Earlier this week, America’s entitlement problem came into full view as millions of Americans, the main stream media and a million talking heads on cable news lambasted Senator Jim Bunning for daring to refuse unanimous consent for a bill extending unemployment and COBRA benefits and Medicare reimbursements among other things.  Senator Bunning sought to highlight our debt problem and ensure that the Senate enforced their previously passed Pay-Go bill by blocking the vote.  While the mainstream media was busy lambasting Senator Bunning for filibustering (side note: He was not filibustering, he was refusing unanimous consent. If you are going to talk about it, get it right MSM) against millions of Americans who rely on those benefits because of the difficult economic situation, they ignored that this bill has a price tag of approximately $10 billion.  Senator Bunning’s sin was daring to ask “How are we going to pay for this?”  After being hammered by both sides of the aisle, the press, cable news, late night talk shows and the blogosphere, Senator Bunning finally relented last night and allowed the vote to proceed with it passing 78-19.

While it is certain that many people are relying on this money to help them get through this hard time, the American reaction to this is a microcosm of what would happen if more politicians would dare ask the question, “How are we going to pay for this?”  Anyone who has been paying attention to the meltdown that is currently in play in Greece knows that people don’t like their benefits being taken away, whether they can pay for them or not.  What needs to occur in this country before we can address our debt problem is to acknowledge that we have an entitlement problem. For decades unions, politicians, teachers, parents and the media have been telling us that we deserve everything that the government hands us and that it is our right to take as much as we can get.  All the while, our debt has been silently growing while we gorged ourselves on all the benefits we can’t pay for.  As evidenced by the riots that have spilled into the streets in Greece after their government “announced a fresh austerity package that includes an immediate freeze on pensions, further salary cuts for public sector workers and sharp increases in excise and value added taxes,” taking away people’s “rightful” benefits does not go over well.  The outpouring of hatred directed at Senator Bunning over the past couple of days for denying Americans the money they are “entitled” to begs the question, what would happen if the government really did start cutting programs, benefits and subsidies?

While I would love more politicians to begin to ask the “How are we going to pay for it?” question and begin massive cuts of government programs, it is not easy and that it is rarely attempted.  People don’t like being told no, especially after being told yes for so long.  I am warning you, unless Americans have a dramatic change in the way they look at what they are entitled to, the day cuts begin, bust out your rubber bullet guns and face shields and riot gear because it is going to be a bumpy riotous road to defeating the debt.

So I was reading The Hill this evening and while getting my political junkie fix, this story caught my eyes. Speaker Pelosi says “Americans could absorb increased deficit if it means jobs”.

From The Hill

Americans could be ready to “absorb” increases to the deficit if it means higher employment, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday.

As the Congress prepares to put together a new spending package focused on creating new jobs in the U.S., the Speaker said that while it’s a “false choice” to pose the situation facing lawmakers as a balance between jobs and increased deficits, Americans would rather have jobs.

“So if somebody has the idea that the percentage of GDP of what our national debt is will go up a bit, but they will now — and their neighbors and their children will — have jobs, I think they could absorb that,” Pelosi said in a conference call with liberal bloggers on Tuesday, audio of which was posted by ThinkProgress.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that the lower chamber hopes to move a jobs package by the Christmas holiday recess. Democrats have begun exploring different options for creating jobs, especially as unemployment continues to rise while 2010, an election year for lawmakers, quickly approaches.

Pelosi said deficit growth has been “stunning,” but rejected the idea that a jobs bill would necessarily pose a threat to the deficit.

“We don’t subscribe to the idea that some are for deficit reduction and some are for job creation; we think, again, as I said at the beginning, that’s a false choice,” she said. “We’re never going to decrease the deficit until we create jobs, bring revenue into the Treasury, stimulate the economy so we have growth.”

The Speaker said Democrats must also “shed any weakness” about being confrontational on the issue out of fear that the party would be labeled as insensitive to the deficit.

Pelosi suggested, too, that if lawmakers are reluctant to spend for job creation, similar problems that plagued the U.S. during the Great Depression may strike again.

“If we pull our punch, as they did in the mid-’30s, we shouldn’t be surprised if history repeats itself,” she explained.

“It’s a very important debate for us to have in this country, and I would hope that the president’s speech would be a balance between job creation and sensitive to deficit reduction,” Pelosi added. “But I think if anybody is asked in the public, ‘Would you rather have a job or a percentage of GDP or our national debt will go up a little bit?,’ I think everybody wants a job.”

Let’s look at this a minute shall we? Pelosi has offered different packages none of which did nothing to stimulate the economy, but only created more government and more debt. The last stimulus package hasn’t accomplished anything, save for creating jobs and allocating money to over 400 non-existent congressional districts, and now she wants Stimulus Package Part 2 “The Quest for More Money”. The House passed “Health Care Reform” which, if signed into law, will cause nothing but more government and red tape including the creation or expansion of over 130 agencies. Yeah, because this is what the people want!

Read more after the leap.

This just brings tears to my eyes. In the city of Detroit, thousands of people lined up for a shot at what some described as “Obama money” – funds provided by the federal government to help low-income residents. Rush Limbaugh has been playing these clips for a few weeks now. As I listened to these clips and considered the implications, especially for the people quoted, tears welled up in my eyes. First, a transcript of the two quotes:

ROGULSKI: Why are you here?

WOMAN: To get some money.

ROGULSKI: What kind of money?

WOMAN: Obama money.

ROGULSKI: Where’s it coming from?

WOMAN: Obama.

ROGULSKI: And where did Obama get it?

WOMAN: I don’t know, his stash. I don’t know. (laughter) I don’t know where he got it from, but he givin’ it to us, to help us.

(Read more after the leap)

MSNBC.com paints a grim picture of the federal budget deficit:

WASHINGTON – The federal budget deficit has surged to an all-time high of $1.42 trillion as the recession caused tax revenues to plunge while the government was spending massive amounts to stabilize the financial system and jump-start the economy.

The imbalance for the budget year ended Sept. 30 more than tripled last year’s record. The Obama administration projects deficits will total $9.1 trillion over the next decade unless corrective action is taken.

Yes, after Democrats spent eight years lambasting George W. Bush for the budget deficit, President Obama is presiding over record deficit spending. Of course, the fiscal year that ended 9/30 isn’t Obama’s baby – it was enacted during the Bush administration. That said, Obama has proposed record increases in government spending including the “stimulus” bill. It just so happens that much of the “stimulus” will be spent as Democrats try to hold onto their majority in the House and turn back a GOP effort to repeat 1994.

Of course, Democrats argue that the objections to Obama’s deficit spending is based on race. That’s silly. A number of Republicans have been very critical of Bush, specifically Bush’s signature on a law that expanded the federal government’s role in primary and secondary education, a failed effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens, his signature on a law creating a brand new federal entitlement program and his signature on the obscene “campaign finance reform” law authored by failed 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain. One of the most consistent voices critical of Bush was none other than radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

(Read more after the leap)

I know I am on my soapbox lately on Cap and Trade, but I am personally sick and tired of the tax and spend policies coming out of DC. Cap and Trade is one those issues. Recently I wrote a Letter to the Editor for the IndyStar and Bloomington Herald, which I don’t believe has been posted yet, but will see what the response is, you can read that letter here.

Then a co-worker of mine led me to this Op-Ed by Congressmen Hill from the 9th Congressional District here in Indiana. You can read the full Op-Ed here. In the Op-Ed he states we all need to find “common ground” and “prevent from spiking utility rates” Congressman Hill, are you kidding me? Also, the comments are a must read.

This recent post by my friend Scott tells a different story, in it he states our utility rates will go up at least $3,100 and that is by one MIT study. You can read the full post by Scott here. Congressmen Hill for once in your career as a Representive of the Southern District of Indiana and for the rest of the Country, vote against this poor…poor piece of Legislation when it hits the House floor for a full vote, will you stand up to your own party and tell them NO? This will not help the Hoosier state and you know it, but it seems to me you really could care less.

Their are so many studies out here on Cap and Trade that it would scare you what this will cost the taxpayers and our economy. We cannot afford this and Congress knows it, but could care less. When someone tells me Democrats are more fiscially responsible then Republicans….I wanna just laugh (and most of the time I do). It is obvious the Democrats in Congress have no clue of what they are doing and honestly neither does the President!

List of Studies here:

National Black Chamber of Commerce

The Heritage Foundation

Op-Ed from the Washington Examiner here

By: Brian Sikma

The turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.

(Read more below the fold)

By: Brian Sikma

As Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) works to move cap and trade legislation through his House Energy and Commerce Committee, he’s finding it a bit hard to sell the whole idea to members of Congress who come from districts that would be hit hard by carbon taxes.  States with heavy industry or states that rely extensively on existing energy sources as part of their economy would be hardest hit with job losses, price increases, and taxes should the legislation pass.

In an effort to secure much needed support, Waxman has started talking to individual members about providing credits to various industries that are a big part of their local economies.  While the cap and trade bill would apply across the board to many industries and businesses, specific exemptions for coal fired power plants, for example, would allow them to feel less pain from a new tax and regulatory structure.

What this kind of behind the scenes maneuvering seems to boil down to is green earmarking.  If a member of Congress wishes to show his dedication to the folks back home he or she can do so by securing an earmark for this project or that project, a bridge, a dam, or some other public works initiative that would generate jobs and goodwill for the incumbent member.  With the high economic costs of cap and trade standing tall against any future plans by businesses and industries to expand and grow, affected communities and businesses would benefit by exemptions and built in carbon credits that give them a pass from the otherwise broad regulations.

Green earmarking will allow members of Congress to appear to be concerned about the environment and be on the politically correct side of the climate change discussion while at the same time giving them a tool to make sure that nothing they do is going to really harm their districts.  If we thought that earmarks were a bad part of the process now, let’s imagine what they will be like when a new program designed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars becomes open to special amendment by individual members of Congress.

By: Brian Sikma

President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have joined forces with the environmental lobby to promote a “cap and trade” plan for dealing with global climate change. Under a cap and trade plan the government would sell carbon credits to businesses and the money raised by those sales (where the customer has no other option to turn towards outside of simply closing up shop) goes towards carbon reducing programs and policies. Companies that cannot buy enough credits will-if they intend to keep up production-need to invest in expensive new technology designed to reduce carbon emissions.

The creation and implementation of these carbon reducing measures is not just about saving the environment but is, according to Democrats, about jobs. Indeed, this plan is about jobs. I will cost the American economy jobs, increase unemployment, and drive up the cost of products and services that Americans use every single day. With cap and trade, while the net amount of carbon emissions will decrease, so will the number of good American jobs. Without a specific tie between carbon emissions and global warming being scientifically proven and without a meaningful cost/benefit analysis showing that it is better to impose an entire new class of taxes than to allow the current situation to exist, cap and trade legislation is not a good idea.

[More Below The Fold]

This brief clip of Milton Friedman hits the nail on the head in terms of free markets the true effect of capitalism.  And in light of where our country is heading economically, truer words have never been spoken when it comes to free market policies and how they should be viewed and used.

A February 16 letter to the editor in the Herald-Times made the following proposal:

We would be willing to give $5 a month out of our checks to something like a “national deficit program.” If you could get millions to do this, we could all in our own special way help with the economy.

That is an empty gesture and will not come close to reducing the budget deficit, much less paying down the national debt. Even if we assume that 200 million of the 300 million people in this country are in the workforce, that only amounts to $12 billion per year. The estimated federal deficit for 2008 is $239 billion, according to White House estimates.

Even then, unless we make spending the money on anything other than reducing the deficit a criminal offense punishable by death (which would obviously be an outrageously disproportionate overreaction) there is no way to guarantee that the politicians in Washington won’t simply spend the extra money.

In any case, the problem is not that we are not being taxed enough. The government has more than enough revenue to run a balanced budget, but politicians consistently spend more than they have. A rare exception to this was in the late 1990’s, when the Republicans took over Congress and limited spending. Disgraced ex-President Clinton bitterly attacked the GOP Congress for this, and then took credit for the surplus.

(Read more after the leap)

I have come across a couple of pieces on the web in the last couple of days that I thought that I would share. First, Bradley Shiller, an economist at the University of Nevada, Reno wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal showing that President Obama’s continual comparrisons of the current economic climate to the Depression is both incorrect and dangerous. In the article he compares the unemployment rate as well as the percentage of jobs lost and concludes that the current situation is far more analygous to the recession in 1981 and 1982 than the Great Depression. He even looks at bank closures and the drop in auto production and makes the easy conclusion that we are better off in our current climate than in the 1930’s.

Second, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity has released a new video discussing government policies that promote real growth. This is not their best video, but it does point out the areas that the United States is heading in the wrong direction on various economic issues.

Click here to listen.

Podcast: Play in new window