Why The Left And Right Are Both Wrong On Spending.

There's been much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands throughout the nation as of late when it comes to the issue of federal spending. Those on the right claim that we can not spend our way out of a recession and those on the left claim that federal spending stimulates the economy as stated by one John Maynard Keynes so long ago (he later recanted the statement).

The GOP's tea party wing, (yes, that's what it is much to the chagrin of both parties), made great inroads this election cycle touting an earmark ban and calling for more responsible federal spending. Now that a budget fight is shaping up in the form of an expiring continuing resolution that's kept the government functioning (functioning being a relative term) President Obama has come out with a decree that federal workers' pay will be frozen for the next two years.

Let's take a look at both of these strategies and why they don't actually do anything (working from right to left).

Right is wrong: Despite great promises that an earmark ban would usher in an era of chastity in federal spending after the drunken orgy of spending that has been the last two years the GOP policy of banning earmarks doesn't actually reduce spending. Sure, earmarks are running between one and two percent of the federal budget which would have been $35 to $70 billion in 2009 but the dirty little secret with an earmark ban is that it doesn't reduce spending one cent. An earmark is nothing more than a congressional funding request slipped into any bill that appropriates funds. Wikipedia, (of all places), has a pretty decent definition of an earmark:

"The federal Office of Management and Budget defines earmarks as funds provided by Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process."

So an earmark is a Legislator's way of saying, "We have a process in place to determine funding allocations based on merit but there's this project that I REALLY want to see funded so we're just going to take care of it here and now."

Notice that this does nothing to address the process that would have likely funded that project anyhow. An earmark ban wouldn't reduce spending, just change the way spending is executed and the truth is that earmarks just aren't all that big a piece of the federal budget to begin with.

Left isn't right: The inconvenient truth for President Obama's plan to freeze federal salaries is that even if he is able to make this hold up in spite of what is sure to be vociferous opposition from the left wing of his own party as well as government unions such as AFGE (a sub of AFL-CIO) the freeze really won't do much to curtail spending.

Now far be it from me to suggest that $2.5 billion a year isn't a substantial amount of money but to put it in perspective the country is sitting on a deficit that is approaching $14 trillion dollars. This move to freeze salaries would mean a deficit reduction of about 0.018% of the federal deficit. To make a more timely and easily grasped comparison this move would have lopped off about one-third of one percent (0.33%) of Obama's $750 billion "stimulus package".

Even if Obama were to go "nucular" with this proposal and eliminate all federal salaries the grand total in annual savings would come to $125 billion, still less than 1 percent of the federal deficit.

Well, what to do then? The only answer to this question is entitlement reform. It's not comfortable to talk about and it will require real political will on both sides of the aisle. Tough talk about reducing capital spending makes for a good soundbite but it doesn't really help to reduce the deficit. Reducing federal salaries might play well to those who don't know any better but it's a fraction of a drop in the bucket. Reducing spending on social security and medicare is the only way to make a real difference in our nation's spending levels.

Day 26 of Begich Watch...

Other than a fund raiser incredibly thinly disguised as a "townhall" Sen. Mark Begich has been nowhere to be seen. In that vein, let's take it old school:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdzyuJJZMCI

Let's kill Ted Stevens's idea so we can bring it back and call it our own.

The latest on the erosion front is that Section 117 (killed by Begich and cronies) is being brought back as "Section 112" which has a cost share of 65% federal-35% local which is ridiculous since none of these localities can afford to pay their share. The only saving grace is talk about an "ability to pay" clause that would give the localities credit based on their census area/borough per capita income.

Pardon me Senator Begich...

Where the hell are you? One of the fiercest, most important public policy debates is happening and you're hiding from the same constituency that elected you. How dare you?

I've been away for a bit

Because what it looks like Obama is doing to Panetta is what it feels like he's doing to our country and the look on Leon's face says it all:

You broke my heart Fredo (Sarah), you broke my heart.

This picture (from April 23rd, 2009) saddens me, really it does. (Photo courtesy of The Alaska Report)

Why? (You ask with bated breath) Because of this:

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/133489

When it was politically expedient to do so one Governor Sarah Palin asked, nay, CALLED for Sen. Ted Stevens to step down from his post of 40 years only to find out later that he was railroaded by the Department of Justice. The above picture tells you everything that you need to know about the failed governorship of one Sarah Palin.

And quite frankly, that statement was much like this:

Now that Palin-Stevens hug picture looks more like this to me:

New Voice in the Anchorage Market

(Courtesy of themudflats) Shannyn Moore, a progressive radio personality has a show on KBYR Saturday evenings. It's always good to have a differing perspective on things. You don't have to agree but it doesn't hurt to listen, (unless it's a Nicaraguan dictator's diatribe).