Foregone Conclusion

Democracy: a system of government in which the cows think they pick who milks them.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (pdf) passed Congress and President Obama signed it, telling the American people:

“Congress has now approved a compromise to reduce the deficit and avert a default that would have devastated the economy.”

The noise about deal-making in Washington, D.C. over the increase in the federal government debt limit was pure political theater—a scripted performance for the American people.  The President and Congress pretended to debate and take political risks to fix the federal government’s finances, but the outcome was a foregone conclusion—increase the national debt limit.  Everything else was putting lipstick on a pig—a show for the rubes, whose price of admission is paying taxes and being prodded like cattle at airports and train stations. 

Despite the dramatic entrance of shooting victim Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) during the vote, arriving just in time to cast her vote for continued  spending of non-existent money, the conclusion was never in doubt.[1]  The votes to increase the debt limit in the House: 269-161, and the Senate: 76-24, weren’t even close. 

The only question was how much the limit would be raised.  Our political “leaders” agreed to the largest increase in the debt limit ever—a $2.4 trillion increase to the current national debt limit of $14.3 trillion.  The new $16.7 trillion limit is more than the entire economic output of everyone in the US—and the new limit is expected to be exceeded in two years.[2]  The $2.4 trillion increase is greater than the total national debt accumulated by the federal government from 1791 to 1987—the first 196 years of its existence.

Who Does the Dirty Job?

“It was a long and contentious debate.” –President Obama after signing the Budget Control Act of 2011

The congressional “debate” was mainly about how to sell the debt limit increase to the working people who pay the bills and vote to “pick” their rulers:

• Rs said they wanted no new taxes, spending cuts over the next 10 years, and a small increase to the debt limit so the next increase would come before the next Presidential election.
• President Obama and congressional Ds wanted tax increases, spending cuts over the next 10 years, and an increase to the debt limit over to $16 trillion so that with the current rate of deficit spending, the debt limit would not be exceeded until after the next Presidential election.

Leaders of both parties have never been averse to deficit spending or increasing the debt limit above the ridiculously high amount that already exists: since 1946 both parties have increased the debt limit 96 times.[3][4]  This time, both Ds and Rs wanted an agreement that let them keep spending money the government doesn’t have, but each wanted an agreement that made the other side look bad. 

In 2006, then-Senator Obama voted against increasing the debt limit when then-President Bush (R) was in office.  When asked about his 2006 senatorial  vote today(video), President Obama (D) acknowledged his vote was part of the same political game.[5]

Congressman Mike Doyle (D-Pa), expressed the true purpose of the exercise when he criticized Tea Party tactics during the negotiations:

“We have negotiated with terrorists.  This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”[6]

Default or Fearmongering?

“Default is a false threat. We take in over $220 billion in revenues every month and our debt service is only roughly $20 billion. The only way we will default is if the President of the United States makes the irresponsible choice not to pay our debts.” - Mark Meckler, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots

Default is a false threat.  The US would not have defaulted on its debt.  The federal government takes in more than enough in tax revenues to pay interest on its debt and more.  That the US government would default was a lie—a lie to intimidate voters.

Citizens are always told this lie when their rulers want to increase spending.  Politicians scare taxpayers into agreeing with spending increases by threatening cuts to things taxpayers want.  Politicians never mention cutting out things taxpayers don’t want.

Ron Paul called it “fearmongering” (video).  When government says “default,” people become afraid.  They think they won’t be getting their checks any longer.  The fearmongering distracts the public from the real issue: that their dollars are worth less as a result of the increased debt.

Deficit Reduction

“This compromise guarantees more than two trillion dollars in deficit reduction.” – President Obama

The much ballyhooed spending cuts were not cuts to actual current spending.  They were cuts to proposed increases in spending for next year.  News stories about the agreement are filled with details on the elaborate spending cuts and savings inflated by Washington, D.C. political math:  

• The bill promises $917 billion (pdf) in spending cuts by putting caps on proposed increases in discretionary spending over the next 10 years.[7]
• The bill also promises $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, by including an allowance for interest savings, and requiring reductions in both discretionary and direct spending to make up for any shortfall in the targeted $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.
• The cuts are over ten years because it makes the amount of spending cuts seem larger when they’re multiplied by ten.
• While the doubtful future spending cuts take place over ten years, the newly increased $2.4 trillion debt limit is expected to be exceeded in less than two years.  So the federal government is still overspending by more than a trillion dollars a year.

Rs made certain that the spending cuts matched the amount of increase in the debt limit to give the appearance that they fought for reduced spending, but if the debt keeps rising, the federal government is still overspending. 

Ds pretended it was painful to vote for a bill that didn’t let them increase spending as much as planned—but D-leaders involved in the negotiations said they were able to keep the discretionary spending cuts to a minimum — just $7 billion in real terms in 2012, and an additional $3 billion in 2013.[8]

The real purpose of the bill was to let the federal government spend another $2.4 trillion it doesn’t have.  That’s why the politicians spent so much time talking about how they were cutting future spending—they didn’t want the average American thinking too much about their political rulers robbing them in plain sight today.

Cutting Increases in Future Spending

“There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles. It’s all spending cuts.”  – John Boehner

"In fact, this bill will never balance the budget.  Instead, it will add untold trillions of dollars to our deficit.  This also assumes the cuts are real cuts and not the same old Washington smoke and mirrors game of spending less than originally projected so you can claim the difference as a ‘cut.'”– Ron Paul

When politicians talk about  budget cuts they play by different rules than you or me.  For example, the Budget Control Act of 2011 talks about $917 billion in cuts over ten years.  Using real math that should be almost $92 billion in cuts the first year.  It would be if politicians used real math to plan their finances. 

But in Washington, D.C. our leaders have no respect for the intelligence of the American people.  According to their math, in the near term, the bill sets budget numbers for 2012 that would require a real cut of $7 billion in discretionary spending from 2011 levels.  But because that’s $25 billion less than projected spending would have been had it kept pace with inflation, our leaders are taking credit for $25 billion in savings.  In 2013 they estimate even higher inflation, so there are only $3 billion in real cuts for which they claim an even higher amount of savings.

So for the first two years of the ten year budget control plan, our leaders are making $10 billion in real spending cuts while taking credit for an average of $180 billion over two years, and claiming a total of $917 billion in spending cuts for the ten years from 2012 - 2021.

If Joe Sixpack could play by the same rules, instead of declaring bankruptcy when hopelessly in debt, he could ask a bank for a loan, explaining that he had decided not to buy his planned two new $90,000 Porsches every year for the next ten years—that instead he’d make a cut and buy just one new Porsche every year.  Using the same reasoning as our politicians in Washington, D.C., Joe Sixpack could multiply the cost of each new Porsche he will not purchase by 10, factor in savings for anticipated inflation on the money he isn’t spending, add savings on interest he is not paying on a loan he didn’t need to get for money he didn’t spend.  Joe could say he was saving a couple of million dollars in the next ten years, so could he please have a loan for two million dollars?

The difference between Joe Sixpack and the federal government is that after the bankers stopped laughing hysterically at Joe’s ridiculous plan, they’d give Joe the bum’s rush out the door.

Democracy: the Ideal Form of Government

“If the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives gives into establishment pressure by voting to increase the debt ceiling once again, you will know that the status quo has prevailed.” – Ron Paul, May 23, 2011

The debt limit has been increased many times in the past.  This time the mob was getting unruly, so our democratic system of government let the crowd blow off steam by voting for Tea Party candidates who talked a good game.  Despite all the rhetoric, the key point about the latest circus side show is an agreement that the debt limit will increase and the federal government gets two more years to spend money that doesn’t yet exist.  The status quo has prevailed.

That’s the beauty of our democratic system of government—it defuses riots and revolts by letting the cows think they have a say in who milks them.  Did you wake with all of the noise during this performance?  Your rulers want you to rest easy, go back to sleep—they’re taking good care of you.

_____________________

[1] Any who doubt Giffords’ mental capacities after she was shot in the head, can be assured that Giffords hasn’t forgotten that a congresswoman’s job is to keep the financial fraud going as long as possible.

[2]  “Gross Domestic Product: First Quarter 2011 (Third Estimate); Corporate Profits: First Quarter 2011 (Revised Estimate),” US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, June 24, 2011.

On June 24, 2011 the GDP was $15.1 trillion.

[3] GAO Letter to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, February 23, 1996 (pdf), (Accessed at http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/GAO-HISTORY%20OF%20DEBT%20LIMIT.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[4] “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” (pdf), by Andrew Austin and Mindy Levit, Congressional Research Service, April 5, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/DEBT%20LIMIT%20HISTORY-CRS.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[5] Here is then-Senator Obama’s speech on March 16, 2006 opposing an increase in the debt limit.

[6] “Sources: Joe Biden likens tea partiers to terrorists,” by Jonathan Allen & John Bresnahan,  Politico.com, Aug 1, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html on Aug, 1, 2011).

[7] “Section-by-Section Analysis of the Budget Control Act of 2011 as Announced on July 31, 2011” (pdf), House Rules Committee, (Accessed at http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_1/legislativetext/731%20CBAsbs%20v2.pdf on Aug 3, 2011).

[8] “Debt deal: $32.4 billion per page,” Stephen Dinan, Aug 1, 2011, Washington Times, (Accessed at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/1/debt-deal-32-billion-page/ on Aug 3, 2011).

Doublethink (Part 7)

“For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 2 Chapter 9, p. 156-7 by George Orwell.[1]

Ignorance is Strength

Applied to innovation, “Ignorance is Strength” might describe a physicist working relentlessly to prove the existence of some marvel previously considered impossible.  If you’re the physicist, your “ignorance” is a good thing for you, your refusal to accept conventional wisdom is your strength. 

Applied to the state, “Ignorance is Strength” means the strength of the rulers depends upon the ignorance of their subjects.  In that case, unless you’re a ruler, your ignorance hurts you.

Our rulers want us to believe that democracy is a special form of government where they work for us.  Our rulers would have us all believe that in a democracy the will of the people—whatever that is—prevails.  That belief is the “ignorance” part.

“This Time It’s Different…No Really, We Mean It”

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor and House Republican Leader John Boehner

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles." – House Minority Leader and Soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner (R), Oct. 27, 2010 on the Sean Hannity show (audio)

“The people have spoken” once again after the November 2, 2010 elections.  Rs picked up at least 60 seats in the US House and six in the US Senate.  Those elected and the media tout this overwhelming victory for Rs a result of voter backlash against D-supported growth of the federal government that permeates our lives.

Born two summers ago of voter outrage over healthcare “re-form,” the tea party movement grew after Ds forced Obamacare down the throats of voters last year.  The tea party made Obamacare and the failure of the $787 billion Recovery Act of 2009 the main issues of this election.  Tea party voters believe they can limit the growth of the federal government by forcing it to follow the US Constitution.

Playing to the voter anger and pro-Constitution sentiment reflected by the tea party movement, the opposition party in Congress released “A Pledge to America” on September 23, 2010.[2]  Full of pretty pictures and emotional paeans to liberty, family values, and national defense, the R-pledge (pdf) also pays lip service to the Constitution:

“We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment, which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” – Page 3 of “A Pledge to America”

The party that in the last decade gave America two undeclared wars, the TSA, a $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill, and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout finally pledges to honor the Constitution.  Finally.  Do you believe it?

Prepare to get milked

Even a casual study of recent history shows that democracy simply means that the cows get to pick who milks them.  The state makes sure that any bulls in the herd supply prairie oysters instead of milk.

Angry voters this election opposed socialist Obamacare, but apparently forgot that Rs sponsored the socialist $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout.  John Boehner (R) just won re-election this year in Ohio with 66% of the vote.  Ohio voters must have forgotten that Boehner voted aye for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill and voted yea for the $700 billion TARP bailout (video) during the Bush (R) administration.  They must have forgotten that John Boehner, the same guy they just re-elected, voted yea for the Bush-sponsored creation of the TSA—the monstrosity that peers under clothes and gropes the crotches of “free Americans” to keep them safe.

Now Boehner, who will soon be Speaker of the House, says Rs “will not compromise” on their principles:

“Our plan stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government; economic freedom; lower taxes; fiscal responsibility; protecting life, American values, and the Constitution; and providing for a robust national defense.” – Page 5 of “A Pledge to America”

Where were Boehner’s “limited government principles” in 2008?  Or did he just grow them?

Soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia was re-elected with 59% of the vote.  If this election was a repudiation of big government, how did Cantor, who voted for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, for the $700 billion TARP banker bailout of 2008, and for the creation of the TSA monstrosity, get re-elected? 

After the election, TARP-supporter and “limited government advocate” Cantor unveiled 22 pages of hypocrisy (pdf) in his campaign to become the House R-majority leader:

“I don’t think any of us ran for Congress with the idea that we could finally provide a subsidy to this industry or that, or to this community or that. Or that we would vote to continue the same federal programs and agencies that are failing our citizens and bankrupting our children and grandchildren.”[3]

One of the writers of “A Pledge to America,” congressman Paul Ryan (R) of Wisconsin, ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, knows federal government spending is unsustainable.[4]  Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” advocates “re-form” of Social Security and Medicare.  Days before the 2010 election, Ryan argued for changes to Social Security and Medicare: 

“The government's own experts are telling us that our health and retirement security programs -- Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- are on a path to bankruptcy unless we take action soon. In addition to overwhelming the entire federal budget, the collapse of these programs will result in painful cuts for seniors and society's most vulnerable.” – Paul Ryan, Oct 16, 2010

Yet during the Bush (R) administration Ryan voted aye for the $1.2 trillion Medicare Prescription Drug bill, moving Medicare that much more toward the bankruptcy he is now so alarmed about.  Ryan himself contributed to “overwhelming the entire federal budget” when he voted for the $700 billion TARP banker bailout.  Ryan also proved he is no friend of the Constitution when he voted for the creation of the TSA monstrosity which violates the Fourth Amendment rights of all travelers to be “secure in their persons…against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

In this election of voter outrage, Ryan was re-elected this year by a wide margin with 68% of the vote.

Rs touted this election as a repudiation of big government.  If that is so, how did these three leading members of the opposition party, who supported and voted for big government when an R was President, get re-elected in 2010?

The cows have made their choices.

End the Government Takeover of Healthcare

“We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.” – Page 6 of “A Pledge to America”

In 1965 the federal government started its takeover of healthcare with the Social Security Act of 1965 under LBJ (D).  By 2003 both Rs and Ds saw government socialized healthcare as a right for Americans: the Bush (R) administration pushed legislation to pay for Medicare Prescription Drugs that will cost an estimated $1.2 trillion through 2016.[5]

The federal government has unfunded liabilities of $200 trillion.[6]  Most of those liabilities are for Medicare and Social Security.  Nowhere in their Pledge to America (pdf) do Rs mention ending  Medicare.[7]  Rs pretend they’re the party of fiscal responsibility and that they follow the Constitution, yet they lie to themselves and the American people just as easily as the Ds.

End TARP Once And For All

“Americans are rightly outraged at the bailouts of businesses and entities that force responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior. We will cancel the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), a move that would save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.” – Page 21 of “A Pledge to America”

Like exterminators releasing pests in a home to drum up business, the Rs who voted for TARP now pledge to cancel it.

This year’s crop of the fruits of democracy yields legislators who supported the $152 billion Bush-Economic Stimulus Act and the $700 billion TARP banker bailout in 2008, but not Obama’s $787 billion Stimulus bill in 2009; who support socialist Medicare, which is bankrupting the federal government, but not socialist Obamacare, which will bankrupt the federal government.  All of these federal government programs encroach on your freedom, but double-thinking voters pretend there’s a difference between the programs.  That same double-thinking lets voters pretend that this time a difference exists between the Rs or Ds who create the programs.  (Much like double-thinking Obama supporters pretended they were voting for a change from warmonger George W. Bush.)

This election was different—at least that’s what they tell you.  The Tea Party is spontaneous they say—or it was until it was preempted by politicians.  The people are angry and will change things they say—deep down you should know better.  Rs or Ds in the US, black cats or white cats in Canada (see six minute Mouseland video [8]), there’s no real difference.

Your ignorance is their strength.  Moo.

_______________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, pp. 156-7.

[2] “House Republicans Unveil 'Pledge to America,' Call for Tax and Spending Cuts,” September 23, 2010, FoxNews.com, (Accessed at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/23/house-republicans-unveil-pledge-america-tax-spending-cuts/ on Nov. 2, 2010).

Read a Pledge to America (pdf) and remember Rs voted for the bailout (HR 1424) during the Bush (R) administration.

[3] “Eric Cantor lays out 22-page game plan,” By Jake Sherman, 11/3/10, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44641.html on Nov. 4, 2010).

Another snippet from Cantor’s plan:

“We came to Washington to eliminate the deficit, to tear down barriers to job creation, and to reform a government that has grown out of touch with the governed.”

[4] “Republicans unveil Pledge to America, but where was Paul Ryan?” By Linda Feldmann, Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/2010/0923/Republicans-unveil-Pledge-to-America-but-where-was-Paul-Ryan on Nov. 2, 2010).

[5] “Medicare Drug Benefit May Cost $1.2 Trillion,” By Ceci Connolly and Mike Allen, Washington Post, Feb 9, 2005, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9328-2005Feb8.html on Nov 9, 2010).

[6] “U.S. Is Bankrupt and We Don't Even Know It,” By Laurence Kotlikoff, Aug 10, 2010, Bloomberg Opinion, (Accessed at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html on Nov 9, 2010).

[7] From Page 6 of “A Pledge to America”:

“Of course, Americans remember that President Obama argued his government takeover of health care was the single most important thing we could do to address our growing debt crisis. This notion has since been thoroughly discredited: we now know the new health care law will mean more financial pain for seniors, families, and the
federal government. We offer a plan to repeal and replace the government takeover of health care with common
sense solutions focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs. We will enact real medical liability reform; allow Americans to purchase health coverage across state lines; empower small businesses with greater purchasing power; and create new incentives to save for future health needs. We will protect the doctor-patient relationship, and
ensure that those with pre-existing conditions gain access to the coverage they need. We will permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and codify the Hyde Amendment.”

[8] In the video, the lone mouse on the pipe is really a cat in a mouse suit.