Earmarks

Q: Which of the following statements are TRUE in regards to earmarks on federal spending?

1. Not all earmarks are bad.
2. The "bridges to nowhere" are the anomaly, not the norm.
3. Earmarks are not a significant part of federal expenditures; all earmarks combined made up less than 1 percent of the federal budget.
4. Earmarks are a normal, acceptable part of the American political process.

A:
Didn't know there was such a thing as an earmark prior to the 2008 Presidential Campaign? I doubt that you're alone. There was a lot of talk and no action (i.e., the politicians said what we wanted to hear so we would vote for them).

So what is an earmark and what's the big deal?

Here's a site that details the issue much better than I can:
http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ/

Got the basics? Let's take each of the above points and explore.

Not all earmarks are bad. - A wishy-washy statement at best, and it depends entirely on your definition of "bad". Actually, it resembles a teenager's justification for a poor decision made with the family car. If at least one earmark done at one time or another was not bad, then sure, you can say this is true. However, if your definition of "bad" is an anonymous process without transparency and no accountability, then this one is false.

The "bridges to nowhere" are the anomaly, not the norm - Well, at least we can agree that some earmarks are bad. So what's so bad about a multi-million dollar bridge that benefits a handful of folks? Nothing if there was oversight and vetting involved instead of the influence and opinion of a single senator or congressman. If there is something wrong with a "bridge to nowhere", then there is a fundamental problem with the entire process. And if the process is broken then all results of that process (i.e., all earmarks) are tainted. Mark it false.

Earmarks are not a significant part of federal expenditures - Well, you can teach an old dog new tricks. I would have said this was effectively true until I read the following: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/m012606.pdf Basically, earmarks on appropriations bills are anywhere from minimal (less than 1%) to significant (> $9B or >3% on 2005 Defense appropriations bill; $7.6B or >30% on 2002 Energy and Water appropriations bill). Earmarks as a total expenditure may be a small percentage of the budget, but they are a significant portion of the dollars that are approved by Congress. And the number and total dollar amounts have exploded over the past 20 years. Don't believe it? Read the document at the link and ponder where it goes from here. Or better yet, check out the Taxpayers for Common Sense database. They show ~$40B dollars for FY2008 which is a fairly significant chunk of the ~$460B dollar FY2008 deficit. Earmarks are more than chump change.

Earmarks are a normal, acceptable part of the American political process - Like it or not, this seems to be a true statement.

Don't like it? Do something besides "Limbaugh" about it or "Hope" it will go away. Such as signing the ReadtheBill petition.

I don't need your comments, your congressional representatives need them.

FY 2010 Budget: The New Era of Responsibility

Q: What amount of deficit did President Obama inherit from the previous administration(s)?

1. $1 Trillion
2. $0
3. Trillion – it’s the new Billion.
4. None of the above
5. $8.364 Trillion

A: The media reports the President as saying he has a “trillion dollar inherited deficit”.
(see below for the REAL answer)

President Obama says proudly “Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.”

The FY2010 Budget that President Obama has presented projects that spending for FY2009 (ending 9/30/2009) by the Federal Government will be $3,938B. This is an increase of $955B dollars over FY2008 spending. This appears to be what President Obama continually refers to as the “inherited trillion dollar deficit”.

Pardon me, but I have a bit of a problem with this definition of “inherited deficit.”

First, the FY2009 Budget for FY2009 was $3,107B, which is $821B below what the current administration plans to spend for FY2009.

Might the $800B Stimulus Package have something to do with this difference?

Second, was it not President-elect Obama who stood before the American People on Jan 7, 2009 in a nationally televised speech from George Mason University and said, “…if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible… If nothing is done, this recession could linger for years. … There is no doubt that the cost of this plan will be considerable. It will certainly add to the budget deficit in the short term. But equally certain are the consequences of doing too little or nothing at all, for that will lead to an even greater deficit of jobs, incomes and confidence in our economy.”

Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this sound more like a man getting ready to create a trillion dollar deficit than a man inheriting one? And it sure sounds like "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" way more than it sounds like the "Audacity of Hope".

And lastly, didn’t President Obama’s leadership team (Biden, Pelosi, Reid, et.al.) present an initial Stimulus package of $1.2 trillion?

Oh, by the way, what did that junket to Denver to sign the Stimulus package cost the American taxpayer?

Where is the promised Internet hyperlink that I can use to see the invoice for this trip so that my trust in the government can be restored?

So much for “reform of bad habits” and doing “business in the light of day”.

The REAL answers?

• The FY2009 Budget projected a deficit of $407B on income of $2,700B and expenditures of $3,107B.
• The FY2010 Budget projects a FY2009 deficit of $1,752B on income of $2,186B and expenditures of $3,938B.
• The FY2010 Budget projects that a total of $8,364B will be held in public debt at the end of FY2009, up from the $5,803B held at the end of FY2008.

Seems like an increase in spending of $837B , a shortfall in revenue of $600B, and an increase of $2,561B held in public debt to me.

Don't really see the inheritance thing, but hopefully the administration gets a break on their Inheritance taxes.

The Angry White Male's Returns

President Obama's proposed FY 2010 budget has brought the "Angry White Male" (AWM) back from the dead.

For those of you who don't remember, the AWM was a significant voting block that helped return power in the Legislative branch of the government to the Republicans in 1994. The same thing appears to be in the works for the elections in 2010.

Except this time around the AWM will not be White or Male, but they will most definitely be Angry.

Angry that the President and Congress have....

• indebted every person in their household by $10k for 2010 and another $5k/yr for the next three years due to record breaking deficit spending
• renamed tax credits as "tax breaks" and that the tax reductions the President promised disappeared when they didn't spend $10k for energy saving windows or heating system, weren't a first time home buyer, or didn't buy a new car
• found out that their high paying managerial and technical jobs have been replaced by $20/hr civil service jobs created by the largest ever single increase in Federal spending
• taken away their tax deductions for their charities and mortgage payments (got to pay for those increases in federal spending somehow)

My 70-yr old mother is now part of the AWM. I bet your mother will be too.

Hhm, Angry White Mothers.