It is finished?

Christians remember this day as when Jesus of Nazareth was condemned by his own people, crucified by the Romans, and died. Holy Week's climax is the complete removal of God from Jesus. Infinitely remote from his Father, Evil encircled Christ, mocked, taunted, tortured and killed him. It was a manic orgy of darkness, heralding the triumph of Satan over God, and the death of Hope.

At the end of Tenebrae, Christians depart the sanctuary in darkness and silence. It is symbolic of the journey from Gulgalta by Mary and other mourners toward a seemingly hopeless future. Has God fled the world? The answer will be revealed after the passing of an anxious day.

Minimum Wage Math.

Suppose you own a Subway store.

A healthy store grosses about $7000 per week (about 1000 sales per week).

Per week, you pay two full time workers, and another three full-time equivalents of part-time employees. Four of them are minimum wage, $7.25 per hour (sans FICA, etc). If you keep your store open for ten hours, seven days a week, you are paying at least for 280 hours of minimum-wage work, or about $2030 a week.

You are now required to pay $9.00 an hour for the minimum wage. Your labor costs have increased by at least $490 per week. This comes right out of your profit, which is about $1000 a week. Your income, your capital savings to expand to another store, and your reserve for hidden costs, such as remodeling every five or six years, has just been halved.

What do you do? You let go of at least one part-time employee, of course, and you pick up the slack by working 20 more hours yourself.

And another kid is on the street without a job.

More details on budget prestidigitation.

This correspondent, in pursuit of accuracy and fairness, ammends an earlier dispatch on the Magic That Is Federal Budgeting. Here we include spending, revenue, and the resulting deficit from 2008 through the estimate 2013 budget, courtesy of the OMB. Numbers in 2005 Gigabucks. The 2012 and 2013 entries are estimates:

• 2008: receipts = $2288.1  outlays = $2703.8  surplus (deficit) = $(415.7)
• 2009: receipts = $1899.0  outlays = $3173.4  surplus (deficit) = $(1274.4)
• 2010: receipts = $1927.9  outlays = $3081.0  surplus (deficit) = $(1153.0)
• 2011: receipts = $1998.7  outlays = $3126.3  surplus (deficit) = $(1125.6)
• 2012: receipts = $2089.4  outlays = $3212.5  surplus (deficit) = $(1123.1)
• 2013: receipts = $2409.1  outlays = $3157.4  surplus (deficit) = $(748.3)

During the current Adminstration's budget authority (2010-2013) we see that outlays increase, except for a small estimated decrease of $55.1B in 2013. The deficits since 2010 are at a steady $1100-1200B until 2013, when magic occurs(!) and they suddenly plumment by nearly $500B. This is caused by increased revenue, in fact about $9 of new revenue for each $1 of spending reduction. And projections of spending for 2014 and beyond? Rising steadily, with deficit reduction coming from ever increasing revenue.

This is why, the humble opinion of this correspondent, the Administration's claim that "we've cut over two trillion dollars from the deficit" over the next ten years through a "balanced" approach is just so much malarkey. Or, if we may be as bold to state ("truth to power" as the Left loves to claim),  a lie.

We do not blame the continuing death spiral of increasing spending only on the White House, although they do enjoy proposing more and more programs to cure this ill and that; no Congress cannot be persuaded to abandon the mathematics of More Spending = Reelection, and nor perhaps can the People face weaning from the Government Teat. As Uncle Billy said to George Bailey, "this is a pickle, George, this is a pickle!" But shall we at least start by being honest about what are doing?

Gun Violence: The facts that will not be wished away.

Wafting away the emotionalism and vitriol from the gun violence debate, this writer discerns the following facts:

1. It's very hard to stop someone killing scores of people if they are willing to die while doing it.
2. You will never rid the country of all of the guns that could possibly cause mayhem such as Sandy Point or Aurora. The spectrum of guns that can accomplish this includes the entirety of all semi-automatic weapons. Indeed, one could use a few preloaded revolvers and kill several people. Such an expansive prohibition of firearms will not be tolerated by the overwhelming majority of law-abiding gun owners.
3. Any feasible improvements in mental health screening will do no better than what is currently acheived in suicide prevention. Dedicated psychotics will find a way to get a firearm.
4. Thus the threat of mass murder will ALWAYS exist, and the best provision to stop an attempt at mass murder is to disrupt the perpetrator's actions.
5. The best way to stop the perpetrator is to incapacitate him or her in the act, which is best acheived by shooting them.

There is a great deal of misguided outrage in the NRA's "good guy" proposal. People do not like the idea of armed guards in schools, but it is where the culture of American life has arrived whether we like it or not (and why we are at that nadir is another conversation). Armed guards WILL immediately reduce the number and severity of gun violence in schools and public places.

Let us focus on effective solutions rather than false solutions that appeal to our political agendas and prejudices.

The Honesty Deficit

The President has won his tax rate hikes on the Needlessly Rich, so now in the second round of deficit-reduction he turns to...additional tax increases on the Needlessly Rich.

Why no budget-cutting? In a recent interview, President explains: "...if you look at my track record over the last two years, I cut spending by over a trillion dollars in 2011."

Really? Let's take a look at the numbers, courtesy of the President's own 2013 budget proposal. Here is the record of federal spending, from 2009 (the last Bush budget) through 2012. In parentheses are the increases over the previous year. In brackets are the changes to the Consumer Price Indices relative to the previous year:

• 2009    $3.518T
• 2010    $3.456T (-1.8%) {1.6%}
• 2011    $3.603T (4.2%)  {3.2%}
• 2012    $3.795T (5.3%)  {2.4%}

Note that Obama's proposed budgets for 2010-2012 were $3.552T, $3.834T, and $3.729T, respectively. Unless the President had in mind an even larger increase for 2011, no such cut can be found. The only year-over-year reduction in spending occurred in 2010; this was caused by the end of TARP. Also note that although his proposed 2012 budget was $105B smaller than his 2011 proposal, what was ultimately enacted in 2011 and 2012 were increasing bigger budgets. Federal spending has increased for the last two years, at a rate greater than inflation as measured by the CPI.

Apologists Defenders of the President (e.g. Jared Bernstein) claim that analyses like that depicted above are overly simplistic: "personal finances and government finances are different". How, pray tell? Isn't what really matters is how much you ultimately spend, not what you fantasized spending only to settle for not-so-much more?

The White House is implanting the "already a trillion dollars cut" lie-meme throughout the media now, and every Presidential Parrot repeats it.

This is a moment in history when one needs to dispense with pleasantries to underscore the gravity of the issue and the inadequacy of the leadership: Mr. Obama, you did not cut a trillion dollars from future budgets. Stop spreading this lie, get serious about reducing spending and reforming entitlements. Grow up, sir.

The Word for Our Times

an·o·mie

noun \ˈa-nə-mē\

: social instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values; also: personal unrest, alienation, and uncertainty that comes from a lack of purpose or ideals

Two Budget and Tax Untruths.

Two claims continue to circulate about our present fiscal crisis: the first, that we can grow our way out of debt, and the second, that a more aggressive tax policy toward the top earners (those making above $250K per year) will effectively fill the deficit hole.

Let's dispose of Whopper Number One. Suppose that the US GDP grows at 3.5% per year (the effective growth rate from 2000-2010). This is an additional $420B in the economy, and a federal tax rate of 25% of this contributes about $105B per year towards debt reduction. This is a fraction of the current deficit, so our government would continue to bleed red ink, albeit at a modestly lower rate.

As for Whopper Number Two, consider that the total AGI of the top 5% of earners (those making more than $160K per year!) is $2.9T. If we increased the effective tax rate of this group by 50% (for an effective rate of 31% for all in this group) this will provide only an additional $303B in revenue. Either the pledge to tax only the "rich" would have to reneged, or the tax rate would have to much more confiscatory, or both.

Either of these amounts is small compared to our $1.6T deficit, and their sum is less than half of it. Why do we let the blowhards continue to spin either of these fables?

We are face a moment of truth regarding the extent to which government can materially provide for its citizens through entitlements.

Obama: Plain Stupid on Business.

This is how the President really thinks economic growth happens: by government initiatives. No one is arguing about the need for infrastructure; his arguement is, as he would say, a false choice. And the man doesn't understand that economic growth is based on initiative and risk by individuals.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/jul/15/picketvideo-obama-if-youve-got-business-you-didnt-/

Has the President brought us together?

A few days ago, we pondered all of the groups of people that the White House or its proxies have attacked in pursuing their expansion of social welfare and state control in the last three years. Here's our list, it may not be complete:

• The "1%"
• Oil Companies
• Doctors
• Hospitals
• Pharmacutical Companies
• Insurance Companies
• Bankers
• The Tea Party
• "Wall Street" and Venture Capitalists
• 2nd Amendment advocates
• The Supreme Court
• "Talk Radio"
• The Koch Brothers
• Fox News and the Wall St. Journal
• The Pro-Life Movement
• The Catholic Church
• "Fast Food" makers and distributors
• Tobacco companies
• The State of Arizona and other border-control advocates
• Voter ID advocates
• Multinational corporations
• The heirs of "large" estates

A remarkable list. Are we missing any?

Hiatus.

We have neglected this journal for several months, and our excuse is simple. We've had nothing much to say that wasn't expressed by others with greater felicity. Now, however, we dare to speak up.


Our country has serious troubles beyond debt and unemployment. The premise of our republic is not the "right" to a job, not a "right" to healthcare, nor education, nor housing, nor other materialist "rights", rather it is

...[we] are endowed by their [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

 It is now obvious that the current Administration intends to supplant this sacred declaration with that of the Menu of Materialist Entitlements. Furthermore, the Administration, in order to realize this goal, is attacking the social institutions and conventions that would impede the citizens' reduction to serfs beholden to an all-powerful federal government for direction in every significant aspect of their lives.

This Administration, with its Czars and Mandates, must be turned out in November. Otherwise, Lord help us, while the federal powers still permit an appeal to Heaven.

 

Two Paths Diverged.

With which of these statements do you agree?

• The prevalence of gun-related violent crime requires that we remove the possession of handguns and "assault weapons" from 2nd Amendment protections.
• There should be limits imposed by government on the amount of money that an individual can make per year.
• Freedom of speech should not include "hate speech", that is, speech that is considered offensive or hurtful to others.
• There should be no display or expression of religious belief allowed on public property or using public facilities whatsoever.
• The risk in allowing decisions about medical care and retirement to be made by individuals is too great to be left unsupervised by government authorities.
• The federal government should encourage the use of alternate and renewable fuels by high taxes on fossil fuels.
• Welfare or unemployment benefits should be provided to people for an unlimited period of time.
• Conditions of race, religion, sexual orientation, or economic circumstance should be considerations in prison sentencing guidelines.
• State governments cannot be trusted to provide for the welfare of their citizens.
• The use of tobacco products should be prohibited on all public property, both indoors and out-of-doors.
• Private property rights should restricted in order to prevent environmental degradation.
• Private property rights should be restricted to prevent the inordinate accumulation of wealth by an individual or group.
• Elections for public office should consider circumstances of "traditionally underrepresented" groups of people.
• I would give up my rights to private property for a guaranteed "living wage", housing, health care, and retirement pension.
• I would give up my right to vote for a guaranteed income, housing, health care, and retirement pension.

Lest We Forget.

The conflict in Iraq continues.

One Lousy Fly Fishing Year for the Huron River.

The chart says it all.

But We Meant So Well...

The Washington Post chronicles the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars in the Department of Housing and Urban Development on public housing projects that are either ficticious or going nowhere. This is a perfect example of the brain-dead spending that has been going on year in and year out by the Federal government, apparently with no accountability.

Essential Reading:

Victor Davis Hansen on how our view of entitlement is going to change...quickly.

The Wall Street Journal chronicles our slide to insolvency.

Mark Steyn considers the post-American planet.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Noonan: He is a Loser.

Now it becomes clear why experience is important: the President has gamed the debt ceiling crisis into a very serious risk of a downgrade of US debt instruments. The lofty speeches won't save us now.

Just Because It Is So Beautiful.

Politically-Induced Alcoholism.

Steven Ratnner has penned an excellent critique on the ethanol racket in the United States. He states clearly what many pols know but dare not speak: the US program to promote ethanol production for transporation fuels drives food prices up, is comparable in the energy to produce it than in what it displaces in petroleum, has led to a bizarre and contradictory arrangement of alcohol and petroleum imports and exports, and is a green pig-in-a-poke. But ethanolism does mean big federal subsidies to the agribusiness interests of the corn belt, including Iowa, an early presidential political milestone.

Postscript: a new AEI report on ethanolism can be found here.

What a "Three-to-One" Deficit Solution Means.

As the United States hurdles toward the Great Debt Extinction Asteroid, the predictable calls for "reasonableness" in a solution have manifested themselves in the "Three-to-One" Proposal: 3 parts spending cuts to 1 part tax increases. Exactly how reasonable is such a solution in what it would require for tax increases?

The "long term" solution proposes a $4T cut in debt over a decade. Assuming unprecedented fiscal discipline by the government, the 3:1 Solution would require $100B in new taxes in the coming year. Well, clearly, the Uber-Rich can accommodate such a paltry sum! No, not really. The top 5% of income earners contributed about $600B in taxes in 2008, so $100B would constitute a 17% increase in taxes for this group, if the entire $100B were extracted from their incomes. The effective tax rate for the top 5% would be raised from 21% of AGI to over 24%, or an average increased federal income tax burden of over $14K per return in this income bracket*.

And now, recall, gentle reader, that this top 5% of earners includes all households above $160K in AGI - so much for the protecting those earners under $250K.

We should not kid ourselves: the 3:1 Solution would hit hard even if Congers demonstrates remarkable restraint over the next decade, and will be much more painful if they behave as normal.

*Yes, the "average increased tax burden" is a silly statistic, for a low-ranking member of the 5% Club will not pay as much as an elite. But it's likely that a threshold member will pay a few thousand dollars more, which means a lot to these earners.

Ultra Premium Irony.

Yesterday the United States Government announced the release of 30M barrels of oil from the SPR to help ameliorate the effects of rising oil prices on economic recovery. We note, however, the effect of the Gulf drilling moratorium and glacial rate of new drilling permitting imposed by the Administration has been to reduce domestic oil production by 240K barrels per day, or nearly 90M barrels over the last year. And then there is the knock-on effect of lost jobs in the Gulf region. The White House can't be as clownish on this as they appear...can they?