Federal Budget Insanity

Wrong Policy has been on a long break since the 2008 election went to two very anti-Constitutional candidates--but that should have been expected. Today I would like to share my discomfort with the track our government is heading down, yet again.

A few days ago the U.S. Congress passed a budget that vastly exceeds the earnings of the federal government. This was to thunderous applause of a country gone numb from economic contractions. However budgets are supposed to be hard to pass because they should make hard decisions about what taxpayer money is used for, this was clearly not the case. What better way to spend taxpayer money than on the interest of an accumulating mountain of government debt?

If this year the federal government will spend $3.4 trillion and the IRS only collects on the order of $2.2 trillion then our government is putting $1.2 trillion dollars on a credit card.

And a challenge from the president to his cabinet to cut $100 million dollars, in the next ninty days, is a bad joke. A simple calculation shows that $100 million is 1/12,000th of the budget deficit our government will rack up this year.

Using a mortgage calculator I ran up some numbers by subtracting 8 zeros from $1.2 trillion and then adding them back to the resulting payments. Then I made some ballpark numbers to demonstrate how much this could cost even at a low interest rate over 8-10 years, which I use through the remainder of the document.

Over 10 years at 2% interest the U.S. monthly payment on the budget deficit of 2009 will be: $11 billion or 110 times $100 million per month.

Monthly Payment: $11,042,000,000 or about $11 billion per month.
Total Interest Paid: $124,994,000,000 or about $124 billion or 10% of the 2009 budget deficit. (Over a ten year period (120 months) this is ~$1 billion/month in interest).

Shaving $100 million off of the budget to really put things in perspective versus the payment on the 2009 budget deficit is (drum roll please): 6.5 hours of payment on the $1.2 trillion deficit. This is assuming a ten year borrowing period and 2% interest. Of course the administration wants to pay off more than half of the 2009 budget deficit by 2012 and 2% interest may be unrealistic.

$11 billion per month/ 30 days per month/ 24 hours per day = $15.34 million/hour

If my ten year plan for paying the 2009 budget deficit is at all right think about the money our government spends on the interest of debt the next time pork barrel projects become an issue in a yearly budget. Those pork barrel projects may add up to $10 billion for a year; but we may pay $1 billion a month in the interest on the debt we're creating just to pay for the government in 2009, and that is my generous estimate at 2% interest over 10 years.

I shouldn't be surprised at the confusion the country seems to have about large numbers, despite calculators being cheap and accessible. Our news outlets talk about millions and billions of dollars as if they are the same thing. AIG received an absurd amount of bailout money, a horrible idea but that is for another post, and spent a fraction of a percent on it on bonuses and news outlets had a circus for weeks creating public outrage.

If this was not what you had in mind when President Obama announced he would run a financially responsible government: leave a comment or a suggestion for something you would like addressed on Wrong Policy.

The political terrain is ripe for Wrong Policy posts expect more soon. Thanks for reading.

Sources:
Wikipedia: Internal Revenue Service under 'Tax Collection Statistics.
($2.2 trillion is the amount collected in 2006; I couldn't find the exact source for this it was buried in one of many spreadsheets on the IRS website).

Responding to:
Congress approves 3.44 trillion budget resolution - CNN.com

6 Million Dollar Money Bomb

Two hundred thirty four years ago tonight the Boston tea party took place and crystalized the discontent of the colonists under the rule of England. Today as we cast our money into Dr. Paul's dark horse campaign we, like our forefather's, have a vision of igniting the process of change. Tonight as it stands now the Ron Paul for President 2008 campaign has taken in what appears to be in excess of 6 million dollars. Making it the largest single day of primary campaign contributions since the last night of John Kerry's primary runoff in the 2004 election.

There is no more real a message we can send to the news papers and outlets across the country than that the largest day in primary campaign fund raising history -- happened to a dark horse candidate that few media outlets pay much time or mind to. There is a possibility that the media outlets and the polls are just wrong--after all how many front runners can there be now in the Republican race? Isn't having seventy-five percent of the candidates as 'front runners' a sort of devaluation? Or, a step further, is not having five of seven candidates with preferred media status simply discrimination in the political process? When this lineup is questioned, although that gets no airtime, it is backed up with polls, which recently haven't backed the candidates of choice--having to let in Huckabee for example.

But the real kicker along those lines is that MSNBC/Newsweek sponsored an Iowa poll which they selectively use results from [1]. In this poll McCain and Ron Paul are neck in neck and in one poll in particular Paul gets 8% while McCain only receives 6%. To further beat this dead horse, Newsweek used these particular poll rankings, with McCain at 6% of likely caucus goers, and left out the surprising turn of events--that Ron Paul overtook McCain in likely caucus goers [2]. To a news organization such a thing should be newsworthy--alas bias turns a blind eye.

This cannot continue and our Republic not suffer for ignorance imposed. The Republican candidate with the most number of 1st place rankings in straw polls gets second-class media coverage (spam that) [3]. The only Republican candidate with copious personal knowledge on the topics of both health care and macro economics is given second-class media coverage [4][5]. And lastly it is not the lack of media coverage but its character which damns it most. The hard ball questions when other candidates swing at lazy lobs and the condescending tones stand out.

Doctor Paul is an intellectual and has very libertarian beliefs which media outlets appear to use to detract from time spent talking about current issues. They question if he is a Republican, if he will support another candidate if he doesn't win, will he run for a third party, and then ask him to defend his positions on small government. The only thing news casters don't do is let Dr. Paul talk about issues, the Iraq War, health care, and the economy--he must sneak these in.

Instead we are preoccupied with Dr. Paul's personal beliefs on the limits of government and the Constitution--can we get rid of the Dept. of Education or Energy, or the IRS, etc. We are led to focus on what Dr. Paul cannot do instead of what he can do if he is elected president. Dr. Paul if elected will slipstream some of his policies into being but we should not expect him to ride roughshod over the will of the people just because our current Republican president does this. Before we can abolish the Dept. of Education or reform Social Security or Medicare we have to come to some sort of national consensus through our representatives. Dr. Paul as president wouldn't want to abolish things without the drive from Congress it would be against his principles--his belief in keeping a check on the power of the executive branch instead of blindly enabling it [6].

Dr. Paul's three real hot button issues are: the Iraq and Afghan Wars, restoring our liberties (4th and 9th in the Bill of Rights), and the economy. Ultimately if our money bomb can bring the much needed media attention that Dr. Paul deserves as a grass roots candidate-- we may end up hearing of Dr. Paul as the healthcare and economy candidate.

[1] PDF Poll
http://www.newsweek.com/media/75/0714_newsweek_poll.pdf

[2] Poll: Huckabee Surges in Iowa | Newsweek Politics; Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com
http://www.newsweek.com/id/74215

[3] Straw Poll Archive - Republican Democratic Straw Polls - 2008 Election
http://www.usastrawpolls.com/

[4] What the Price of Gold is Telling Us by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul319.html

[5] Lowering the Cost of Health Care by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html

[6] YouTube - Ron Paul addresses Nashua NH Telegraph 11-07-07 Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA
The question in which RP presents the point starts at 5:00.

Party in Crisis

I love that people are kicking around the idea that the Republican party still exists. Allow me, if you will, to share my thoughts. The Republican party traditionally had several basic principles they ran on--such as low taxes, less government interference, and generally limited government.

The reality is that now the Republican party would like to permanently brand itself as the only party able to defend the nation against terrorism -- a ludicrous idea, seeing as how national policy determines such things. Those calling themselves Republicans have little else to campaign on since they refuse to support the old party platform, and appear to represent the new wave of corrupt neo-conservatives.

What we have seen in the past eight years and what we are seeing now with all but one Republican presidential candidate is a total disconnect from the historic principles of the GOP. They have consistently voted for bigger government - in the forms of Homeland Security, and more intervention into the affairs of regular people via profiling and spying; and they have done anything but follow the fiscally conservative principles Republicans campaign on.

What we see today is a shattered remenant of party that doesn't currently stand for anything. All the traditional policies of a Republican are missing from nearly every Republican candidate running for the presidency. Old guard policies such as opposition to gun control, abortion, entitlements, and big government and support of states rights are difficult to spot in the current GOP candidates. What we are seeing is the Republican Party breaking into small factions, similar to the current composition of the Democratic Party, in which factions will endorse or reject a nominee over a single issue.

For Pat Robertson and his ilk, the candidate of choice is Rudy Guliani, who really should be running as a Democrat, or perhaps a new party: the Demon-crats. After all what Republican position is "America's Mayor" taking? Pro-War is not a Republican or Democratic policy position, it is simply inability to accept that the current Administration led us into a war based on lies, and that we can't fix the quagmire we have created.

For that matter, what Republican positions does Mitt Romney hold that he didn't adopt a month before the presidential race began? These gentlemen, who will change parties and policies at the drop of a hat, are power mongers. They care not how they get power; why else would one try to represent philosophically opposed groups of people simultaneously?

The Republican party has shattered and is setting itself up as a cooler for the Hillary Clinton campaign--all but ensuring a victory for the Democrats, and likely Clinton. The majority of the Republican candidates are out of touch with reality and they think they will win. Romney's and McCain's campaigns are in debt in a time when the country needs leaders who are smart about money, and Rudy appears to be the most shrewd shady character the GOP has out there. Three words explain why the Republicans are bound to lose the presidential race -- the Iraq War.

A landslide seventy percent of the US public thinks the war has no end in sight and is not going well. If only the GOP still existed as a party and retained their traditional platform, we might end up with a decent candidate with a chance of winning, like Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul, Polls and Media Coverage

Yesterday I donated to Dr. Ron Paul and by the end of the day the 'This November 5th' movement had collectively tossed 4.2 million dollars into Dr. Paul's digital hat [2]. I don't think many people seem to understand what is happening with Dr. Paul's campaign or why it is of great consequence. There are some easy reasons for this--funny enough--Dr. Paul's campaign is very unique since it is often propelled by his supporters and the message of liberty. Further unlike a traditional campaign Dr. Paul's campaign helm is the Internet, it is the high place from which he can speak and organize.

The more traditional media isn't sure how to handle focusing on their prime choices when evidence keeps cropping up that the facts aren't being reported, or aren't consistent, but how and why? After the indignities that our TV news casters have made Dr. Paul endure for their quick and well amplified jabs at his patriotism, sensibility and chances of winning--I wouldn't report him either, I'd be ashamed of myself. The text message polls that Dr. Paul consistently wins and gets derided for, the online polls that are all apparently rigged (and 'rigged' with fans too): are all methods of acknowledging the event, but negatively[5][6].

It is important to keep in mind how much spin our media can give us--that Romney and Clinton can claim to have risen amounts of money in a single day that can simply not be backed up with FEC data and yet the latter is rarely disputed[2]. Mass media parade Romney and McCain in spite of the fact that both campaigns are insolvent[1][3], in debt, which is rarely mentioned. This in light of the fact that our dollar is in a crisis--we are in a genuine need for a president who doesn't answer every monetary question with "I don't know". Fact checking and presenting the whole truth isn't really part of the political media business apparently.

We have another problem to boot. Uncreative polling techniques, that from all my best guesses, are calling people who registered Republican in 2004, possibly on landlines exclusively[4]. Dr. Paul to his own campaign's admission appears to be attracting new, independent and young voters--I would add anti-war voters as well-- and all of these groups don't have a 1 to 1 correlation with registering as a Republican in 2004, or 2006, or even now. A random voting record sample may yield significantly different results, or not. But there appears to have been a 'virtuous circle' that haunts our TV news outlet's allocations of time to presidential candidates.

My virtuous circle idea is this, that candidates that have polled favorably get more camera time and so grow further in the polls. Like a positive feedback cycle--that by giving more time to a candidate--the polls could be effected in that candidates favor. This is of course a gross oversimplification but there is the issue of name recognition that is hard to dispute; that being the mass media's poll pet, justified or not, grants enough time to reach more ears. Dr. Paul's biggest hurdle is name recognition and media buzz around his platform--which is something that could genuinely be stunting his campaign.

Mass media plays politics full contact.


Some Sources:

[1] Third Quarter 2007 FEC Filings - Campaign 2008, Washington Post
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/candidates/mitt-romney/

[2] Ron Paul's Record Breaking Fundraising Day, National Press Corp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYk8UFSBPew

[3] Loan Talk Underscores McCain's Money Problems - The Fix, Washington Post Blog
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/mccain_weighs_public_financing.html
Third Quarter 2007 FEC Filings - Campaign 2008, Washington Post
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/finance/2007/q3/john-mccain/

[4] Ron Paul Polling 3-5% Higher But Ignored and Considered not Statistically Important?, USA Election Polls
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/articles/ron-paul-natural-boost.html

[5] Hannity disses Ron Paul Victory in Fox post-debate poll, The Raw Story
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hannity_dismisses_Fox_debate_poll_after_1022.html

[6] Ron Paul -Fox News Debate text poll 10-21-07, YouTube
Long video for the punchline, so here it is: you can't vote twice from a single phone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvM7yrEkVe8

[7] Paul's Money Draws Attention
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7055741,00.html

!st Post - Go Pete Stark!

Good evening, welcome to Wrong Policy; my shiny new vehicle and soapbox for practicing some political writing and hopefully provoking some discussion. The primary topic of the site will be dedicated to analyzing news with a common sense perspective and focus on the Constitutional decay of recent years.

After reading this piece over at Bloomberg -- should I be surprised the House is pushing to censure a man for making a snide quip while ignoring very real issues facing the country? Not really. Even with a new shiny Democratic House, Congress ineptly opposes the war a unitary presidency and domestically it is the same pork barrel politics and tax to spend.

Pardon I swear I was getting to a point; Pete Stark from our beloved Bay was nearly censured. For what I would say is a fair quip -- that our troops die for Bush's amusement.

After all at least Congressman Stark's quip might get someone thinking: "What are our troops dying for over in a foreign country in a war -- started illegally and deceptively sold? And why does that seem upstanding to defend in light of little public support or progress in the field?"

An election cycle must be coming up...I can smell it, oh wait. Why else delay continuously to end a war that is incredibly profitable to US defense contractors,

The Congress is acting like a child in denial about their misdeeds. The current Party majority was elected on an anti-war ticket but hasn't done a thing about the Iraq War, or the nation building we're doing in Afghanistan, the saber rattling at Iran, or the toes we're stepping on in Russia.

Given all these grave tasks at hand why not lighten the mood and show some real colors; that making offensive statements about a president may result in censure-- but starting an illegal war justified with lies and no end in sight will not.

It is as though our Congress has not ever read the Constitution they swore to defend nor glanced at the Bill of Rights they are complicit in violating.