USAFacts—a new way to gather government statistics

This non-profit has been launched by Steve Ballmer and wife Connie.  Although most non-profits established by wealthy capitalists claim to be non-partisan and unbiased, we’ll have to see about that.  When Ballmer gives interviews we’ll see the clues. But since I frequently use government statistics myself in making my points about medical costs, education, immigration, sex/gender, religion, animals, housing, etc., I welcome any source which can make sense of it all, particularly the blending of federal, state and local.  Federal dollars, for instance, are only 3% of total spending on education.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/full-interview-steve-ballmer-discusses-usafacts-new-10-k-government/

“USAFacts is a new data-driven portrait of the American population, our government’s finances, and government’s impact on society. We are a non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative and have no political agenda or commercial motive. We provide this information as a free public service and are committed to maintaining and expanding it in the future.

We rely exclusively on publicly available government data sources. We don’t make judgments or prescribe specific policies. Whether government money is spent wisely or not, whether our quality of life is improving or getting worse – that’s for you to decide. We hope to spur serious, reasoned, and informed debate on the purpose and functions of government. Such debate is vital to our democracy. We hope that USAFacts will make a modest contribution toward building consensus and finding solutions.”

https://usafacts.org/

  

The plan is to divide all government statistics by the four items in the Preamble’s mission statement.

“Revenue And Spending

Government revenue and expenditures are based on data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Each is published annually, although due to collection times, state and local government data are not as current as federal data. Thus, when combining federal, state, and local revenues and expenditures, the most recent year shown is 2014, the most recent year for which all three sets of data are available. We show government spending through two different lenses:

Spending by segment: We recategorized several programs and functions to align them with four constitutional missions based on the preamble to the constitution:

• Establish Justice and Ensure Domestic Tranquility
• Provide for the Common Defense
• Promote the General Welfare
• Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity

This approach is modeled after what businesses do for their own management accountability and shareholder reporting. Public companies present their businesses in segments – a logical framework for discussing the areas in which the they operate. We do the same for government. In using this constitutional framework, we have made judgements in how we group programs. . .

Spending by function: We also show spending by functional categories such as compensation for current and past employees, capital expenditures, transfer payments to individuals, interest on the debt, and payments for goods and services. “

50 + Years of Upward Bound—Is it working?

Today I received an article about Upward Bound summer institute at Ohio State University, https://odi.osu.edu/upward-bound/ . Launched in 1965, Upward Bound (UB) is one of the flagship federal college access programs targeted to low-income or potential first-generation college students.  So it’s now 50+ years old. The article included several photographs, and I noticed there were no white students, even though whites outnumber blacks and Hispanics in the low-income and disadvantaged statistics, which the program is supposed to address.
Then I began the tedious search for outcomes—the program is part of the War On Poverty and is 50+ years old.  I found a lot of on-line help in applying for a grant if I were an educational institution (that’s where the money goes,over 4,450 per student).  I found an annual report for 2015-16 published in 2018, but that was all about the tutoring programs, counseling, help with applications—numbers of students—all looked like things I thought schools were already doing.
The FY 2017 budget from the federal government was $312,052,710, with 70,000 participants, at $4,458 per participant. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/funding.html 
Finally I found an assessment for the 2004-05 school year “POLICY AND PROGRAM STUDIES SERVICE, REPORT HIGHLIGHTS, The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound on Postsecondary Outcomes, 7-9 years after scheduled High School Graduation, final report. (2009)
Scanning that, I came to these depressing conclusions.
“For students offered the opportunity to participate in the Upward Bound program, the study found that:

• Upward Bound had no detectable effect on the rate of overall postsecondary enrollment, or the type or selectivity of postsecondary institution attended. About four-fifths of both treatment and control group members attended some type of postsecondary institution.
• Upward Bound had no detectable effect on the likelihood of apply for financial aid or receiving a Pell grant.
• Upward Bound increased the likelihood of earning a postsecondary certificate or license from a vocational school but had no detectable effect on the likelihood of earning a bachelor’s or associate’s degree. Estimated impacts on receiving any postsecondary credential and receiving a bachelor’s degree are 2 and 0 percentage points, respectively, and are not statistically significant.

Upward Bound increased postsecondary enrollment or completion rates for some subgroups of students. For the subgroup of students with lower educational expectations at baseline—that is, the students who did not expect to complete a bachelor’s degree—Upward Bound increased the rate of postsecondary enrollment by 6 percentage points and postsecondary completion by 12 percentage points. Because targeting on the basis of lower educational expectations could create an incentive for applicants to understate their expectations, further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of Upward

• Bound on subgroups that could be more readily targeted. These exploratory analyses suggest that UB increased enrollment for students who were in tenth grade or above at the time of application, students who took a mathematics course below algebra in ninth grade, and students with a ninth grade GPA above 2.5.
• Longer participation in Upward Bound was associated with higher rates of postsecondary enrollment and completion.”

It would be political suicide to ever cut this program even though there is no detectable effect on the billions spent.

Weatherization Assistance Plan

The Weatherization Program in the new budget is one of the areas Democrats and media critics are complaining about. It's almost impossible to find a total for the amount spent in 41 years (since 1976), but it's billions, maybe trillions. Sometimes I see $225,000,000 annually, sometimes $191,000,000 + another $883 million from the states (2009), plus $5 Billion from ARRA. Really, how could there possibly be a home left in America that doesn't have insulation and air tight windows and doors? They talk about money saved and jobs created. So it's a jobs program? Money, not cold air, seems to be leaking from this program.  The Head Start program has been shown to have failed in its mission, but is used as a jobs program for adults and supporting industries.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0512/Weatherization-Assistance-Program-Job-creator-or-government-excess

Federal funding for the arts--clubbing the President over the budget

One of the arguments I've heard in favor of keeping the various arts funding programs of the federal government is the wildly successful musical, "Hamilton." You know--the one where the cast lectured the Vice President. Look at all the jobs it has produced!! Look how no ordinary citizen could possibly afford or even get a ticket!! It apparently had a small grant to get off the ground and the rest was history. Who really believes that there were no private investors for this in the shopping around stages? And now we have "Go fund me" type sources--at least for liberal causes. I helped fund the movie about the abortionist, Gosnell. We helped with a funding page for a rare disease. And there are funding opportunities for small business start ups--I get an email about once a week on marvelous innovative products. But what about all the great ideas/performers/artists the government by-passes, or all the horrid things it does fund which the public hates? 

Yesterday Facebook was awash with hashtag  IMLS--Institute of Museum and Library Services.  Since it was only liberals posting it, I figured someone feared Donald Trump was going to do something awful.  All of a sudden libraries and museums are going to collapse because fewer federal dollars are going for studies that no one reads and cushy federal jobs for conferences and workshops? Is that what people think makes libraries and museums work? Look, when Laura Bush (a real librarian) was advocating for libraries and museums, members of the American Library Association were boycotting her appearances. When George W. Bush was reading to school children on 9/11, all manner of paranoid plots blossomed when he took a few minutes not to alarm them. So save your hash tags and support your local bond issues--that's what pays for your library services--we the people.

Then when your public library turns down your request for conservative or Christian titles, you know where to complain.  This is not about money.  The amount the federal government puts into the arts wouldn't build a bomber or drone.  It's about where does the responsibility lie, and who should be in control.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/17/im-calling-bs-on-the-la-times-using-hamilton-as-a-pawn-in-trumps-budget-game-commentary.html

http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/16/14948108/trump-nea-neh-budget-cuts-proposal-arts-funding-effects

Community Relations Service

For over 50 years the federal government has been funding "conciliation and mediation services" ($14,500,000 in 2016) to local groups to reduce "tensions, conflicts, and civil disorders arising from actions, policies, and practices that are perceived to be based on race, ethnicity, or national origin." Oops.  Now we need to add all those gender squish words to the original charge for Department of Justice. Imagine the community organizers who live well on that one--or got a start in politics!

2016 Performance Budget

We're not as generous as we like to think

I saw a poster on the internet about how much we provide in foreign aid (not the one shown here) compared to taking care of our own poor, veterans elderly, etc. Pure mythology. We just aren't that generous--at least in the area of foreign aid.

We provide very little aid, and much of it has strings attached. Some countries' medical aid, for instance, has strings attached tied to our attempt to change their social patterns--not using DDT or using contraception or not using contraception--or pressure to allow our military bases. Americans seriously overestimate, 1) percent of gays in the population, and 2) percent of our own generosity. Both figures are probably 2-3% at best, and maybe less, but Americans routinely will guesstimate 20-30%.

"The entire international affairs budget – which includes diplomacy and aid – is less than 2 percent of the federal budget. Poverty-focused development assistance is about half of that – for a grand total of 0.7 percent of the U.S. federal budget in Fiscal Year 2014. Americans vastly overestimate how much the U.S. spends on aid. Surveys report that, on average, Americans believe the U.S. spends as much as 30 percent of the federal bud­get on foreign aid, more than Social Security or Medicare." (The Hill.com)

On the other hand, we do take care of our own quite well--24% of the 2014 budget on social security, 24% in various health programs (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP), and 11% for "safety net" or almost 60% of our budget. Defense is only 18%--much smaller than our social assistance programs. There's a lot of waste and graft in that and it provides huge salaries along the way for the legions who are helping the needy, but it's a fact.

Myths about foreign aid

Percentages of federal tax dollars

The latest report on President’s Malaria Initiative

U.S. aid devoted to malaria increased from $149 million in 2000 to $1.2 billion in 2008.
In June 2005, President George W.Bush launched President’s Malaria Initiative PMI, “a major 5-year, $1.2 billion initiative to support a rapid scale-up of malaria prevention and treatment interventions in 15 high-burden countries in sub-Saharan Africa.The Initiative is led by the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID) and implemented together with the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).When it was launched, the goal of PMI was to reduce malaria-related mortality by 50 percent across the 15 PMI-supported countries through a rapid scale-up of four proven and highly effective malaria prevention and treatment measures: ITNs; IRS; accurate diagnosis and prompt treatment with ACTs; and IPTp. [insect treated nets; indoor residual spraying; artemisinin-based combination therapies;  intermittent preventive treatment of pregnant women . ] http://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/pmi-reports/president's-malaria-initiative-strategy-2015-2020.pdf

But as you can see from this graph in 2012, the rates and deaths from malaria are still much higher than when DDT was allowed.  This chart starts with 1983, and DDT ended in the 1970s after Silent Sprint written by Rachel Carson, a non-scientist, became popular.     She may have killed more people than WWII.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/feb/03/malaria-deaths-research

 http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/development/global-malaria-mortality-1980-2010-systematic-analysis#sthash.pTcujSy1.dpuf

• Global malaria deaths increased from 995,000 in 1980 to a peak of 1,817,000 in 2004, and then decreased to 1,238,000 in 2010.
• In Africa, malaria deaths increased from 493,000 in 1980 to 1,613,000 in 2004, and then decreased by about 30% in 2010 to 1,133,000. Outside of Africa, malaria deaths have steadily decreased, from 502,000 in 1980 to 104,000 in 2010.
• The majority (65%) of all malaria deaths occur in children under age 15. Individuals ages 15-49 years, 50-69 years, and 70 years or older accounted for 20%, 9% and 6%, respectively, of malaria deaths in 2010.
• Overall, 433,000 more deaths occurred worldwide in individuals aged 5 years or older in 2010 than was suggested by official WHO estimates In 2012 an important research report on malaria was published pointing out serious errors in the tracking of malaria deaths. (The Lancet, “Global Malaria Mortality Between 1980 and 2010: A Systematic Analysis,”) Their figure of 1.2 million deaths for 2010 is nearly double the 655,000 estimated in last year's World Malaria Report.

"You learn in medical school that people exposed to malaria as children develop immunity and rarely die from malaria as adults," said [Christopher] Murray, IHME director and the study's lead author. "What we have found in hospital records, death records, surveys and other sources shows that just is not the case."

Most deaths are still in children, but a fifth are among those aged 15 to 49, 9% are among 50- to 69-year-olds and 6% are in people over 70, so a third of all deaths are in adults. In countries outside sub-Saharan Africa, more than 40% of deaths were in adults.

In Africa, though, the contribution of malaria to children's deaths is higher than had been thought, causing 24% of their deaths in 2008 and not 16% as found by a report by Black and colleagues, whose methodology was used in the World Malaria Report.

The current PMI funding and goals ended with 2014.  The only budget information I found for post 2015 is a draft.  Don’t know if it was approved, but it does report a funding gap.  Since 2009 the funding definitely has not kept up with the initial push.

http://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/tools-curricula/pmi-strategy-2015-2020-draft-for-external-review.pdf?sfvrsn=6

http://reliefweb.int/report/world/president-s-malaria-initiative-strategy-2015-2020

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/

Decreasing the increase

The Democrats believe in and pass federal programs that require coercion and the Republicans believe in and pass federal programs that require choice. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of difference in cost or outcome. They all require sending money to Washington and letting them design the program. I sometimes wish the Republicans were the cheapskates (with our money) the Democrats accuse them of being--but all they can do is decrease the rate of increase--which brings out the howls that Republicans hate the poor, women, gays and children. Health insurance costs were increasing at a lower rate under Bush than Obama, but they were still increasing.

Head Start—a very expensive feel good poverty program

The omnibus 1,582 page appropriations bill includes increased funding for Head Start and Early Head Start by $612 million, to $8.6 billion. This administration and those before it have studied this program carefully with the same results--it doesn't work. The 2012 study found little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of participants. So why continue to fund it? What politician of either party could risk the backlash?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/universal-preschools-empty-promises

Even though 74% of American 4 year olds are already in pre-school, Obama thinks the government needs to expand even more into this area and crowd out private and church programs, which will probably be declared "substandard" the way he did with health insurance which over 80% were satisfied with. Maybe he can reduce the gap between rich and poor by making all preschools perform like Head Start?

"The Columbus school district says it will find a way to expand pre-kindergarten even without the money that a levy would’ve raised." Columbus Dispatch Nov. 28, 2013. Professional educators are a powerful lobby for early childhood education--follow the money. Pre-schools have a patch work of standards by city and state for buildings, curricula, teachers, aides, safety, play time, unions--I mean, can you see the economic opportunities here for colleges of education, the building trades, the regulatory agencies?

How to save $42 billion without cutting poverty programs

Eliminate duplicative and unnecessary Government programs. None of these are poverty programs (close to $1 trillion).  Many of these hide in place as “capitalism” or private sector help being boosted by the government. If these are private sector, let them support them. It’s inefficient for the government to do it. Planned Parenthood certainly doesn’t need taxpayers support—there are enough crazies out there willing to send them their tax deductible donation as a Christmas gift.

International affairs

• The Overseas Private Investment Corporation
• The Export-Import Bank

Energy—Dept. of

• Commercial Deployment and Technology Development
• The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• Energy Frontier Research Centers
• Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer

USDA

• The Market Access Program
• The Foreign Agricultural Service

Transportation

• Return power to the states
• Amtrak
• The New Starts Transit Program
• Intercity Rail Subsidies

Economic and Regional Development –yes, some developers, electricians and contractors would squeal

• Community Development Block Grants
• Economic Development Administration

Education

• Competitive Grants Under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• Head Start (note: this would be political suicide, even though after 40 years it has never shown results)

Cultural Agencies

Labor

• Job Corps
• Corporation for National and Community Service

Health (or death as it turns out)

• Title X Family Planning Grants (a lot of this goes to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country)

Administration of Justice (these mostly go to state and local governments which then are weakened if the support is withdrawn—huge number of employees)

• Community-Oriented Policing Services (the federal gov’t is not supposed to be policing our local communities)
• The Legal Services Corporation

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/08/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2013

Government workers who are paid less than minimum wage

The 2014 budget requested $1.061 billion for the Corporation for National and Community Service, an increase of $12.2 million over the 2012 funding level. This is our tax money used for "unpaid volunteers." That means they work below minimum wage, but all the government workers in the agency above them get paid nice salaries with benefits. In true government double speak it is supposed to expand ...opportunity and embrace competition. ???? This is not to say people haven't had wonderful experiences in AmeriCorp or benefitted from being farmed out to a church organization that helps immigrants, but somewhere we need to let these organizations stand on their own and actually hire people to take their place in the work force.

I was in Brethren Volunteer Service as were my sisters in the 1950s. It can be done without your tax dollars. This is me showing off a pair of shoes after we went shopping in downtown Fresno. The washing machine (wringer) was in the shed. It was a great experience—many churches now offer volunteer opportunities at no cost to the taxpayer, except from her own pocket.

The Job Corps is a “Great Society” program, which offers job-training services to disadvantaged youths age 16–24 in 125 sites across the nation. The Department of Labor Office of Inspector General estimates each Job Corps participant who is successfully placed into any job costs taxpayers $76,574 (I don't know what the unsuccessful cost us). They are less likely to finish high school than those disadvantaged who don't participate, and when employed, make 22 cents more per hour than a control group. I'll bet McDonald's or Wendy's could have trained them and at least taken them to assistant manager, beginning at minimum wage.

I'm fine with internships and volunteerism; I'm fine with the minimum wage for entry level jobs for people who need to learn job skills, team work, and dealing with the public. It's the Democrats who scream about minimum wage not being high enough, and then pay their political lackeys at the Obama campaign (OFA) or fancy non-profits nothing. They have options: full time for nothing, or half time for nothing. I wonder if they get Obamacare?

Three years ago the Labor Department said it was going to do something about this—but in the for-profit sector only. Non-profits like the President's campaign arm is free to abuse employees, I mean interns and unpaid volunteers, any way they choose.

Unintended consequences of helping

Together our two parties have created a cushion for the unemployed, disabled, the poor, single mothers and low income--the earned income tax credit (EITC), child tax credits, Supplemental Security Income for the elderly poor, Medicaid, S-CHIP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), unemployment insurance, food stamps (SNAP), subsidized school meals, summer lunch programs, low-income housing assistance, energy assistance, block grants to create education programs that have almost no long term results (like Head Start), Social Services Block Grants (Ohio got $63 million+)  and more. GW Bush expanded the food stamp coverage in 2002 and 2008, and Obama added the people to the nearly 50 million today, so if there is a food stamp president, they should both have the “honor.”

For many receiving state and federal benefits, they can't afford to work, or take a raise/better job because they would lose benefits. I heard a man on a Christian talk show last week say that after he and his wife lived together (blended family) for 3 years, they decided to marry because they thought it was a poor example for the kids, but she lost a lot of benefits by getting married.  I doubt that this was the intention of these programs, many begun in the 1960s, but it is the unintended consequences of making people more helpless and less independent. 

The only difference between the parties is the Republicans say this isn't good but vote to add to the deficit anyway, and the Democrats love it because it buys them votes. And it takes 74% of our federal budget when you toss in Social Security and Medicare for the older not poor (who paid into those programs their entire working lives).

"

Why the scare tactics from the White House?

There are no cuts; it only slows down the spending. The 2012 federal budget was 3.53 trillion. The projected 2013 (by  CBO)  federal budget (WITH SEQUESTER)  is 3.55 trillion;  2014,  3.6 trillion;  2015,  3.8 trillion;  2016,  over 4 trillion.  So you see, he got his tax hikes and the GOP got no cuts.

Mr. Obama, you are an embarrassment.

There's no doubt President Obama is using the so-called Washington Monument maneuver in the fight with Republicans over sequestration budget cuts. It's a time-honored tactic of bureaucratic warfare: When faced with cuts, pick the best-known and most revered symbol of government and threaten to shut it down. Close the Washington Monument and say, "See? This is what happens when you cut the budget." Meanwhile, all sorts of other eminently cuttable government expenditures go untouched.

So now Obama is warning of drastic cuts in food safety, air traffic control, police and fire protection -- in all sorts of services that will allegedly be slashed if the rate of growth of some parts of the federal budget is slowed.

But perhaps the biggest example of the Washington Monument maneuver is coming from the Defense Department, where it goes by another name. Over many decades of defense budget battles, the Pentagon has often used a tactic known as a "gold watch." It means to answer a budget cut proposal by selecting for elimination a program so important and valued -- a gold watch -- that Pentagon chiefs know political leaders will restore funding rather than go through with the cut.

Byron York

Sequestration, or where are the cuts?

Most of our tax money (70%) goes for social programs, especially Medicare, Medicaid, VA, and Social Security.  Some conservatives don’t like Social Security and Medicare called an “entitlement,” but they truly are—we should be entitled to what we paid in with interest. (I’m not because I have a teacher’s pension and get nothing for what I paid in to SS in non-government jobs, nor a spousal benefit.)  And it isn't the fault of Obama, as some detractors claim (he's got more than enough problems without giving him that one.) That will only increase.

The defense budget is extremely small, although the sequestration was Obama's idea (now trying to blame GOP) and is a rather small amount, it will certainly hurt the thousands of civilian employees right now as other lower paid jobs become unavailable because of raising the minimum wage—which always hurts the economy. It's a wonderful 2-fer for the president to hurt the economy even more which seems to be his major desire as he flits from gay marriage to stomping out freedom of religion to passing out free contraceptives instead of freeing up businesses to create more wealth.

The federal government should have stayed out of education--it wastes a lot of that money, and that responsibility was left to the states. Head Start, one of the biggest federal wastes with a 40 year history of failure, will probably get money better spent on bridges and roads, that he never gets around to that despite his promises. http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/23/chart-of-the-week-70-of-spending-goes-to-dependence-programs/

Where does the money go?

In 2010, the federal government spent 61% of its finances on housing and community services, welfare and social services, recreation and culture, health, education, retirement benefits, disability benefits and unemployment benefits. This amounts to 2,124 billion dollars or $19,316/household. "Government Current Expenditures by Function, Table 3.16." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Sept. 14, 2011.

http://www.justfacts.com/socialspending.basics.asp

How smart is WiseWoman?

In common parlance, the words "wise woman" mean someone who depends on cards and herbs and pagan rituals to heal or help someone. But not so in the federal government.

The WISEWOMAN program (Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for WOMen Across the Nation) is administered through CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP). The WISEWOMAN program provides low-income, under-insured or uninsured women with chronic disease risk factor screening, lifestyle intervention, and referral services in an effort to prevent cardiovascular disease. The priority age group is women aged 40–64 years.

CDC funds 21 WISEWOMAN programs, which operate on the local level in states and tribal organizations.

The current budget for this program which essentially screens women for health problems is $16 million and change. So I was browsing through the screening pie charts and was more than a little shocked to see that 84% with hypertension, 84% with high sholesterol and 88% with diabetes had previously been diagnosed.

It seems we have an awful lot of programs to meet the needs of the uninsured, but wasn't that the reason we needed to rush Obamacare through without reading it--because so many didn't have these things, which are clearly right under their noses, plus screening women previously diagnosed. A screening or a diagnosis or a counseling moment doesn't mean treatment, doesn't mean research. Actually, doesn't mean diddly squat if the patient doesn't follow through.

You can look at the list of accomplishments, but you'll find nothing about mortality or extended life for those participating.

Milton Friedman--which government departments to eliminate

Twelve years ago, Milton Friednman discussed with Peter Robinson of Hoover Institution (Stanford) the basics of libertarianism, and the cabinet offices he would eliminate in the federal government. . . Agriculture, Commerce, Education, etc. down to about four fundamental functions. If you have time, watch the entire interview. If you want to see just the "abolish" parts, start around 20. Rand Paul has suggested many of the same cuts to reduce the budget deficit.



Obviously, Glenn Beck is no right wing, fascist kook--he's a libertarian and channeling Milton Friedman, but without the blackboard. (A fascist believes in more government, not less--Nazi is shorthand for national socialism.) Friedman says, behind every government program is a smoke stack--a cost to a third party for which they receive no compensation. More housing has been torn down under HUD than public housing built. Government now owns something like 1/3 of all the land in the U.S.

The Recession Did Not Create Our Entitlement Crisis

There have been some whoppers fed to us at the Obama buffet table of lies, but this one is almost beyond belief. Our entitlements have been in trouble for as long as I've been paying attention, which is about 25 years. Social Security and Medicare are 1/3 of the federal budget. That didn't just happen in 2008! There is no "trust fund"--and we've killed off the workers who could have paid into that fantasy program before they were born. Our population's birthrate is almost below replacement rate--just the way environmentalists want so they can save poor, tired Mother Earth, the goddess stand-in of their pantheist drivel. If every woman of child bearing age could have a baby tomorrow, we'd still have to wait 20+ years for them to contribute to our health and old age care. Talk about poor planning! Or no planning. The job losses from the Waxman Markey climate bill which will raise energy prices by 55-90 percent will kill whatever hope we had of funding not only alternatives (and their fantasy jobs), but any job growth anywhere, and create more unemployment resulting in even more of a shortfall in entitlement programs.

Here are some reform ideas. I'm sure Obama won't listen--after all, he wants this to be another crisis on Bush's watch so he has an excuse to take over even more of the economy--which so far hasn't done a thing but put us more in debt.

Our health care system

And I use the term loosely, since it really isn't a system in any sense that we understand that word.

"In 2009 Medicare expenditures will exceed $400 billion, representing 13% of the federal budget and about one-fifth of all US expensitures on health care." JAMA, Feb. 11, 2009 citing Medicare: A Primer 2009,

and remember please, it isn't "free" for those of us who use it. Also, the early boomers hit 64 this year. Someone didn't do the math back in 1965. All the years I worked, I paid into Medicare (because I wasn't on Social Security), and now I pay quarterly to use it, plus I have to buy Supplemental to a private company if I really want any coverage that's meaningful. Of course, this can't be sustained, but we also have Medicaid and SCHIP, so don't kid yourself, Obamacare will cost even more. Also keep in mind, that the more successful our Nanny State is at getting people to stop smoking, eat more vegetables and fruits, lose weight, exercise more, and not visit bathhouses to have sex with infected men, the longer people are going to live, which is just going to add to the health costs as 90 and 100 year olds eventually wear out from all that healthy living.

The cost for hope and change--women and minorities hit hardest

“President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush's budget deficits, President Obama pro­posed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq. [Where, oh where, are all the weepers and moaners who decried the cost of the war for 6 years? nb]

The President's tax policy is the only sharp break in economic policy. President Bush reduced taxes by approximately $2 trillion; President Obama has proposed raising taxes by $1.4 trillion. In doing so, President Obama has rejected the most successful Bush fiscal policy. In the 18 months following the 2003 tax rate cuts, economic growth rates doubled, the stock market surged 32 percent, and the economy created 1.8 million jobs, followed by 5.2 million more jobs in the next 27 months. Not until the housing bubble burst several years later did the economy finally lose steam. Pro-growth lawmakers should embrace tax relief policies that have proven successful, while rejecting the runaway spending that has been business as usual in Washington. . . President Obama's pledge to halve the budget deficit by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The budget deficit will quadruple in 2009 to $1.75 trillion, and cutting that level in half would still leave deficits twice as high as under President Bush.” The Obama Budget