No Home For True Believers

Days after the November municipal elections, a proxy for the Republican Party of Hamilton County [Indiana] filed complaints with the party organization against a few Precinct Committeemen for their participation as members of a non-partisan, Political Action Committee that seeks to identify and promote fiscally conservative candidates for office. A few of the elected officials and, undoubtedly, party leadership was displeased when the organization did not exclusively endorse Republicans. Imagine the frustration when trying to find some to vote for? It's likely, in fact, that two additional Republicans in one municipality were considered for endorsement before voting for a county income tax increase.  Let me restate this for clarity.  A county organization of the Republican Party is attempting to remove Republicans from their official capacity as [mostly elected] low-level party officials because they are ACTUALLY fiscal conservatives and may have an independent opinion or be part of an organization that does - appropriate for a non-partisan group.  

The claim is that this activity voids them as "Republicans in Good Standing". The same party organization seems to have few issues with Precinct Committeemen who have actually donated money to Democrats nor one of the party's attorneys representing an independent candidate running against a Republican at an election board hearing.  The party has no problem with clearly more liberal officials, who would be Democrats anywhere else, or even people who cheerfully supported Democrat candidates before deciding to run under the Republican banner - as long as they voted in one or a few most recent Republican Primaries.

"Medice, cura te ipsum"  [Physician, heal thyself] - Luke 4:23

If the already fragmented county party, one certainly not known for their social conservatism, wants to also go to war against its own fiscal conservative wing then I would ask how this is not supposed to further alienate people from an organization that ideally should grow, present a clear and inspired choice to voters and hold off the rising tide of shifting demographics and attitudes that lean far less conservative.

Is it helping to take this action? Because fiscal conservatives are looking at the organization's candidates for those that support the supposed ideals of the party and finds the supply lacking. Perhaps the PAC would be well served to provide mirrors to many of our elected official so they can see where the problem really lies.  And I'm not picking solely on local or county elected officials, every candidate for Federal Office - regardless of party it seems - campaigns against the out-of-control federal debt. Yet, despite their near unison agreement, deficits persist and the debt grows. Hard financial choices are tough to make, but they certainly seem to get a lot easier when it isn't somebody's own money they are spending.

"It's a big club, and you ain't in it." - George Carlin

What's worse is that instead of letting the offended candidates or their fellow local representatives take the hit of filing whatever complaints or challenges they desired, what appears to be a proxy with no skin in the game was tasked with putting their name on the filing. This was so unbelievably transparent as to insult the intelligence of anyone paying attention. Add in that, in our area, more fiscally prudent, pro taxpayer elected officials are almost always the first to have candidates recruited by the establishment to challenge them in primaries also perhaps reveals the real ideological leanings of those we elect.

I may be naive, but I still believe that when the typical Republican voter casts their ballot they are doing so because they expect people affiliated with that brand to be for smaller, lower cost government that doesn't want to increase taxes.  Indeed, at the state level in Indiana we have over the last decade or two seen the elimination of things like the inventory tax and the inheritance tax. Caps enacted on how oppressive property taxes are allowed to be without an override from voters. We've seen a reduction in state income taxes and, when the need was felt to increase revenues, a preference for use fees or consumption taxes.

I don't think the typical voter actually has reviewed voting records of legislators, executive wish list agendas and the court decisions of the judges on the ballot.  They're voting for some vague notion of "small government, lower taxes, less regulation, more freedom" or maybe voting for "bigger government, soak the rich, ban the straws and [because we know nothing about economics or history] 'democratic socialism'".   So, when somebody runs for office as a Republican and is not ideologically opposed, and dogmatically so, to expansive government, higher taxes or massive deficit spending it is a reasonable argument that their name showing up under the Republican column on the ballot is a lie - a bald faced one.

It is difficult to be part of 'the club' and stand up to people when they violate this trust. Attending all manner of events you get to know a lot of the elected officials personally.  And there are many with whom I disagree vehemently that I believe are really great people.  People I like personally and enjoy seeing or talking to.  But, what they fail to see is that just being part of the government, or by nature of having won our almost yearly popularity contests, does not magically forgive them of the sin of stealing more from people than absolutely necessary or further restricting their freedoms or rights.

"Collecting more taxes than are absolutely necessary is legalized robbery." - President Calvin Coolidge

Many people seem to take exception to this idea of taxation being theft. To be sure, it technically isn't, it is coercion backed by a threat of violence and/or theft. This statement of fact has no bearing on the necessity of it.  But, anyone who fails to see that, however necessary, threatening to take away somebody's property or to cage them (or worse) if they fail to pay tribute to the, and at the discretion of, The King is an act of coercion is just being obtuse.  There is no magical fairly dust of government that alters the threat of violence arrangement here.  It is indeed this very notion that our country was partially founded on the idea that BECAUSE this is true, the coerced contribution to the public treasury should be limited to paying only for those things that are absolutely necessary. Even Alexander Hamilton, not known for being the most pro-Republic of the founders, wrote in Federalist #21 that consumption taxes are a better form of taxation than most because an excess in the rate undermines the purpose and allows citizens to close their wallets in protest.

"They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder..." - Frédéric Bastiat

Certainly, anyone who believes in free markets and open competition must be repelled by the idea of government or quasi-government organizations going into debt to buy up private property and auction it off (or give it away) to whatever preferred interest of that day or to subsidize, no matter how much we love them, multi-millionaire owned sports businesses.  No matter what multiple of current property taxes might be created, it seems an inappropriate use of government power.  In one of Hamilton County's municipalities we now have, depending on how measured, $1.4 billion in debt with a large portion of that going to deals that smack of corporatism.  That is not to say that government officials can't or shouldn't help connect people, help encourage development or provide other forms of support.

"If more government is the answer, than it was a really stupid question" - Ronald Reagan

I am not blind to the fact that there really are people who are displeased with, in my area of Indiana, rapid development, the growth of the city and sometimes even hate for one of the best infrastructure improvements ever - roundabouts. There are others who don't oppose this 'progress' so much as they oppose the methods by which it is centrally planned, subsidized or sometimes has the appearance of being 'crony capitalism'.  Why does a government entity need to manage, subsidize (either directly or via taxpayer guarantees on loans) or pick the winner in private developers competing to buy a piece of land, an older strip mall or building and putting it to better economic use subject to market forces?  Yes, I understand the incredible leverage that gives central planners over the end result, but is that how we want things to work in a supposed free market economy?  The opportunity for favoritism, cronyism or pressure to fill up the campaign coffers of politicians is tremendous and even if one administration is innocent of any such activity, there is no guarantee the next one will be.

Dissent is often met with mocking from the establishment, pro-government crowd.  "Keyboard Commando", "Naysayer" or "Hater" are oft-used phrases.  I guess, by that measure, Thomas Jefferson, or John Hancock perhaps, was a "Quill Pen Commando". The modern Internet has made sharing information and ideas with people near instantaneous and without needing to be a professional writer nor subject to the discretion of newspaper publishers that might be dependent on the goodwill of local businesses and politicians for advertising revenues.

The Republican Party has always seemed to be more of a coalition to me than the Democrat Party. The social conservatives, the fiscal conservatives, foreign policy hawks, the more moderate but generally pro-business faction and, of course, the libertarian wing of the party which is the most hated.  At a time when generations who don't remember Ronald Reagan or the Soviet Union are increasingly attracted to the fatal allure of big government socialism and the fanciful unrealistic promises of far left politicians we need to be working together not creating more fragmentation, apathy and infighting.  This is what leadership should be doing - uniting, not dividing.  If the party abandons or continues to ignore the more fiscally conservative voices - or worse - aggressively attacks them, there may or may not be a price to pay.  But, it sure is bad form, promotes distrust and just adds fuel to those that try and claim there is nary a dimes worth of difference between the two big political parties. 

"I once said to my father, when I was a boy, 'Dad, we need a third political party.'  He said to me, 'I'll settle for a second.'" - Ralph Nader

Many of the concerned voices are wanting a more measured, prudent or free market approach so as not to over-extend municipalities financially or concentrate too much power - so that we can maintain some of the great things our elected officials have done without the creeping specter of higher taxes, financial risk in the event of an economic downturn, or the ever present suspicion of cronyism.  It's important that there be a clear choice between increasing government power, debt and taxes or keeping the influence of government constrained, free from unreasonable debt and holding the line - if not lowering - taxes. The most recent municipal elections saw Democrats win city council seats for the first time many decades. If given the choice between big-spending, authoritarian liberals and other big-spending, authoritarian liberals, conservatives are left without a real choice and, guess what? Big-spending, authoritarian liberals will win.

Tales From The Political Crypt: Episode 1 - They're Upstairs Smoking Weed!

This is the first installment of a few stories, anecdotes and other goings on that I think are starting to be time to document or share somewhere.  Decided I'll start with this one.

I went to my first real political event in 2000 after starting to follow a candidate named Andrew Horning who had decided to run for Governor of Indiana as a Libertarian. At the time, I was working for MCI Communications, now part of Verizon Business, as either Pre-Sales Network Engineer (they called the position "Technical Consultant") or might have moved on to being the National Account Manager for Indiana by then - not sure.  I had been told by other people that I was fairly libertarian ideologically and had read some books, but I liked the things this Andy guy was talking about at the time so I went an event for then Presidential candidate Harry Browne.  It was interesting, I got to know some people and was quickly talked to about possibly running for public office.  After a couple of conversations, mostly centered around something like school board to get some experience, I decided the commitment and money wasn't of interest at that moment in my life.

Fast forward four years and Andrew Horning, who would come to be known in 2000's as a well-liked perennial candidate, is running for U.S. Congress in my district against well-known Democrat incumbent Julia Carson.  Only this time, Andy was running as a Republican. I was excited about this prospect and I decided to show up for my first campaign volunteer 'call out' event. Through the course of the evening I got to know and speak with several people and as the evening wound down and people left I was asked to stay and found myself at the table of what would become the campaign management team. 

Andy's campaign manager, an older African American gentleman who went by Reverend Solomon, was a gentleman who had, from what I was told, once dated and had a bad falling out with the incumbent representative Carson. Solomon owned a couple or three run-down rental houses, one of which at 30th and Capital, they ended up putting the campaign headquarters in.  An absolutely wonderful woman named Pat who was from the neighborhood and lived in one of Solomon's other homes became something of a campaign office manager and I eventually kind of became the go-to person she trusted when there was something she felt needed to be taken care of.

I had a home office at that time working as a regional manager for a company out of  Michigan in the upstart VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) business.  One day, my phone rang and it was Pat.

"Sean. Sean!" she said in an urgent, but hushed voice.  "Solomon and Leroy are upstairs smoking weed and we got a nice, Christian lady who is planning a fundraiser for Andy who is going to be here soon to pick up signs and materials. You gotta do something!  The whole place smells like weed and she's going to know!"

"I'm on my way, Pat. I'm on my way!" I answered.

By the time I got there about 30 minutes later it was too late. The lady had indeed arrived, smelled the reefer and canceled the event.  I hung around for a little bit to make sure Pat was okay as Solomon eventually made his way downstairs and with red, glassy eyes decided he could maybe buy my silence by trying to talk to me about my own future in politics. It was so transparently an attempt to be manipulative that I dismissed the notion. Years later I would kind of wish I hadn't.

About the month before the end of the campaign three of us effectively yanked control away from Reverend Solomon as things continued to get stranger and we guided it to a not unexpected disappointing finish by the time Center Township's votes all rolled in. I never understood why Center Township, which was closer to where the votes were counted than the suburbs, always rolled in later. We were up by 10 points at one point in the counting.  Ultimately, we still finished within about a percent of the previous sacrificial lamb in the race despite the vast difference in finances (an over a $1 million difference).  Two years previous a campaign spent over twenty dollars per vote they received. We spent closer to twenty-five cents.

It was fun. It was eye opening. I got to meet a lot of people including a few helping with Mitch Daniel's great and successful gubernatorial campaign.  It absolutely changed my previous, naive belief that all of the people involved in politics or who ran for office were somehow special or specially chosen and operating from ivory towers.  No doubt, kissing the ring of those that can write big checks to a candidate helps - something Andy, to his credit, refused to do.  I still don't know what church Reverend Solomon preached at.

Reality Check for the Left - Trump's and Pence's Carrier Deal

It's been fascinating seeing all of the various reactions by people over the deal that has been worked out between the incoming Trump presidential and current Pence gubernatorial (and incoming vice-president) administrations over keeping approximately 1,000 jobs in Indiana that Carrier had previously said would be moving to Mexico.  The howls from the left, whose political marketing and spin agents tried to use Carrier's plans as criticism of the Indiana Republican Gubernatorial administration (but somehow not the Federal government and Obama administration?) are now howling that some corporation is getting what they believe, because they don't know how things work*, "freebies" from taxpayers.  It's funny when the biggest proponents of "freebies" howl about somebody getting "freebies", but I digress.

There are some economic forces at work over the last 20 years that are affecting our economy overall, like how software, automation and centralization are eating big parts of the economy. But, we must also acknowledge that it is true that the economy is global now and we compete intensely with other countries for labor and manufacturing resources. In the future the biggest markets for products will no longer be the United States, but China and India who collectively have around eight times as money people. Those screaming the loudest about this deal (to keep roughly 1,000 people employed) fail to acknowledge a few things...

(a) capital flows where capital is treated best. Don't like people setting up their corporate HQ or stashing cash/profits in the Caymens? Don't threaten to take 30 or 50 percent of it!

(b) if you create and maintain an environment where capital is treated well and your workforce is competitive capital will stay or flow there [low taxes, low regulation, low barriers to market entry, protection of private property rights, educated population]

(c) the federal government controls the greater portion of regulations, mandates and tax levies

(d) states MAY be having to offer extraordinary incentives to offset Federal overreach, mandates and one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world.

**IF** you support confiscatory taxation, massive government imposed benefits, unreasonable or internationally uncompetitive regulations, outrageous wage demands, continue to oppose massive updating and reform in the education system and believe anyone with pooled capital that can be put to use in the economy is evil ... well, YOU might be the problem.

Companies are morally obligated to be competitive and earn a profit, to not do so jeopardizes EVERYONE's job at the company regardless of geography AND every cent of investors' money (which for publicly traded companies might include public sector pension funds, 401ks, IRAs, trusts, other institutional investors and individuals.

So, also remember, you can hate big public corporations all you want, sometimes they do absolutely deserve criticism, but a lot of those profits and capital gains end up being used to expand a company or update its capabilities. Some of those gains end in your neighborhood teacher's, firefighter's or even a co-workers retirement fund not just some CEO's pocket.


*ADDENDUM: Many of the incentives in these kinds of deals are not "freebies". They often come in the form of rebates on future tax liabilities in exchange for hiring or retaining a certain number of workers, training workers and other things.  I have been a close party to these kinds of economic incentive discussions before.  It generally isn't just a check written from taxpayers to a company, it is a deduction on their future taxes for investing long-term in the city or state they reside in.  I'm not necessarily addressing specifics of this deal and this is not necessarily an endorsement of these kinds of deals, but isn't like a lot of welfare programs where money is stolen from one taxpayer and just handed over to another who has not earned it.

The Phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" Has No Impact On Your Rights

Those opposed to individual rights and who believe that a woman being raped is morally superior to her being able to defend herself against a (generally) larger and stronger male attacker like to look at the 2nd Amendment and try and argue that the clause "A Well Regulated Militia" at the beginning of it somehow limits the intent of the very plainly worded "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

It is important to note that it very plainly says, "The Right of the People."  It does not say The Right of the "Militia" or the "Army" or "Specially Trained Operational Units".   And it would be odd if sandwiched in the middle of a bunch of rights that the government is barred from taking from the people it were to throw in some specially privileged group.

So, let us be very clear that the phrase, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" means no more than if the 1st Amendment said, "Because some people think Purple is the best color and others just love Jesus, Congress shall make no law...."

And for those who think that those who wrote and approved of that document thought they must have meant only the muskets available at the time.  Let us remember that these were generally very smart people who knew technology would advance over time and who had just fought for their right to secede against the greatest military power on the planet.  They knew what they were doing and what they were protecting and it wasn't the right to hunt deer.

The musket argument is no different than suggesting that the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech was limited to the movable type and one page at a time printing presses available at that time since the framers could not possibly have imagined the telegraph, radio, high-speed printing presses, television or the Internet.  They fully expected that any individual would be able to arm themselves with firepower equal to any typical, regular soldier or officer of the military [note: before someone who lacks reading comprehension skills tries to say something about nuclear or biological weapons, read the statement again where it says "typical, regular soldier or officer of the military" - hint, they don't generally give just anybody the pass codes to "the football"].

Now that we have completely settled this debate, we can move on.  And anytime some anti-rights, pro-crime, anti-self defense, apoplectic, promoter of all things statist throws out "...well regulated militia..." in one of your spirited Facebook (or other) debates, you can just repost this article.  Because, that is what I'm going to do.

Paul Ryan - Compare Perception vs. The Voting Record Truth

Mitt Romney announced today that he has selected Congressman Paul Ryan (WI - 1st) as his running mate in the 2012 presidential election.  Most conservatives have a positive opinion of Rep. Ryan.  A lot of that is based on all of the media attention that "the Ryan plan" which when contrasted with the Obama White House budget plan and goals was, no doubt, a significant improvement.  However, even that plan did not eliminate deficit spending even 10 years out and I don't recall that it ever actually called for eliminating whole Federal Departments - something that is badly needed.

[Remember, Governor Perry wanted to eliminate three of them but couldn't name all three (VIDEO - see 23 second mark).  Congressman Ron Paul had five on his list to eliminate.  Personally, I have seven I'd like to see phased out.]

But, when we can, it is important to look at someone's actual voting record in order to determine where they REALLY stand.  Do they draw a line in the sand and demand that legislation be Constitutional before they vote for it?  Do they demand that government limit itself to protecting each person's rights to life, liberty and property?  Or, do they buy into the idea that a little bit of big government, expanding government and socialism is good now and again?  Let's look and you can decide for yourself if Representative Ryan is as awesome as his reputation seems to be in conservative circles.  Pro-liberty, conservative defender of the Constitution or myth - you decide.

Paul Ryan voted YES on all of the following:

• No Child Left Behind (2001)
• Yes on authorizing invasion of Iraq (2002)
• Expansion of Medicare/prescription drug benefit (2003)
• $70 million Section 8 housing vouchers (2006)
• Head Start Act (2007)
• Extending unemployment benefits from 39 to 59 weeks (2008)
• TARP (2008)
• Economic Stimulus [HR 5140]  (2009)
• $15 Billion bailout for GM and Chrysler (2008)
• $192 Billion in additional "stimulus" spending (2009)

Rep. Ryan supports Federal bailouts, increased Federal involvement in education, undeclared wars to invade countries that pose no threat to the United States, stimulus spending, foreign aid and Medicare Part D.  Ryan voted for NDAA (indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without a lawyer or trial), CISPA, National ID Cards and civilian surveillance without warrants.

From my perspective, I don't understand the big Veepgasm that the conservative and Tea Party folks just had over his selection.  Sure, neither Mitt nor Paul are Obama, but neither one of them can hold a candle to outgoing Rep. Ron Paul (TX) or former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson.

Obama Would Tell Edison He Didn't Make That Light Bulb!

Is Economic Freedom in America on the Wane?

Great (and short) video discussing some chilling facts about the decline of economic freedom in the United States and the connection between economic freedom, economic growth and our standard of living.

"The End of Liberty" Movie

This (slightly more than an) hour long video is excellent and well worth watching. It makes some excellent points and, fascinatingly to me, my home state of Indiana gets mentioned twice as being a place where laws are getting out of control. One mention regarded the requirement to show ID to buy alcohol no matter one's apparent age, the other mention was slightly more ominous.

Beauchamp

A self-centered person, usually male, who compensates for an inferiority complex by promoting an air of superiority in the belittlement and condemnation of others while employing an arrogant, showy peacock-like behavior that attempts to impress those around them with false bravado, pretentiousness and material possessions.

Uncomfortable with his less than impressive penis, the owner of the cab company became a real beauchamp treating his male and female love interests with arrogant condescension and laughable attempts at sophistication. Scott had money, however, it was not enough to keep his partners from seeking affection and sexual gratification in the arms of their other lovers.

Tired of Being Told You "Blame America" ?

In a foreign policy discussion with some supposed Tea Party members where I engaged with lots of historical facts, information and philosophy I got one of those Hannity told them to say this responses like, "you just hate and want to blame America" and your only purpose is to "...tear down America."

I've written before on America's interventionist foreign policy missteps and ensuing blowback with "A Message For Pro-Interventionist Conservatives and Liberals" and at the beginning of "Ron Paul, CPAC and Loathing by the Ideologically Unprincipled and Intellectually Dishonest"

But, that "blame America" retort is just smarmy and usually thrown out by someone working their hardest to either be willfully ignorant of the facts or to ignore them in favor of endorsing the idea of being the world's bully. Of course, the people who argue these points will always be the first to tell you that government ruins nearly everything it touches (it does), can't do anything right, can't do anything cost effectively, etc. But, they somehow always exclude foreign policy or military activity from their laundry list. It is somehow, magically immune?

So, the next time this comes up with a so-called Conservative ... ask some simple questions. Maybe like this.

You suggest I blame (the) America(n government) for a lot of our trouble with overseas nations and people. So, let me ask you ...

Do you "blame America" for ... 

for high taxes?

for high regulation?

for ignoring its own Constitution?

for our sour economy?

for our jobs going overseas?

for stealing form taxpayers to bail out corporations like banks and auto companies?

for its $15 trillion debt? [January, 2013 update: Now $16.5 trillion]

for threatening your right to self-defense?

for crony capitalism?

for screwing up the healthcare system?

for dishonesty in government?

for electing idiots, socialists or worse?

for insecure borders?

for not drilling for oil?

for the welfare state?

for Fannie and Freddie?

for ignoring state's rights?

Do you "blame America" for any or lots of other things?

So, let me get this right ... you are upset with me and call me anti-American because I "blame America", and really just its politicians and misguided policy makers, for just one more thing than you do?

The Conservative Intellectual Dilemma Over Who Has Rights

In an all too frequent political discussion on Facebook, this time with Brian Gaddie, one of my unashamed far left liberal friends, he kindly pointed out that he appreciated Congressman Ron Paul's opposition to torture. This prompted a quick thought I've had about rights. And, really, a lot of this discussion must ultimately rest on the nature of our rights as sentient, self-aware beings who value life with each of us being the legitimate owners of our own selves who take positive action to support or enhance that life.

There is an excellent write up at The Objective Standard regarding the nature of rights that I highly recommend reading, especially since it offers up a theory that does not depend on the existence of God. This is important, because if God cannot be proven than your rights cannot be proven if you solely rest the existence of them on its existence.

But, back to the point. Certainly, nobody in the United States would support kidnapping someone off the street, failing to give them due process, failing to find them guilty in any kind of trial but instead just sticking them in a secret room and torturing them just in case they might know something useful. This would be such a vast violation of rights and the character of who are SUPPOSED to be as a nation.

But, it did prompt me to post my comment from Brian's thread on a broader topic of the nature of our rights and why I think the typical Conservative has an intellectual dilemma that they either must resolve by becoming more authoritarian and deciding that we only have the rights our respective governments grant to us OR that all human beings have rights that come about by way of our existence as sentient, self-aware beings.

Brian - regarding torture. Conservatives have an intellectual dilemma that they must resolve.


Most Conservatives would argue that our rights come from our creator (God, the creative force of the universe or whatever mechanism by which we are sentient, self-aware beings). This is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence as a founding principle of our country. That we have rights (life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness) that nobody, not even government - except as compensation for a harm done to another - can take away.


BUT THEN, in the same breath, they would suggest that immigrants, accused terrorists or other people not born here don't have the same rights.


This is intellectually inconsistent. Either our rights come from the creator OR they come from government by nature of which borders we are unlucky enough to be born between.


They must decide. And I appreciate Ron Paul consistently showing intellectual honesty in all matters, including torture as I very much appreciate you pointing out.

National Debt After Each Administration - 1976 to present

(note: this article is periodically updated just to keep the data current)

The national debt, per capita after each Presidential administration [election year] from Ford (1976) to Obama (Present). [edited to continue into the Trump administration]

(figures are approximate)

1976 After Gerald Ford  - $2,844
1980 After Jimmy Carter  - $4,352
1988 After Ronald Reagan  - $12,000
1992 After George HW Bush  - $15,875
2000 After Bill Clinton  - $20,121
2008 After George W. Bush  - $31,600

2012 After Obama (1st term)  - $52,300
2016 After Obama (2nd term) - $62,077 [total of $19.97 trillion or$160,160 per family]

2018 (current) - $64,383 [$21.03 trillion, inflation adjusted equivalent to $14,494 per person in 1976]

The debt debate is nothing new. It is not a Bush or Obama problem. It is not a Democrat or Republican problem. The two major political cults (parties) have held hands in the spirit of "compromise" for decades to send us over this cliff.

And "compromise" is a code word that a lot of people like but it really means that both sides will "compromise" the principles of those that elect them in order to say they accomplished something.

Dave Ramsey was recently (2012) quoted in a snippet that went viral on Facebook, "‎"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year & have $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget & debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."

I think it is important to point out that Dave left out the $2,000,000 mortgage that this family has (we get this by looking at the additional $90 trillion in "future obligations" that our government already calculates it has committed to).

Interest on the Debt Consumes Almost HALF of Personal Income Taxes

I attended Congressman Dan Burton's (R-IN 5th) town hall in Carmel this past evening and was pleased to hear him reference some cooperative efforts he has with Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) but he said something very early on in his talk about U.S. fiscal matters that caught my attention.

He made a statement basically saying that interest on the debt consumed 46 cents out of every tax dollar and that they then had only around 54 cents to spend on everything else like the military, social security, etc... Immediately this struck me as untrue but I knew he likely didn't pull that number out of thin air. But, it did get me to thinking and I worked out the math on the back of one of his political flyers.

We are quickly approaching the point where annual debt service is around $500 billion (one half trillion dollars).

The Federal government budget is around $3.6 to $3.7 trillion.

Federal tax receipts are in the $2.15 trillion area.

Of that $2.2 trillion, a little less than $1 trillion is Personal Income Taxes.

So, interest payment on the debt, will likely run well over $450 billion for the current fiscal year.

$450 billion is:

...about 12% of the total Federal budget.

...about 21% of all expected 2011 Federal tax receipts.

...about 46% of all expected 2011 Federal PERSONAL INCOME taxes.


So, there you have it. Out of every dollar in PERSONAL INCOME TAXES almost half of it now goes solely to pay interest on the national debt. So, the only error the Congressman made was in not being specific enough in his language. He was, basically, correct in his statement. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together still need a wake up call?

The Federal Government is too big and it costs too much. Repeat until it sinks in.