans received yet another reminder of just how far this group of fiscal miscreants will go to avoid making tough budget decisions when Congress passed a “minibus” spending bill. This hodgepodge of appropriations manages to simultaneously delay, once again, the painful necessity of confronting excessive spending, while simultaneously eroding the little fiscal discipline that does exist.

No one should be surprised that fiscal malpractice continues in Congress as we lurch from CR to CR to Omnibus budget for the past few years. Our Senate has been too busy for the last 960 or so days to submit a budget, and it has become clear that congress doesn't have the stomach, nor the will, to truly trim the fat off the federal budget. Instead, members of congress focus their efforts on lots of photo ops, sound bytes and a Supercomittee Big Top circus that would put Barnum & Bailey to shame.

But, tucked away inside the most recent spending bill, is language that will further erode our finances and fiscal health. While Obama's signature on the legislation will keep the doors open for continued operations of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, USDA, NASA, FDA, Transportation, HUD and several other federal agencies, the bill, in no way, encourages restraint in spending.

Given the language used, the new Minibus bill will almost certainly cause more problems than it solves.

One example of the language problem, which seems to encourage unfettered federal spending is clearly outlined in Section 524 of the recently ratified H.R. 2112 (the "Minibus") spending bill, in which congress tells the leaders of agencies that it is okay to exceed the budget allocated by congress.

In fact, so certain is congress that one or more agencies is going to exceed the budgets set for them, that the "Minibus" proceeds to outline the process these agencies should follow when they blow the budgets.

Here's what the "Minibus" tells executive agencies to do.

First, the agency program manager (who blew the budget) is required to notify the agency's head. Then in 30 days the agency head is required to notify congress. This 60 to 90 day window allows the bloat to continue. At no point is the agency told to issue a Stop Work Order to government employees and federal contractors, nor are they told to trim back project expenses and live within the expenditures appropriated by congress. Instead, agencies are told to submit the new revised, increased estimate of costs for congressional approval, accompanied by a validation statement from the project manager that the new estimate will be sufficient.

Three problems become immediately apparent. First, congress has shown that it does not intend to hold federal agencies responsible for staying within their budgets. Second, congress has, de facto, shown that cost overruns will be rubber stamped for approval. Third, congress has indicated that it is not interested in fixing the problem, since there is no prescriptive action required such as monitoring or penalizing the project manager, the federal contractor or the government employees responsible for the cost overruns.

Congress has, in essence, given federal agencies a license to overspend. This is, perhaps, the inevitable result of electing folks who don't understand how business and budgets work.

Those who come to the conclusion that the primary problem with our government's budget is not that it is taking in too little taxes, but that it is simply spending too much, will have their worst suspicions of government-sanctioned, runaway spending confirmed.

The recently approved "minibus" appropriations only reduce the level of spending by a mere $1 billion dollars. But more importantly, given the flexible, fungible spending language throughout the legislation, such as Section 524, that $1 billion in savings could easily get gobbled up pretty quickly by cost overruns. Hence, even the paltry savings that Congress would like us to believe they support, is masked by yet more fiscal irresponsibility that will likely result in higher taxpayer expenditures. The beat just goes on.

The "minibus" appropriations bill raises as many questions as it answers. For example, a quick review of the Agriculture section (pages 82-137) of the legislation reminds Americans of what Congressman Paul Ryan said: "Why is Washington wasting your money on entrenched agribusiness?"

For those hoping for a merciful end to the $6 billion annual gift to the ethanol lobby, forget about it. That beat will go on and on until wiser statesmen can muster the courage to stop that peculiar madness.

Worse news awaits anyone willing to read the section on Housing and Urban Development appropriations, Title II, page 355. Incredibly, Congress has decided to expand the scope and its promise to continue to backstop mortgages that people can't afford, with money the federal government doesn't have. This remarkable bailout expands entitlements and assumes even more governmental risk for dodgy mortgages, which of course is how the country got into the housing mess in the first place.

Americans should be shocked and outraged, but congressional fiscal malpractice has long been established as an ingrained attribute of Washington. So, cue up Sonny and Cher. For the beat goes on--yes, and the beat goes on. La-de-da-de-de, la-de-da-de-da.


Lurita Doan

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Monday, November 14, 2011

Lurita Doan Joins THP Authors Team

Lurita Alexis Doan is an African American conservative commentator who writes about issues affecting the federal government.

Lurita served as Administrator of the United States General Services Administration from May 31, 2006, to April 29, 2008 (George Bush Administration). She was the first woman to hold the position.

Lurita has been involved in the business community through participation in many trade associations, membership in business organizations including the Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (now Entrepreneurs' Organization) and Young Presidents' Organization, and involvement on charitable community activities.

In addition, Lurita provides support to the American Red Cross, National Women’s Business Center, D.C. Rape Crisis Center, United Negro College Fund, American Women’s Business Centers, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Whitman-Walker Clinic, and many others.

Lurita has also served on a number of boards and committees including the Vassar College Board of Trustees, the Shakespeare Theatre of Washington, D.C. Board of Trustees, the Committee of 200, Council on Competitiveness, National Association of Women Business Owners, National Association of Female Executives, Women in Technology International, Minority Business Network, and the Northern Virginia Technology Council.


Obama's Lilliputian Legacy by Lurita Doan

Obama is a national embarrassment and each day proves himself even more incapable of honestly confronting the nation’s urgent issues. Just days ago, Americans were once again left gob-smacked as Obama beat the drums for the SAVE awards, his signature effort to cut the $1.4 trillion annual deficit. This Obama initiative hopes to demonstrate the president’s commitment to fiscal sanity by cutting wasteful spending.

The basic idea of the SAVE awards is a good one. Federal employees are encouraged to identify and propose cost-saving ideas and to finger poorly performing programs that should be cut. With an almost $4 trillion annual federal budget, there are many government programs, redundancies and inefficient operations that are begging for reform. Federal employees that offer the best ideas are not only praised for their efforts but are promised a special meeting with the President.

However, after reviewing the “winners” of the SAVE Program it is impossible not to feel depressed and dismayed. So what are some of this year's SAVE proposals? Share tools at NASA, eliminate an SSA magazine sent to less than 90,000 people, reduce the number of law books ordered annually.

Please understand me--these are not bad ideas, I truly believe that every little bit counts, and that all federal workers need to look for ways to cut costs. The federal workers who have proposed these ideas should be commended for taking the initiative to review their work environment and suggesting ways to improve the associated costs.

But is this the best the government can really do? With over $3 trillion in annual spending, is this really it? Even the most optimistic assumptions of savings from any of these ideas would likely result in savings of less than $1 million a year.

With a national debt now approaching $15 trillion, due largely to new spending and borrowing during the first three years of the Obama Administration, perhaps we should cheer any effort, regardless of how puny it might be, that this President makes towards fiscal sanity.

But, the SAVE program is misleading and, in reality, does not save taxpayers' money. An honest accounting of the government costs of running the SAVE Program would show that the program costs exceed the anticipated taxpayer money saved from the winning proposals.

Upon closer inspection it is clear that the government’s SAVE program supports costs such as the costs for advertising, web design, web maintenance, database design and maintenance, software support, time and manpower costs spent reviewing the "tens of thousands of proposals", the cataloguing costs of the review and the staffing costs to track all of the recommendations, the staff required to manage the 18,000 submissions, and the meeting space, communication costs and amenities required for the ongoing review process of 18,000 submissions. It is likely that the SAVE program actually costs taxpayers much more money than it saves.

Yet, President Obama seems not only completely comfortable with smallness of the ideas for cutting government waste, but unconcerned with the fact that his signature idea to cut wasteful government spending is itself an example of wasteful spending. Nor does Obama understand that the paltriness of the savings is just one flaw in the program. There are also larger, opportunity costs to be considered when the president, the leaders at OMB and federal agency executives spend valuable time on discussing these ideas rather than working to identify big changes to reduce the deficit.

But that’s not all. Last week, Obama also announced his latest money saving ideas, signing an Executive Order to force the federal government cut back on the number of promotional mugs (yes, coffee mugs) that federal agencies order (ironically, one of the products that is usually produced in America) and Obama has ordered a reduction in the number of honorary plaques.

Chotskys. Limiting chotskys is Obama's big budget reduction plan. How sad is that? With a seemingly endless array of poorly performing government programs, wasteful redundancies and wasteful spending, Obama has focused on coffee cups?

Even if Obama were to succeed in eliminating all federal expenditures on chotskys, those dollars would not be anywhere near enough to pay for the security costs for even one of his "date nights' to New York.

As if that weren't sad enough, Obama, when not championing Lilliputian efforts to save taxpayer money, sought to show his commitment to helping small businesses. Americans know that small businesses are struggling and they are telling anyone that will listen that excessive government regulations are killing job creation and expansion of small businesses.

Unfortunately, Obama’s bold “new” plan to get small businesses moving again does nothing about reducing excessive regulations. Instead, Obama "new" idea is to pay small business federal contractors faster, within 15 days. But--memo to Obama--that rule is already on the books and has been government policy since the 1999 OMB Final Rule on Prompt Payment Act -- Section 1315.5.

In fact, the 1999 rules provides the authority for payments to be made even faster than 15 days with the presentation by the business to the government of a proper and approved invoice.

So Obama, and OMB have once again wasted precious taxpayer dollars to repackage an existing rule, attempting to snare some positive press by trying to pass off existing rules as new. Maybe it's plagiarism. Maybe it's theft of another administration's intellectual property. Maybe it's just emblematic of the colossal ignorance of Obama and the members of his Administration. But, one thing is clear--Obama doesn't know what to do.

Obama is bankrupt of ideas and our nation is suffering. So Obama continues--advocating paltry, Lilliputian cuts and announcing rules that already exist. Americans--there you have it. Avoidance, Denial and Neglect -- Obama's true legacy to the American people.

Lurita Doan


NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Paul Ryan - Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division

"We’re here today to explore the American Idea, and I can’t think of a better venue for this topic. The mission of the Heritage Foundation is to promote the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

These are the principles that define the American Idea. And this mission has never been timelier, because these principles are very much under threat from policies here in Washington.

The American Idea belongs to all of us – inherited from our nation’s Founders, preserved by the countless sacrifices of our veterans, and advanced by visionary leaders, past and present.

What makes America exceptional – what gives life to the American Idea – is our dedication to the self-evident truth that we are all created equal, giving us equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And that means opportunity."
Rep. Paul Ryan


October 26, 2011

NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.