Forbes: Cut Discretionary Spending 10% per Year for 5 Years

Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-4) has an interesting guest post over at Bearing Drift where he lays out a plan to cut discretionary (not mandatory) spending by 10% per year for the next 5 years. This would cut billions of dollars from the budget, which would help close the deficit gap without raising taxes or even touching some of Washington's most sacred programs (Medicare/Social Security for the Dems, Defense for the GOP).

This would be an interesting start to really getting back to some kind of fiscally responsible budgeting. Plus, it forces the government to look at some of the "smaller" things it is involved in, and makes them ask "do we really need this?" If successful, it would move Washington's overall budget philosophy into a different direction.

It's worth looking into.

Hide The Decline, Redux

Apparently, the White House has now changed the rules for what constitutes stimulus success. Now, it seems, if your company received stimulus funds to cover payroll, that was a job "saved or created" as well. In fact, anything covered by stimulus funds, even if it was still a massive failure, is part of the stimulus "success" story.

Not surprisingly, after this latest revision of a revision of a bunch of errors that were made to revise the actual history of the stimulus's lack of success, the White House is now claiming that "The Stimulus Worked!" (In past tense, too, as if we're now in some kind of economic boom period).

One can only shake their head and chuckle...until they realize that people actually believe that there has been success due to the stimulus. Then you feel a deep sinking feeling that resonates throughout your body when you realize "some people won't see beyond the White House's claims of success, despite the obvious failures we've seen". Kinda sad, when you think about it.

(h/t Barticles)

Worth Some Worry, But Don't Hit "Panic" Yet

Tertium Quids and Virginia Virtucon have both reported that Sen. Walter Stosch told Goochland Republicans that we "have to have more taxes this year".

While that is a worrisome statement, I wouldn't hit the panic button yet.

See, first of all, the House is solidly Republican again...and fiscally conservative for the most part. They have already declared Gov. Kaine's budget DOA. The Senate is already slightly tilted towards the Dems, who would support such a measure.

Last, but not least, the Governor-elect is a Republican. It's up to him to sign off on new taxes. Being that Bob McDonnell is not nearly as quick to raise taxes as Mark Warner is, I wouldn't start the panic of higher taxes just yet.

Obenshain Says Warner, Webb Owe Virginians an Apology

...and he's RIGHT!

Not only did our esteemed senators vote for a gaudy monstrosity of a health care bill, now Virginia has to pick up the tab for Nebraska, some of Louisiana, and non-profits in Michigan (among other things).

Given that Gov. Kaine's regional taxing authorities were unconstitutional, doesn't that instantly call this bill into review due to the fact that it forces some states to foot the bill for others in a discriminatory fashion? But I digress...

Sen. Obenshain points out where Virginia is on the hook for the sell-outs of other states and their senators, then goes after our own U.S. senators, especially Jim Webb.

"What did our intrepid duo in the U.S. Senate do to stand strong for the rights and interests of Virginians? Absolutely nothing. They fell right in line with Mr. Reid and the rest of the Democrats in the Senate and voted for this abomination. They required little coaxing and no incentives. Jim Webb may have been "born fighting," but he did not hesitate to run up the white flag here."

Oooh, that's gotta hurt.

On a side political note, for Obenshain to get this in the Washington Times and have Real Clear Politics post it on their site as well really does raise his profile. Obenshain for AG in 2013, or maybe even a senate run in 2012? I wouldn't mind it one bit.

(h/t SWAC Girl)

For Once, Tim Kaine is Right!

Outgoing Gov. Tim Kaine states that "...the budget he is handing off to Gov.-elect Robert F. McDonnell, a Republican, is one he would have drafted for his own administration or for the Democratic candidate, if state Sen. R. Creigh Deeds had won the November gubernatorial election."

The difference would've been that Deeds would've readily accepted the income tax increase, McDonnell will not. Thus, Kaine is being honest that he's not putting in a tax increase to simply screw McDonnell...but he's still trying to pass off a tax increase. Period. Kaine is giving the right answer to the wrong question.

(h/t Barticles)

C'mon Dems, When Does Enough Become Enough?

Congressional Democrats to raise debt ceiling by as much as $1.8 trillion in 2010.

You know, all the progressive taxation in the world wouldn't corral the debt load that your crew of power-tripping leftists are leading us into. Even if we were to cease military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, next year's budget would have deficit at around $1.3 trillion (and that is a conservative estimate).

Yes, Bush got this ball rolling (which is why I don't label him a conservative, at least not in a fiscal sense), but the Dems are turning a steep hill into Mount Everest at this point.

The Vicious Cycle of Environmentalist Policy

I swear to God, the enviro-activist left has really got us playing "Spin The Wheel, Make the Deal". I'll bullet point this to make it really simple.

- Environmentalist lobby pushes for increased production and research into Ethanol.
- Demand for corn goes up, pushes prices skyward.
- Farmers see the gold mine in corn crops, many switch to corn from wheat. This causes the United States to import wheat to meet it's own needs for the first time since the late 18th Century. Thus, the price of anything wheat-based (everything from bread to beer) goes up.
- Increase in corn price increases price of Ethanol itself, along with feed for cows.
- Ethanol-infused gasoline goes up in price due to increase in Ethanol price...price of beef goes up because farmers must pay more to feed their cows.
- Increased gasoline prices force increased shipping costs, which increase the price of ALL shipped goods.
- Shortage of American wheat production causes us to lose favor with all of the 3rd World Nations we would normally export wheat to.
- Democrats state that we are not a good member of the world community because we're not helping to feed the 3rd World...even though the shortage of American food exports is their fault.

Now, let's say this continues, and either Clinton or Obama is elected President. Here's what happens next...

- Media reports about starving children in Africa, state that it is the fault of "greedy rich people".
- Liberal Americans feel guilty, want the Government to "do something".
- Democrats state they will fix this (and everything else) by raising taxes on the "rich"...even though "rich" to them (according to the circulating Dem tax plan post-Bush Administration) is now any single person making over $33,000/year, or any married couple making a combined $45,000/year.
- More Americans in need of financial assistance for various reasons due to increased prices in goods and increased taxes....so the Democrats spend more money to relieve these troubled Americans. To cover costs, they raise taxes even more.
- Increased costs of production, shipping, and taxation force many companies to take jobs elsewhere, forcing millions of Americans into unemployment...thus repeating the previous bullet point.
- Rinse and repeat.

Scary, isn't it?

Podium Positions: Federal Budget

Budgetary Viewpoints from The Podium...

Military
Understandably, it's hard to reduce spending while fighting two separate military operations. However, as the situation continues to improve in Iraq, we can start projecting how we can save billions just by coming to a favorable end to our occupation of that nation. $145 billion has been allocated for the Global War on Terror, Iraq consumes a large part of that in and of itself. Once Iraq is done with and we wind things down a bit more in Afghanistan, we could cut the current budget deficit of $240 billion in half.

However, we must currently continue to create a favorable outcome in Iraq now, as future U.S.-involved conflict due to leaving Iraq in bad shape would mean future military operations there. To leave Iraq now would lead to more spending later.

Entitlements - Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP/Welfare/Unemployment
Until then, some trimming around the edges of other government programs will be necessary, we need to find a way to do this without hurting those who actually need government assistance.

The introduction of privatized Social Security (at least in an optional sense) would help. The U.S. federal budget will spend $608 billion dollars on Social Security for the fiscal year of 2008. It is the single-most expensive item of spending in our budget, and it gets more expensive each year.

$324 billion will be spent on welfare/unemployment, this can be cut down if we can stimulate job growth "from the ground up", so to speak.

The combined $595 billion spent on Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP could be made a lot cheaper if we opened up health insurance to the free markets just like car insurance, life insurance, et cetera. You, the individual, find the plan and the price that is right for you. In fact, we can probably even set up government-funded assistance for people who don't quite know what to look for when shopping around for insurance and still cut down on this price tag.

Also, by adopting a more federalist approach, we can defer funding for abortions to the state level, and there the states can decide whether or not they choose to provide funding and assistance for abortion practices on their own, thus removing financial responsibility from the federal government.

Taxes
With lowered spending comes less of a need for taxes. While I'm not calling for the dissolution of the IRS just yet, the combination of lower spending and a simpler tax code would lessen the need for any future tax increases, and may lead to a call for tax decreases.

Overview
Whether we're talking federal, state, or local levels, fiscal prudence will always be an appealing cornerstone for conservatives. The George W. Bush-style of budgeting money has not been fiscally prudent overall. While his tax cuts have kept money in the pockets of those who earned it, spending has continued to increase.

However, the reigning in of spending increases has occurred over the past few years. The federal budget deficit has gone from $390 billion (FY 2006) to about $240 billion (FY 2008). Continued reduction at this rate will lead to a balanced budget, or budget surplus, by Fiscal Year 2011.

We must continue on this track, and find ways to "trim the fat" from our budget.

Optional privatization of social security allows people to make a choice to invest their social security funds, which allows for less spending on social security itself. Lower taxes puts money back in the pockets of those who earned the money in the first place. Less federal spending makes our government less cumbersome and more nimble and flexible to foreign and domestic changes. Finally, the reduction and streamlining of entitlement programs increases the amount of independency American citizens have from the federal government.

Kudlow: "President Bush had a very good year"

In a Washington Times column today, Lawrence Kudlow noted that, despite all of the negativity and criticism of his campaign, President Bush has had a good year.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding. America remains safe from terrorist attacks. And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

True enough, especially when you look at these numbers...which come despite the subprime crisis and overall housing market downturn.

- Headline inflation - 2.5%
- Core inflation - 2%
- Real GDP growth - 3%
- Consumer spending - 3%
- Jobs increasing at rate of 100,000/month
- Stock market continues to go up despite obstacles

Kudlow also notes Bush's legislative victories, economic optimism, and his crusade against wasteful spending and pork-barrel earmarks.

Mr. Bush's optimism is well-earned, in Congress too. He has stopped a lot of bad legislation on higher taxing and spending. He won on S-CHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) and the alternative minimum tax. He mostly prevailed on domestic spending. And he got much of what he wanted on war funding without any pullout dates.

And he is not yet finished. In the most dramatic statement of his holiday news conference, Mr. Bush said he will not stand for continuing congressional proliferation of pork-barrel earmarks.

"Another thing that's not responsible is the number of earmarks the Congress included in the massive spending bill," said Mr. Bush. "The bill they just passed includes about 9,800 earmarks. Together with the previously passed defense spending bill, that means Congress has approved about 11,900 earmarks this year. And so I am instructing Budget Director Jim Nussle to review options for dealing with wasteful spending in the omnibus bill."

This is huge. The statute of limitations for Republican overspending, over-earmarking, and over-corrupting that caused huge congressional losses in last year's campaign will not run out until the GOP shows taxpayers it again can be trusted on key issues of limited government and lower taxes.

In these matters, Republicans must be holier than the pope. And while President Bush has been doing the Lord's work with his newfound veto pen, he must continue to wage war on earmarks if the GOP is to cleanse the political memory of Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, and Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

This behemoth spending-bill was porked-up with such essential items as rodent control in Alaska ($113,000); olive fruit-fly research in France ($213,000); a hunting and fishing museum in Pennsylvania ($200,000); a bike trail in Minnesota ($700,000); a post office museum in Las Vegas ($200,000); and a $2 million monument to Rep. Charlie Rangel in New York.

Will Rangel's monument be inscribed with his quote that "Dick Cheney is a real son of a bitch"? Just wondering, since my federal tax dollars are going to support a project like this.

Kudlow finishes with some optimism and advice for how the GOP should go forward in making the economy even better.

Republicans also can take credit for outmaneuvering the Democrats on a patch for the AMT. The Democrats were made to waive the pay-as-you-go budget rule that might have forced tax increases on businesses and investment pools. Stopping this tax hike is a singular Republican achievement, while the AMT will now be indexed for inflation, thereby sparing more than 20 million taxpayers.

Looking ahead, the economy also would benefit from a corporate tax cut for both large and small businesses, including corporate capital-gains. The U.S. dollar would reap the rewards as new investment flowed in from the world. Several recent studies also show businesses would pass on tax-cost savings to the work force, thereby bolstering wages and ultimately creating new jobs.

Hokey ideas for temporary tax rebates? They should be ignored. But if the president and Republicans wipe out earmarks, hold down spending, and pass a bold corporate tax cut, Goldilocks will be nourished and sustained. Come November 2008, Republicans might be back in the driver's seat.

President Bush's Statement on H.R. 2764

Otherwise known as the Omnibus Spending Bill.

Today, I signed into law H.R. 2764, legislation that will fund the Federal Government within the reasonable and responsible spending levels I proposed - without raising taxes and without the most objectionable policy changes considered by the Congress. This law provides a down payment for the resources our troops need, without arbitrary timelines for withdrawal. The Congress should quickly take action next year to provide the remainder of the funding needed by our troops.

I am disappointed in the way the Congress compiled this legislation, including abandoning the goal I set early this year to reduce the number and cost of earmarks by half. Instead, the Congress dropped into the bill nearly 9,800 earmarks that total more than $10 billion. These projects are not funded through a merit-based process and provide a vehicle for wasteful Government spending.

There is still more to be done to rein in Government spending. In February I will submit my budget proposal for fiscal year 2009, which will once again restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue us on a path towards a balanced budget. I look forward to working with the Congress in the coming year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.

Finally, this legislation contains certain provisions similar to those found in prior appropriations bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, the executive branch will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to similar provisions.

Hopefully, we can have less earmarks and "pork-barrel" spending, and we can further reduce the budget deficit, which has been on a steady decline over the past few years.

(h/t News Blaze)

Dems Abandon SCHIP

Now, they're going along with the GOP's plan and will keep SCHIP as it is until March 2009, when the new form of SCHIP that will be debated in the beginning of the 2009 Congressional session will take effect.

That actually dampens the ability of Dems to use SCHIP as a campaign issue, as well as keeps SCHIP expansion from being used as the "knife to the throat" of military funding for operations in Iraq.

Haven't I said multiple times before that Congressional Republicans have traditionally done well when they don't have full majorities in Congress?

Omnibus Spending Bill Passes in House

Two separate votes took place on this bill. The first was a 253-154 vote in favor of clearing the actual spending measure, the second was a 206-201 vote in favor of allocating an extra $31 billion to the troops in Afghanistan (good job).

Republicans aren't exactly thrilled about this bill, though.

Republicans attacked the omnibus package, pointing out that many earmarks were “airdropped” into the bill at the last moment. They also were critical of Democratic leadership’s decision not to include Iraq war funding in the measure. Those funds are expected to be added by the Senate.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a vocal critic of earmarks, said a few of the airdropped earmarks simply seek to allocate money to cities without explanation.

Flake rattled off the names of cities and how much the bill will allocate to those locales.

“For what?” Flake asked. “We have no idea.”

Which is why we need to start seriously busting the pork barrel projects and wasteful spending with more transparency in government and by forcing justifcation for these earmarks before shoving them into bills at the last minute.

(h/t The Hill)

Cents and Sensibility, A Look at Tim Kaine's Proposed Budget

Let's take a look at some of the highlights (and lowlights) of Governor Kaine's proposed budget...

THE SAVINGS...

- The current $641 million shortfall will be taken care of by using $261 million from the "Rainy Day fund", overall cuts of $300 million, and $96 million will come from agency savings (i.e. unspent money).

- The 2008-2010 budget...is projected to be a little over $78 billion, which is the smallest increase in 12 years, only $4 billion more over the last biennial budget. Projected revenues are about $81 billion, so we might come out of this with a surplus.

- No new taxes, but an increase in the license renewal fee from $5 to $15. However, the once-a-year car inspections will now be once-every-2-years, and that price goes from $16 to $20. Ok, we're not saving on the renewal fee, but we'll actually save a whole $6 a year with the change in car inspect

- No government pay raises in 2008. However, state employees get a 3% pay increase, and teachers get a 3.5% pay increase, in 2009. I'm going to put this under savings, but I'm not sure why Kaine is using Daniel Snyder-esque "back end loading" of spending increases.

The explanation I've heard about why these increases are being structured this way is because of the "hope" that the economy improves by 2009, so the state will "hopefully" exceed revenue projections. "Hope"? That's the same platform Barack Obama runs on, so I'm guessing that's why Tim Kaine supports Obama.

So that's the "Politics of Hope", simply "hoping" things get better. That explains a lot...

THE INCREASED SPENDING...

- Education: $56 million to expand public preschool programs, $44.3 million in increased operating costs for colleges and universities (didn't I talk about how this could be a place to cut funds in an earlier post?), $1.6 billion in bonds for college/university campus construction projects (buy now, pay later...?), $36.4 million increase in student financial aid. $1 billion to upgrade education requirements for K-12 ("education requirements"? Like, the standard curriculum? That should only require a few pieces of paper).

- Business: $68 million to recruit businesses to Virginia. This should be spent wisely...although, isn't the state already a magnet in and of itself for business? The $7 million in subsidies allocated for small businesses to provide health insurance to lower-income employees is agreeable, as it would help take people off of medicaid, etc...

- Juvenile Delinquents: $159 million to provide special schooling and foster care for juvenile delinquents. If they're in foster care, shouldn't they be going to a real school?

- $46 million to repair "gaps" in the mental health care system, including $14.6 million for crisis mental health care. $14.6 million for "crisis" mental health care? We have to have funds on hand in case of a "crisis". Shouldn't our money go towards averting a crisis in the future?

THE INEXPLICABLE

- $180 million in transportation funds reverted back to the general budget for this biennium. Wait, didn't we have a BIG debate over the abuser fees that were supposed to pay for the supposed transportation needs? And now Kaine, who supported the fees and wanted them imposed on Virginia drivers only, wants to take money AWAY from the transportation fund?

There has been a lot of negative reaction on the blogs...some of it warranted, some of it not.

- On The Spot is not happy with this. In fact, there is a lot of sarcastic commentary about the budget.

- Right-Wing Liberal sees this as a very "Clintonian" way of expanding government without necessarily increasing spending. Decrease the amount of money spent and number of government employees, but no decrease in the actual size and scope of governmental power.

- Spank That Donkey notes that Kaine made a promise during his 2005 campaign not to touch the transportation fund for other purposes...oops. He also makes an excellent point that when you're looking at a possible recession, "the most prudent action of the government should be to trim spending, and provide a stimulus to the people."

- The GOP has their own doubts about this budget.

- Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling is "very disappointed."

Personally, I think Kaine's overall budget keeps the size of the actual "meat and potatoes" of the government's spending the same...but has some back-end increases in areas that don't necessarily need the increases. That's where the disappointment lies. Why increase spending on projects like Kaine's attempt at gradually implementing universal pre-K? We're not in a financial position to consider such a project, which is not even a good idea in the first place.

Kaine is to be commended on keeping his spending increase down...but if you're going to increase spending, do it to the areas that need it (infrastructure, transportation, commerce) and stop increasing it in less-important areas (universal pre-K, non-justified increases in secondary education spending).