Looks like the stimulus did more to expand government and save government jobs than it did for the private sector.
Basically, government took more money from us in order to save their own jobs.
Nice.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Archive for the 'Spending' Category
Stimulus Saved Thousands of Jobs — in Government
November 4th, 2009, 8:47 am by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.Record Deficits, Yet U.S. Giving Money to Congo
August 12th, 2009, 7:08 pm by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
What is wrong with this picture?
With unemployment soaring and the economy in shambles, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pledged $17 million to Congo to fight sexual abuse.
Are you kidding me?
The government is taking our money and giving it to Congo to fight sexual abuse.
Unbelievable.
By no stretch of the imagination can you say fighting sexual abuse in Congo is a matter of U.S. national security. In fact, there is absolutely zero U.S. interest in the level of sexual abuse in Congo.
All this while the United States in July recorded its 10th straight month of deficit spending and is on track to end the fiscal year with a $1.84 trillion deficit, more than three times last year’s record $454.8 billion deficit.
While you might say $17 million is just a drop in the bucket, it adds up. This is but one example of how the federal government is spending the money it takes from you, money that you could be spending on yourself. Besides, tell the person who just lost his or her job that $17 million taken from U.S. citizens by their government is heading to the Congo to fight sexual abuse in that African country and see where that gets you.
(AP Photo/Schalk van Zuydam)
Things Polls Shouldn’t Decide
August 7th, 2009, 5:39 am by Bill GoodwinWhile reassuring, isn’t this one of those pieces of information that really doesn’t depend on what people think? I believe it has more to do with, you know, spending money.
Moon Landing Great, But Still A Government Boondoggle
July 20th, 2009, 12:01 am by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
Today marks the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.
While a great achievement, and one that should be commemorated every year, the moon landing would have to be classified as one of the largest government boondoggles in U.S. history.
The primary motivation behind the landing was neither science nor exploration but rather to beat the Soviet Union. While Ohio native Neil Armstrong’s small step delivered an important defeat to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, it gave us very little in the way of scientific knowledge.
The government-run race to the moon proved successful, thanks to the hard work of thousands of men and women who believed in making it happen. Still, it was too expensive for sustainability. NASA was only able to accomplish seven moon landings and, tellingly, only one of those missions, the last one, actually included a geologist.
Libertarian Tyrant
July 16th, 2009, 9:22 am by Bill GoodwinIf the California budget crisis has you near despair, blow off some of that steam slashing the budget yourself.
The Los Angeles Times has a tool up that allows you to play governator and make critical budget decisions.
Not surprisingly, it’s intensely gratifying to slash programs, but the widget does suffer from a serious flaw: even if you cut every program possible, you’re still left with a nearly $1 billion deficit. That may be the result of the massive amounts of mandatory spending, but I’m reluctant to assume as much without poking around in the budget.
A Fourth of July solution to budget problem
July 4th, 2009, 12:01 am by Thomas J. Lucente Jr.
An errant bottle rocket does some good!
Have a happy and safe Fourth of July.
Laboratories of Debtocracy
June 30th, 2009, 12:15 pm by Bill GoodwinThe Congressional Budget Office recently came out with a report on federal spending so dire that even the Washington Post had to start warning about the “Debt Tsunami.” Sadly, the indebtedness is hardly a purely federal phenomenon. California’s budget crisis has generated a the most press, by far. The Golden State, however, is far from the only state suffering a fiscal fiasco. In fact, five states face a shutdown of government services unless they can come up with budget before the end of the fiscal year at midnight.
Thanks to our intrepid intern, Chase Gray, and the research of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, we dug up some numbers on how just how bad the situation is around the country. Our research proved alternately surprising and obvious, but uniformly depressing. Consider this fact for starters: even though California’s $24.3 billion budget deficit is larger than the annual GDP of 100 countries, on a per capita basis, it still isn’t the worst in the United States.
Improbable as that may sound, it’s true. Connecticut’s budget deficit is actually 27% higher than California’s. When you run the numbers through Many Eyes, it looks like this:
Not surprisingly, New York, California, and if we include it, Washington D.C., all make the list. Connecticut? That’s a little more surprising. But considering that the state depends heavily, like California, on the income tax, and high earners, it’s bound to be disproportionately affected by the souring economy. Regardless, the top states have plenty of company in the deficit ranks: 46 out of 50 states expect a budget deficit in 2010, so the states are 92% effective at spending money they don’t have.
Looking at the numbers on a map makes the regional differences more apparent:
Not surprisingly, the coasts fare poorly, but the middle of the country is less immediately intelligible. If you click through to the original visualization, you can mouse over each state to see it’s per capita deficit. But a speedy way to point out most of the top offenders is to just stack it up next to this map:
In both maps, the states that voted for Obama are highlighted in orange. While there are several states that went for McCain facing huge deficits (such as his home state, Arizona), Obama states have a vastly higher per capita budget deficit. Republican-voting states face an average of $162 in deficit per person, come 2010. Obama’s turf faces a collective shortfall three times as large: $476 per person.
Tomorrow, we’ll see how the states fared when ranked in terms of economic liberty, as well as examine state deficits from a different perspective.
Get Your Free Government Money
June 3rd, 2009, 9:52 am by Bill GoodwinI’m actually surprised that Matthew Lesko hasn’t written the guide to bilking the bailouts.
Just How Much Does California Spend?
May 21st, 2009, 12:28 pm by Bill GoodwinWith every union hack in the state crying over the supposedly “brutal” budget cuts we face, it’s worth remembering just how bloated the state’s budget has become. As I pointed out earlier, the horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad budget cuts that the state faces would set us all the way back to 2005. Actually, that would produce a budget $5 billion larger than 2005, which should leave us able to provide the essential services that politicians now threaten will vanish.
Of course, that doesn’t mean that $21.3 billion is a small number. It’s a huge number, and the fact that it can be sliced from the budget and only set the government back to 2005 levels says more about the unbelievable spending growth of the state, than it does about the “hardship” government services will face after the cuts.
So, how big is $21.3 billion? In a deficit spending USA, it’s nothing, just a small bailout for a politically-favored industry. But to the rest of the world, it’s real money. Perhaps this fact will put it into perspective: California’s budget cuts are larger than the annual Gross Domestic Product of more than 90 countries.
Beware: “Brutal” Budget Cuts Ahead
May 21st, 2009, 12:00 pm by Bill GoodwinIn typical fashion, the media is buying the state line that California will now be forced to make “brutal budget cuts.” That’s the screaming LAT headline, which is quickly followed by reporting that uncritically accepts claims that this will necessarily devastate education, welfare, law enforcement, firefighting, [insert your cherished government service]. Consider this quote from John Burton:
“People are going to have to figure out: Do they want schools, do they want roads, do they want public safety, do they want to take care of the less fortunate?” said John Burton, a former state Senate leader who is now chairman of the California Democratic Party. “At some point, that’s going to happen.”
Well, the state is more than $21 billion in the hole, so clearly we’re going to have to cut some essential services, right? Hardly.
When was the last time California managed to survive on a budget that was $21 billion smaller? Let’s see…can we even look so far in the distant past? After all, 2005 was sooo long ago.
That’s right, in 2005, California’s General Fund expenditures were $78.6 billion, which is actually significantly below what $21.3 billion in cuts would demand. Last time I checked, 2005 wasn’t the middle of the Great Depression. Somehow, California muddled through 2005 without massive famines, rioting in the streets, and it’s children sold into slavery. Make the “brutal budget cuts” the media warns of, and we still end up more than $5 billion ahead of what we spent in 2005.