The Brass Tacks: The Giveaway Will End One Day

As much as the looney left would like you all to believe otherwise, the tax cuts are actually OUR MONEY! And they result in INCREASED revenue to the Treasury due to their effect on business and personal income. Corporate subsidies, like those given recently by the Democrats and Obama administration are wrong and should be abolished. Tax cuts for businesses and reduction of outrageous and burdensome regulations are what is needed.

What are you talking about, Michael?
.
Clinton had no trouble eliminating the deficit while growing the economy and not creating any particularly onerous tax burden–certainly no tax burden that inhibited growth.
.
Closing the deficit is easy–in the sense of good public policy that would attain that goal. Dramatically reduce defense spending to the level of the OECD, ending US occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, Germany and South Korea. Cancel Cold War defense initiatives, like fighter planes, strategic stealth bombers and nuclear armed submarines.

Eliminate subsidies to the other large corporate business interests, such as agribusiness, carbon energy extraction.
.
Pick an OECD health care model to follow. It doesn’t matter which one it is–Japan, Germany, France, Canada, the UK. Just pick one.
.
Raise taxes in the top brackets back to Reagan levels (that can’t be bad, can it?).
.
Poof. Deficit gone.
.
If we had real journalists in the Beltway, they would be reporting on why these obviously good public policy measures cannot be accomplished, while The Catfood Commission meets in secret.

Yeah.
.
Which ones would those be? especially the outrageous regulations. Would you get rid of the gasoline pump dispensing certifications? The FDA?

Good luck, Jay, in getting your plan through Congress.

Right Michael.
.
And why is that? Why is this story not about why it is impossible to implement effective public policy?
.
There’s a puff piece two posts down about building a fighter with mission. Why is that a fun little joky piece, and not an investigation of a scandal.
.

The temporary budget surplus of the late 1990s gave the government leeway to enact some tax cuts. But September 11 meant more defense spending. Then, a mild recession early in the 2000s led to more tax cuts.

.
Not in any sane world does 9/11 still mean more defense spending, nor, frankly, did it mean that then. The budget surplus was “temporary”? What made it “temporary”? What’s with this “mild recession” passively leading to “more tax cuts.”

The real story here is not an arch, view from nowhere, both sides are to blame story, but a very clear looting of the treasury by the Republican party for the 6 years it controlled both branches of government.
,
And now the story is of a Republican/Centrist coalition dedicated to preserving this state of affairs, a state of affairs that has left the population, the 98 percent of the population who earn less than 250K disaffected and angry. Read the polls. The populace is rejecting the system you describe, blaming both parties for failing to implement obviously good and effective public policy.
.
Why is this not the story? Why is the story the oh so sophisticated “good luck getting that through Congress” instead of an examination of just why it is not possible to get good and effective policies through Congress?
.
Which is it, Michael? You don’t know why–you don’t know where the bodies are buried, and choose not fo find out? Or you do know, and choose not to report it?

I guess I was struck by the things the author suggests would need to be cut — highway funds, VA benefits, health care benefits. Really? Jayackyroyd makes other suggestions above.

Also, so far as collecting taxes go, there are alternatives to income tax hikes. A small finance transactions tax, for example could raise a lot of money and would be difficult for the industry to pass on to society at large since so few people are direct brokerage customers.

Ultimately you don’t have to cut services the people need and you don’t have to tax everybody. There are smarter ways to do this.

that’s a “fighter with NO mission.”
.
effin’ preview is your friend, sadly neglected all too often.

One of the ironies we face is that the federal budget is so large that in people’s minds it becomes “essentially infinite” Because people van’t really get a grasp on the actual numbers involved, they become susceptible to simplifying assumptions and slogans.

Dirks–
.
I really think the problem is that people can just lie about it, over and over again, and nobody calls them on it.
.
We’re seeing very weird variations on this with the coming cuts in SS benefits. Lies about worker/retiree ratios, life expectancies at retirement and other such nonsense has so taken hold that elected officials who should know better are repeating them.
.
Clyburn
.
I always thought it was the job of reporters like Michael to expose these kinds of falsehoods, but Republicans have won the war that facts also have a political bias–they are indeed entitled to their own facts at this point.

Of course, once again there will be an attempt to raid Social Security. For those of you who continue to declare (falsely) that Social Security is a ‘Ponzi Scheme’ I have a question for you:

We frequently hear warnings that Social Security will soon be paying out more than it takes in. This is greeted with declarations that Armageddon is soon to be upon us. Here’s the question: Why did Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill set up the Social Security rates that workers currently pay to be greater than what Social Security pays out in the first place? If Social Security is truly a Ponzi Scheme wouldn’t they have merely set the rates to match what Social Security pays out? What was the surplus money intended for?

Here’ are some hints:
1. Although it seems to have worked out this way, they didn’t intend that the surplus be used to transfer wealth from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy through disproportionate tax cuts.
2. Your father’s Social Security payments paid for his parents. Is that all that yours did?

It frustrates me that the answer to this basic question has gotten lost (or hidden) in the debate about this ‘entitlement’.

Because reporters value appearing savvy more than they value accurately reporting the news. So, we get world-weary cynicism about the political impossibility of enacting sensible policies, rather than reporting about policies.
-
Speaking of which, everyone knows that the Bush tax policies increased the deficit by decreasing revenues: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601121_pf.html

“Federal revenue is lower today than it would have been without the tax cuts. There’s really no dispute among economists about that,” said Alan D. Viard, a former Bush White House economist now at the nonpartisan American Enterprise Institute. “It’s logically possible” that a tax cut could spur sufficient economic growth to pay for itself, Viard said. “But there’s no evidence that these tax cuts would come anywhere close to that.”Economists at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and in the Treasury Department have reached the same conclusion.

GOP Party rewarded for “say anything and do anything”, even if it’s not true, but the American people will be left holding the bag!

Come on America, it is time to get off the “yellow-brick road” and realize that every time corporations and smaller businesses get tax breaks, guess where the taxes rise? Locally and at state levels. The cold-hearted fact is that Everyday, average Americans shoulder the tax burden in this country, due to tax loopholes, tax cuts and tax breaks for wealthy Americans and Corporations who do not need it. Why in the world would Wealthy Americans need more tax breaks when they pay very little taxes anyway, they need to pay their fair share and take the burden off those who can least afford it. These tax-cuts will cost the country $700 Billion, twice the cost of the Healthcare bill. Ironically, GOP hate to extend unemployment benefits to Americans who desperately need them, while violently fighting to extend tax cuts for the wealthy, who do not need them.

GOP mantra cut, cut, cut for the middleclass and poor and extend to military and wealthy. To create jobs, one must invest in America, her infa-structure, technology and innovation, but Party of No only wants to invest in the rich and well connected. On the otherhand, Pres. Obama in India, is on his way to creating 50 to 60 thousands jobs in America by brokering a $10 to 15 billion dollar contract with India. (A little unknown and unemphasized fact is that Pres. Obama has already created more jobs in 8 months than Pres. Bush did in 8 years!)

Another unemphasized fact in regards to Healthcare Reform, would be that the premiums one would pay would be a LOT LESS if it were to become universal. Through reform, prescription medicines are now going to be more affordable, and no one would be denied health coverage due to a pre-conceived condition…., these are just some of the facts. Come on people, we got to get Smarter and wiser here!

And, last but not Least, why in the world, would GOP want to elect a speaker, in John Boehner, who so publically and proudly campaigned for an Ohio Congressman who on the week-ends likes to dress up as a Nazi, a symbol for white supremacy. Has the GOP Congress sunk to a new low?

America it is time to take this country back from wealthy and big business!

@michael scherer: I get what you’re saying that solutions too impolitic to pass congress are in some respect flawed solutions. But… isn’t this partly because we’re having the wrong conversations? I see lots of press coverage about cutting Social Security benefits, not so much about cutting defense spending or changing our costly foreign priorities. You guys can do more to add to the conversation.

Jay, we have spent a good portion of the last two years, on swampland, online, in the magazine, talking about the challenges of getting anything done in Washington. And I have been debating the Jay Rosen, liberal web critique on Swampland in comments since I joined in 2008. I don’t think you can blame any “story” of the current political moment on this blog post. I was posting a smart column by a liberal/centrist economist.

Yes, Elvis. It reminds me of the days when we were told it was “politically impossible” to implement effective health care reform, which meant not that there weren’t the votes in place to pass an effective measure, but that resistance from the industries affected would prevent such a bill from ever coming to a vote.
.
And now, what should be a huge story is a secret commission plotting nefariously (secret commissions were nefarious when Ira Magaziner was planning his socialist health care plans) to gut Social Security is being completely neglected, except as little Tommy asides about the obvious necessity of gutting it.

I was posting a smart column by a liberal/centrist economist.

.
Jay R. would be amused by your need to insert a position on the left/right spectrum in that sentence.
.
I thought it was obvious that I don’t think this is a smart column at all.
.
Take this nonsense:
.

Instead, we must take the view that compromise means finding common political ground rather than simply and self-righteously protecting our own entitlements. We can no longer pretend that we are different from other Americans and somehow don’t have to contribute to reducing the gap between $30,000 of federal government spending per household and $20,000 in taxes.

.
What does that mean? What is this talk of “compromise” and “common political ground”?
.
The only common political ground I can see is the preservation of the income stream of the top couple of percentiles of earners. The result of political policies of the last 30 years has been a transfer to that group from everyone else. To now say that the bottom 9 deciles need to accept that they’ll have to give up some more to satisfy the plutocrats need for low inflation as well as all the money is not “smart.” It’s either unspeakably ignorant, or startlingly complicit.
.
But it is not “smart.” Nor, as I pointed out above, is it correct. But you chose to run that one, rather than an accurate column like, say, this:
.
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-fed-prints-money-as-an-alternative-to-larger-deficits-not-an-alternative-to-smaller-deficits
.
Or one that points out our elected officials are relying on falsehoods when considering changes in Social Security benefits:
.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/28/james-clyburn-supports-means-testing-for-social-security/
.
You could find that column written in November shortly after every election for the last decade. It’s contentless, serving no role beyond propagating the Versailles meme that the little people are just gonna have to give up a little more. Gosh darn it, but that’s how it is….

It’s a good thing we have elected the party of fiscal responsibility back into control of the House. Just because they have already ruled out cuts to 85% of the budget and have announced plans to offer the rich another 700 billion in borrowed money, doesn’t mean they are not serious about deficit reduction.

It’s logical that at some point taxes will have to be raised to fix the budget.
.
Republicans won’t do it because they know raising taxes isn’t going to get many people reelected so they’ve internalized the sci-fi idea that lowering taxes brings more money in. *Asking for less money results in more money collected*. How does that make sense to anyone?
.
Democrats pretty much won’t do it either. At least Obama can float the idea of raising taxes on the wealthiest people. How the Republicans have managed to prevent that is beyond me. But, at least Democrats aren’t opposed to taxes on a genetic level, they just won’t do it generally unless they want to start a program that needs funding.
.
Neither party has been serious about financial responsibility. Much like their family values positions, the Republicans talk a good game but have no track record in reality. I have no hope that our government will move any closer to acting fiscally responsible in the next two years.

Ha! Another story not worth writing. Instead, we will have to find compromise on just which National Parks to close, and whether we can find common ground on Public television, preserving Big Bird, while easing out the suspiciously mutually affectionate Bert and Ernie.

With all the complaining about taxes, U.S. citizens should know the facts about U.S. taxes.

The U.S. tax burden has shrunk to its lowest level in 60 years, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said. Including state, federal and local taxes, the average tax bill came out to 9.2 percent of personal income in 2009, USA Today reported Tuesday.

That’s down from an average of 12 percent over the past 50 years. The tax burden has not been this low since 1950, the newspaper said.

The tax rate has fallen 26 percent since 2007, a sharp drop that reflects progressive tax rates passed during the Clinton and Bush administrations and the 2009 federal stimulus bill that cut taxes by $800 for married couples earning up to $150,000.

From United Press International, May 7, 2010

Among the 30 countries in the global Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the total tax burden as a percent of GDP is well below the average. Only Japan, South Korea, Turkey and Mexico have lower overall tax burdens. However, personal income taxes made up 36 percent of U.S. tax revenue in 2006, more than in most other OECD countries, where income-related taxes averaged 25 percent of the total. Consumption taxes in the U.S. are 17% of the total — well below the 30 country average of 32%. Significantly, taxes on businesses make up 13% of the total U.S. tax burden, only slightly above the 12% OECD average.

From the Tax Policy Institute of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/international.cfm

Does DADT apply?

Paul / Jay: All budget discussions should include a pie chart with the caption: “Perspective: Use It or Lose It.”
.
Americans need to be *constantly* reminded that the GOP’s calls for reducing Foreign Aid, NEA, PBS, or McCain’s bellyaching about research on Bear DNA, amount to slivers of the slivers of the US Budget.
.
Now, if we only had an organization that could effectively inform the country via print, teevee and internet…

Good luck, Jay, in getting your plan through Congress.

At least Jayack has a plan, Michael. What do you have? Overheated cynicism? Detachment?

Maybe when you finally grow out of your Holden Caufield phase of disillusionment…”someday, if you have something to offer, someone will learn something from you.”

Until then, not so much.

As #1 said, IT’S OUR MONEY. I just love how perverted the thinking has become that insists that tax cuts are government giveaways. The fact is, taxes are government’s way of robbing you in order to buy favors, influence voters and carry out social engineering. But, mainly it’s the first two. As for social engineering: it’s not the government’s duty to steer behavior and decide what type of car we should drive, what we can and cannot eat, what kind of light bulb we can buy, how safe we should be and on and on.
.
It’s the government’s duty to protect the citizens from foreign invaders (government has failed), protect property rights (government itself is destroying these rights), provide an environment that encourages freedom and pursuit of happiness (again government itself is infringing on freedoms and destroying the economy). Given that the government is failing to do the basic duties that it was structured to accomplish, it should not be GIVEN more funds to continue on this path.
.
We the people, need to redesign the failed structure of a corrupt and failed government. We start by correcting the idea that OUR money belongs to the government. When the government acts like a corrupt monarch and tells us that the government is GIVING us something and we should be thankful, it has crossed the line. In case you missed it the message was loud and clear in the election: YOU WORK FOR US.

Paying more $ for groceries = Our Money
Paying more @ the pump = Our Money
Paying more for durable goods = Our Money
.
Allasudden paying more to keep government services from crumbling is ripping us off???

Okay Bob, I’ll bite.

How is Social Security not a “Ponzi Scheme”? People have the misconception that when they receive Social Security, they are receiving the money they put in. In truth, their money was paid to pervious Social Security recipients. The money I am paying now goes to retirees today, for it won’t be available when I retire.

Ironically, the whole reason for Social Security was to get old people to retire so young people could take their place in the work force. When it first went into effect in 1935 (I think) there were 15 payers for every payee. Now I hear there are 3 payers for every payee. The Doomsayers are claiming it will soon be 2 payers for each payee.

Just because there is a surplus does not make it any less of a “Ponzi Scheme”. Reagan and O’Neill were wise enough to know that the babyboomers were going to starting in 2011 and there needed to be a cushion because Generation Y and the millenial generation would follow. Yes we have a surplus and the Babyboomers in their prime income generating years, which is good for those who come before (like my father) but not so good for those who follow (like myself).

The problem is for many working people, they pay more in Social Security than they do in federal income tax. How many times did Reagan raise the rates? Contrary to you statement, even then Reagan was contemplating lowering rates on the rich while increasing taxes on the working class.

Maybe it is a generational thing. I don’t anticipate much social security when I retire. I have generated 3 offspring, so I have produced my 3 to pay for me (or really my wife), but I don’t see anyone raising Social Security taxes as we all live another 25 years after retirement.

It was interesting that he DIDN’T say “These are really bad ideas.” That is what invariably happens. Nobody will debate the policy issues. They just sigh, and remark on how Washington works, and how difficult it is to navigate.
.
As in Politico this morning:
.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/08/politico Glenn has the link, and some comments. I did click through. (I hate it when I do that.)
.
But there was this gem:
.

In his effort to change Washington, Obama has failed to engage Washington and its institutions and customs, leaving him estranged from the capital’s permanent power structure — right at the moment when Democrats say he must rethink his strategy for cultivating and nurturing relations with key constituencies ahead of 2012.

.
It is this “permanent power structure,” of course, that prevents anything effective from going through Congress. The elected officials who estrange themselves from that power structure are doomed to impotent failure. The President himself is powerless before them. When Michael says, above, that TIME has reported on this topic, what he means is that they have said stuff like this–that Obama has to overcome powerful political forces, without really saying what those forces are, who represents them, who funds them and who benefits when they get their way.
.
But there will never be a debate on the merits. Nobody will take on these issues in a policy forum. It’s why the catfood commission is in secret; the “reasons” for SS cuts cannot be supported in any kind of public forum. You can’t make a case for why it is in US security interests to remain in Iraq, or Germany, for that matter. You cannot make a case for the lowest marginal rates on the top decile in the postware period. You can’t make a case for a health care system mirrors one of the OECD’s systems that run at half the price and deliver lower mortality and morbidity standards.
.
So they don’ t permit those debates. They are in Jay Rosen’s sphere of deviance–matters that cannot be discussed.
.
(http://www.cafepress.com/VirtualSpeaking.447953164) .
.
Crucial issues like this are what really need to be reported:

.
- In June, during an East Room reception for top supporters at Ford’s Theatre, several of the attendees were disappointed that they didn’t get to shake the president’s hand and take a photo, as they had in the past. Instead, Obama greeted a few people down front, reaching over a rope line.
.
“People thought they were going to a reception with the president, not a campaign event,” one attendee recalled.
.
One veteran Democrat recalled a group of Obama donors who were chatting at last December’s State Department holiday party, hosted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. “Half of them were upset because they had not been invited to a White House party,” this Democrat recalled. “The (other) half was upset because they had been invited to the White House, and were kept behind a rope line instead of getting to greet the president.”
.

- The president invited Senate chairs and ranking members over for dinner in March 2009, but came in after they were seated and went back to the residence without shaking hands or visiting each table
.

.

You’re exactly wrong, in fact. The 1983 compromise did two things. First it raised the retirement ages and second, set it up so that the people paying in from that date forward were paying more than was necessary to fund current and future retiree benefits. A substantial fraction of what you are paying today does NOT go to current retirees, but goes to funding your cohort’s retirement. This has been true since 1983, and will continue to be true until about 2016, when the payroll tax won’t cover all retiree payments.
.
So you have indeed been paying into the fund for your retirement, those funds have indeed been set aside to supplement the payroll tax revenues collected while you are retired, and are held by the government as treasury bonds in trust for you and the rest of your cohort..

Ricardo: show me the math. Show me the stats. Prove to me that revenues increase every time you cut taxes.
.
Furthermore, explain a few things for me. Is there a point where this benefit disappears? Obviously, if you drop taxes from 1% to 0%, revenues are capable of decreasing. So where’s the critical point where you have to stop cutting? Considering that while under the Bush Administration, the deficit consistent rose (even during a mini-boom) while the taxes only fell, I fail to see how this math actually works.

And the facts on the retiree ratio are here:
.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/05/28/james-clyburn-supports-means-testing-for-social-security/
.
more useful facts are here. (Not in TIME though. I wonder why?)
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/10/suitable-for-lamination-why-social.html
.
(Ponzi claims are addressed explicitly)
.
Or in top five format:
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/move-on-is-busting-social-security.html
.
Again, one would think with all the scare mongering and threats of SS cuts, TIME would run a “The Truth about Social Security” feature. Odd that they haven’t. (AFAIK, Happy to be wrong.)

Really, isn’t it an awful thing for us to restrict our conversation to what congress will do? Talk about a lack of imagination.

‘So you have indeed been paying into the fund for your retirement’
.
We have a winner!!!
.
The surplus (that those who argue that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme always ignore) did, in fact, pay for Social Security benefits of the current working generation. You have already paid for your own Social Security survivor insurance and retirement benefits (at least if you’re as old as I am).
.
So, when the same pols that argue that it would be unfair to the wealthy to raise their tax rates back up to where they were under Clinton, but then turn around and argue that my Social Security entitlement must be ‘reformed’ I say: I’m entitled to it because I already paid for it.

Thank you very much for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer, it is greatly appreciated.
.
However uncomfortable (or even adversarial) it might seem, this is the conversation between engaged news users and professional journalists that is necessary, if journalism is to be put on a credibility-regaining path (and consumers are receive offers of a good product).
.
It’s a whole lot more productive (and a whole lot less trite) of a conversation to have than “You’re a liberal!” followed by “What can I write to make you stop saying that?,” isn’t it, Michael Scherer?

We continue to make more and more of the population dependent on government services, and hire more government workers who demand higher pay and benefits that are double what a comparative job receives in the private sector.
.
The examples of rising prices you have given are inflated DUE to government policies and the Federal Reserve printing money. Examples: Farm Subsidies, Regulations, our failed energy policy, wasteful spending.

“The examples of rising prices you have given are inflated DUE to government policies and the Federal Reserve printing money. Examples: Farm Subsidies, Regulations, our failed energy policy, wasteful spending.”
.
Partly right – Feds give banks money – no one wants to borrow that money since there’s just not enough demand and Banks use the money to speculate on oil and commodities driving up prices.

It is this “permanent power structure,” of course, that prevents anything effective from going through Congress. The elected officials who estrange themselves from that power structure are doomed to impotent failure. The President himself is powerless before them…
.
That reminds me! Other than trying to pass that tax cut for the first $250K of income during the lame duck session, I’d like to see – at least – an attempt at getting the Disclose Act passed.
.
Anyway, you’re spot on. My humble opinion is that Obama has made some efforts in that direction – such as reestablishing the independence of the DOJ – but there’s only so much the Executive can do without overstepping its Constitutional boundaries.

Based on this statement I will assume you will agree it is not the governments business then on who should and should not be able to marry. Who should or should not be able to serve in the military. What a woman may or may not do with her body.

jayackroyd the rich do too much already. This financial crisis will have to be shouldered exclusively by the poor. I know the math doesn’t work but the principle does. This is no time to stop giving the rich more money to put in their savings and investment accounts.

At least the middle class tax cuts get circulated back into real consumption. I fail to see why tax cuts are not tied directly to employment at this time, but that may be because I’m a radical extremist.

Maybe we can get rid of the NTSB?
-
Then we dont need damn foreign terrorists bringing down our airplanes with 9/11 type attacks. The planes will fall out of the sky on their own.

In case you missed it the message was loud and clear in the election: YOU WORK FOR US.
.
Define ‘us’. Then take a look at the policies being pushed in this past election cycle and who was paying big bucks to push it.
.
Then tell me who whores works for whom.

11.5, have you been under a bush or in denial? The movement that fired Nancy Pelosi is demanding that big government back off. American principles laid out in the Constitution are based on freedom and opportunity, not Big government making serfs out of the working population in order to provide services to 48% of the population that takes from them. Now you tell me who’s the ho?

The movement that fired Nancy Pelosi…
.
Inaccurate. She still has a job. As if everything that happened during the previous admin is HER FAULT AT ALL.

In case you haven’t noticed there will be a new Speaker of the House. You do know what that is? Nancy Pelosi is a perfect example of Big government that refuses to listen, thinks that it knows best, and will make dependents out of the population in order to get re-elected. Just like many California liberals, she believes in passing bills in order to gain favor with her subjects. She cannot be voted out of office, because here district is 70% democrats. So, she doesn’t have to answer to voters, except in this case she was fired as Speaker of the House.

Good thread but aren’t our expectations of Scherer or Time as misguided as our expectations of Obama or the dems? In that they all serve via corporate patronage.

Why isn’t Obama doing this or that is no different than wondering why Time isn’t writing important stories. Both these ships have sailed people, a few lines of engagement here notw/standing. The corporate media is never going to meet our expectations. Nor are our corporate-financed political parties.

So, the question is, in lieu of whinging about them doing what they went into the business to do, what their patrons expect of them, instead of passively reacting to their terrible performance in their respective industries, what are we going to do about it? And I gotta tell ya, blog commentary ain’t shifting the power structure one lick.

You are absolutely right –
.

Big Government Gets Bigger –
Study Counts More Employees, Cites Increase in Contractors
.
According to a recent study, not only is the number of federal civil servants on the rise, but so are the numbers of employees working for government-funded contractors and for organizations that receive government grants.
.
Roll all of those together — and mix in the numbers of postal workers and military personnel on the federal payroll — and the “true size” of the federal government stands at 14.6 million employees, said Paul C. Light, the study’s author and a government professor at New York University.
.
That compares with 12.1 million employees in 2002, said Light, who has tracked the growth of government for years and has data for as far back as 1990. The latest increase is almost entirely due to contractors, whose ranks swelled by 2.5 million since 2002,

.

ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html
.
Of course the article was written in 2006, but your point was the size of government, wasn’t it?
.
14.6 is the number verified in January 2010 as well.
.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-government-employees-in-the-us/

I am not sure who is the idiot here. I am guessing you since you believe the Republicans will actually do what they say. When have the ever cut the deficit? When have they ever reduced the size of government? They make these pronouncements every time and in the end government gets bigger and so does the deficit.

The Republicans are fiscal frauds and always have been.

Before reading your comment, I read this from Digby and have now decided the only thing to do is go have a drink! May consider that for a permanent solution. Cheers.
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/planning-for-future.html

…have you been under a bush or in denial?
.
From 200-2008, we were under a Bush, yes. I’ve never been to Egypt.
.
Now you tell me who’s the ho?
.
You’re avoiding the question, Melty – Who, exactly, is ‘us’? Working folks? Can’t be, considering who’s been on the losing end of things over the past couple of decades. The poor? Hell no. Middle class? Shrinking.
.
You piss and moan and fantasize about becoming ‘serfs to a big government’. Wake up; you should worry less about ‘big government’ and more about the continuing re-emergence of the Guilded Age, with its robber barons and company stores.

Michael: You might term this a good smart article. I don’t what I would term it is one in a long line of messages from the media that we average americans should accept our fate and prepare to lose Medicare and Social Security as we know it.

I am more concerned about Big government in bed with Citi bank, Goldman Sachs, progressive economists such as Larry Summers, and unions, not to mention a few robber barons on the left. That is where the meltdown came from and is still headed.
.
You can define “we” anyway that makes your delusion work for you, you are irrelevant.
.
Yes, most Americans want to work, no matter how repugnant you find the idea. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

I think I’m teabrained. See you guys and gals on the other side.

Only progressives, unions, and robber barrons on the left huh? Typical.

You blame Time? The media in general? America gets what it wants. There is objective information available, and I wouldn’t fault Time, NYT, or even the major broadcast networks on that count. The problem is not the media, it is a prevailing American stupidity who votes against their own self-interests for varied reasons. I rest my case on our recent midterm elections. If more voters read Time or paid attention to available information rather than Fox and the televangelists or the radio shock jocks we would be ok. Our current democracy is a sham. The voters vote for serfdom. That’s not how the concept started out, and I don’t blame Time or the major media in the least. You are flailing at imagined ghosts.

progressive economists such as Larry Summers, and unions, not to mention a few robber barons on the left. That is where the meltdown came from and is still headed.

I see that your delusions continue unabated. Yeah, that’s how I remember it, unions and “progressive” economists were in charge and they caused our woes. Riiiight. You need to buy a clue already. I realize you spent most of the last 30+ years under a rock but liberals, unions and “progressive” economists haven’t been in charge and were not making policy. You can choose to believe so but actually spouting that tripe confirms your utter cluelessness.
..
BTW, good joke calling Larry Summers a progressive economist. That’s a real knee slapper.

progressive economists such as Larry Summers, and unions, not to mention a few robber barons on the left. That is where the meltdown came from and is still headed.

I see that your delusions continue unabated. Yeah, that’s how I remember it, unions and “progressive” economists were in charge and they caused our woes. Riiiight. You need to buy a clue already. I realize you spent most of the last 30+ years under a rock but liberals, unions and “progressive” economists haven’t been in charge and were not making policy. You can choose to believe so but actually spouting that tripe confirms your utter cluelessness.
..
BTW, good joke calling Larry Summers a progressive economist. That’s a real knee slapper.

Gotta love the “reply to this comment” button….less than flawless operation.
..
The comment @ 15 was meant as a reply 11.9.

jcapan: I have stated before, I feel your and Stuart’s frustration but am waiting for some comments that bring us some solutions.

Wow, one comment that can inspire potential alcoholism, Swamp exile, and, well, baffling nonsense.
.
Yeah, I’m really sorry to hold the ‘the haves’ accountable F-James. As opposed to the ‘have nots’ who’ve been getting f@cked for over 3 decades. Surely the oligarchs rest easy when you turn around their scorched-earth greed & destruction onto their prey. Don’t you see that this is a variation on the GOP “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” fantasy, or that it ultimately lines up your sympathies with the wrong team?
.
For those who wasted away through 12 years of public education, holding only a diploma or GED, or have gone to a community college for a year or two, or who are busting their asses to pay their bills or raise their kids, I’m sorry, but calling these people stupid is single most destructive thing a liberal can do. It’s a statement that I daresay comes from someone detached from average people’s lives. Did Steinbeck refer to the Okies as stupid? Did union organizers in coal country call them stupid?
.
The people aren’t ignorant because they’re lazy or incapable of learning, they’re ignorant b/c the state wants them prone. They’re ignorant b/c their schools completely suck (naturally, when the state guts pub. education), and they’re ignorant b/c they have no viable media that represents their interests (naturally, when the state allows corporations to dominate the public airwaves).
.
Every time you insult a poor, uneducated person possessing misdirected anger, you not only further alienate him/her from any more coherent message—you alienate their families, friends, or others who ID with them (and not with folks from prosperous zip-codes holding degrees and condescending attitudes: i.e. a Jon Stewart rally’s demographics). The “stupid” might be open to what another church is preaching, if its minister weren’t saying that everyone in their community, everyone they see in their local church or Walmart or car-race, is ignorant trash. But, hey, maybe my roots are showing–where I grew up, that was the norm. Too many lefties of humble origins forget a lot, they’re so thrilled to get out.

My stupid comment was generic; it had nothing to do with level of education or even of socio-economic status. It applies to the general state of knowledge of America as reflected in the genuflection before the right wing religious banking industry. What ticked me off was your assault on the credible media which provides objective information to the masses if they would only pay attention, including Time. You didn’t address that issue at all. I don’t look down my nose at formally uneducated people. Some are the most insightful people I know. The converse also applies. The topic was not that. It was about Time not serving public information in a fair, objective, balanced way. That was my objection, and you did not respond relevantly.

“Also, so far as collecting taxes go, there are alternatives to income tax hikes. A small finance transactions tax, for example could raise a lot of money and would be difficult for the industry to pass on to society at large since so few people are direct brokerage customers.”

Michael M.,
You may have forgotten, but the Dems proposed just that as part of the finance regulation bill, but the gNOp senators refused to consider it. That was one of the first things to be thrown out in the “negotiations” that led to the watered-down law that passed.

“It’s the government’s duty to protect the citizens from foreign invaders (government has failed), protect property rights (government itself is destroying these rights)…”

liberal,

Which foreign invaders would those be?

…

Also, please quote the part of the Constitution that says it’s the duty to protect property rights, and how it is destroying them?

…

(Note: “property rights” is a new addition to your usual rant. I asked you in a previous post for your response to a situation where, without government regulation, slaughter houses would be built on three sides of your home. This was in response to your usual rant that government regulation was strangling private enterprise and private property rights.
You didn’t answer then. Want to, now? How about if Walmart decides to plunk a pig farm down right under your bedroom window; they have property rights, right?

I am more concerned about Big government in bed with Citi bank, Goldman Sachs…
.
You’re confused as to whom is seducing who in that relationship, Melty.
.
..progressive economists such as Larry Summers, and unions…
.
Funny…Summers is about as centrist as they come and unions haven’t been a major force since the 80′s. Painting either as some Great Evil is, like I said before, fantasy.
.
…not to mention a few robber barons on the left.
.
Name them.
.
You can define “we” anyway that makes your delusion work for you…
.
You can’t do it, can you? All you have are these vague concepts that you’ve been told are responsible for your real or make-believe problems.
.
And you rail against becoming some ‘serf’ while you refuse to see how far down the road you are to becoming just that…only it’s not to some hyper-exaggerated Big Government, but to those who would use our government to further their own ends.
.
…you are irrelevant.
.
And you’re a slave to your prejudices, on your way to becoming a beggar for whatever scraps are left on your masters’ tables.

11.9 – liberal,

“You can define “we” anyway that makes your delusion work for you, you are irrelevant.”

You made the statement. It’s your responsibility to say who your “we” is.

It appears that your “we” does not include grape, or me, or pro-Pelosi voters. Maybe it would be easier if you just list below all the other people who are not of your “we” persuasion?

You made the statement. It’s your responsibility to say who your “relevant we” is.

11.12, in case you haven’t heard there are between 20 and 40 million illegals in the US.
.
Government abuses of eminent domain are growing across the country.
.
http://www.californiaeminentdomainreport.com/tags/eminent-domain-reform/
.
http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2881&Itemid=165
.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/10/13/private-developers-have-no-rig
.
I suggest you look at the links, I know you can’t use google. In case you can’t click on links, here is the State of New York taking private property and abusing eminent domain:

“Prospect Heights, where the project is proposed, is the antithesis of that description, as is nearly any other neighborhood in New York state. But when the state deems a neighborhood “blighted”, and then takes it, just because there are some weeds, or sidewalk cracks, or something called underutilization, then all of us in New York are vulnerable to eminent domain abuse.

Calling the Atlantic Yards site “blighted” was an obvious post-hoc justification to enable eminent domain in a state where “blight” has been erroneously interpreted to mean whatever the state determines it to be. And if all the state has to argue to justify seizing properties is some speculative public “benefit” or “purpose”—based on some contrived “blight” declaration—then what exactly isn’t a “public use”? ”

.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution protect us against illegal search and seizure and against the taking of private property.

FOURTH AMENDMENT-SEARCH AND SEIZURE

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FROM THE FIFTH AMENDMENT-RIGHTS OF PERSONS

Eminent Domain Power

“The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says ‘nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ This is a tacit recognition of a preexisting power to take private property for public use, rather than a grant of new power.”

Eminent domain “appertains to every independent government. It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty.” In the early years of the nation the federal power of eminent domain lay dormant, and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Kohl v. United States any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any State. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power, but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wide-ranging that vast numbers of objects may be effected. This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a State. Whenever lands in a State are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the State, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the State.

11.13, How many billions does GM and the State of California owe its union members in unfunded obligations? Meaning pensions. How is it that Government workers bring in Double what a comparable private sector job pays in salary and benefits????
.
The Treasury Department and Citi have had a revolving door with Robert Rubin and his disciples going back and forth from the private sector to government since the Clinton administration. I might concede that Summers isn’t a progressive, but he sure isn’t a classic economist. He is a crook.
.
George Soros, Robert Rubin. Goldman Sachs (Wall St is populated by Democrats.)
.
You don’t have a clue.
.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06
.

California’s $500-billion pension time bomb
.
The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.
April 06, 2010|By David CraneThe state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

“The topic was not that. It was about Time not serving public information in a fair, objective, balanced way. That was my objection, and you did not respond relevantly.”
.
Hmm, really b/c earlier I thought you’d said this:
.
“The problem is not the media, it is a prevailing American stupidity who votes against their own self-interests for varied reasons.”
.
And since my comment was long enough as it stood, I decided to not even engage you on the patently ludicrous notion that MSM is “credible.” As if you’ve never taken a glance at a Sunday morning show’s lineup or the editorial board of WaPo or Joe Klein’s wide-ranging discussions (from Krauthammer to his own DLC water carrying). That this “objective” media allowed for preemptive warfare on a state that did not pose a threat to us, that it is right now refusing to report that social security is solvent until at least 2037, or, as Atrios said:
.
“I’ve tried but really don’t know how to inject fraudclosure in the political press. The rest of the press is covering it, but the political reporters just don’t seem to think it’s an issue.”
.
There has been a complete embargo on liberal narratives in our media for decades. And why would a corporate media, as opposed to the idependent media we so desperately require, have any interest in changing this status quo. If you think the people would be properly informed about the conditions they’re facing on the ground if they merely read dead tree Time or watched whichever buffoon is heading network news, I’m afraid I can’t help you.
.
As Greenwald said today: “We have the country we have because of the character of the people who run it”
.
And they run everything–from Wall St. to the media to our gov’t and as a result, main street as well. You’re right about looming serfdom or “serfs up” but the peasants aren’t to blame.

Republicans have no business claiming they are fiscally responsible until they are willing to reduce defense spending.

Right now, we’re outspending the next 21 nations COMBINED on defense spending. That’s 721 Billion Per Year, with contingencies. More than China, United Kingdom, France, Russia, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, South Korea, Brazil, Canada, Australia, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Greece, United Arab Emirates, Netherlands, Poland, AND Colombia COMBINED!

We could reduce our defense spending to 322 Billion per year and STILL outspend China, Russia, Germany, Japan, and France COMBINED and we should do so. Spending anything more than what those countries spend COMBINED is WASTING OUR MONEY!

Herby, you really need to learn how to use a computer. You have access to a world of information, yet you keep asking me to be your teacher.
.
Oh, well see comment 9.1
.
Seems like this site only goes to 12 sub comments and then sticks your reply somewhere random.

Grape crush, see reply 9.2.

Actually I said “us.” If you can tell me what the definition of “is” is, I might tell you what us means.

News flash, the power just shifted. You just don’t like the shift. So now what do you have in mind? You don’t like the fact that you don’t have power; are you going to take it?
.

bacalove;

You state “(A little unknown and unemphasized fact is that Pres. Obama has already created more jobs in 8 months than Pres. Bush did in 8 years!)”

Then unemployment is below that in the Bush years?