As soon as the elections were over, a wave of commentaries extolling the virtues of compromise appeared in the press. The common theme is that it is time for Democrats and Republicans alike to end partisan gridlock—to make compromises that will shrink federal deficits without driving us off “the fiscal cliff.”
It comes as no surprise to hear anti-tax activist Grover Norquist talk about tax cuts, but it does come as a surprise to hear him raise the subject of pink unicorns.
Senator Tom Coburn released the Wastebook 2012 today detailing the 100 most egregious wastes of taxpayer money. It's emblematic of the waste found everywhere in the federal budget.
President Obama’s economic ideas hold that government spending on construction, alternative energy sources welfare will inspire long term growth. But this theory has a big problem: Government is a terrible allocator of resources.
After 44 straight months of unemployment over 8%, our President still believes a government which spends big and taxes more will create prosperity. His policies are out of sync with what we know works.
"Forward" is a perfectly appropriate slogan for progressives. Progress suggests forward or upward motion. That's why revolutionaries and radicals as well as liberal incrementalists have always embraced some derivation of the forward trope. So ingrained are these directional concepts in our political language, we often forget they are mere geographic metaphors applied -- and often misapplied -- to policy disputes.
Every so often, an article crosses your desk that makes you feel like you’ve been hit between the eyes with a sledgehammer. Even if you have a solid understanding of the topic, and you notice that the facts at hand match your previous suspicions, somehow you still have to keep a grip on yourself because it is so staggering.
Barack Obama claims to be pro-growth. So does Greece, Spain, and almost everyone else. Why? Because admitting preference for the alternative—crushing, heavy-handed government interference that kills initiative and destroys wealth—is not attractive to any citizen of any country.
When Congress returns after recess, the astronomical levels of spending included in President Obama’s budget will face a vicious show down in this election year, which will make the debt ceiling debate look tame. And while our Campaigner in Chief is busy making jokes about eating dogs and claiming credit for the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama is facing intense scrutiny for his proposed changes to the military which will leave American vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.
The national media is dominated at this moment by two gigantic scandals involving the U.S. government. One involves the GSA- General Services Administration- and their excessive spending on a conference in Las Vegas. The other involves the U.S. Secret Service and their excessive behavior on a Presidential trip to Columbia. Both scandals present valuable lessons about the way our government operates.
Recently, I discussed the central economic policy of President Obama's budget and accompanying Presidential budget message. What drives economic recovery and growth according to the President and his budget is federal spending, deficits and debt, the fundamental tenets of the Keynesian economics that arose in the 1930s.
Obama unveils new budget calling for 1.3 trillion in deficit spending. Problem is, we don't have it.
When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney casually estimated that his effective tax rate is around 15 percent, progressives immediately pounced on the issue. To this ideological minority with its Ahab-like obsession on class warfare, a rich American paying an effective tax rate of “only” 15 percent is, a priori, a scandal of the first order.
"No business is going to expand in this market"
Americans who follow the workings of our government -- even if only casually -- presumably know that the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2010 elections. Fewer likely know that the Republican-controlled House gained a veto over federal spending on March 4, 2011.
Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson inputs on how we got here and how to get out in this colorful video.
Cutting $1.5 trillion from the federal budget, supposedly the goal of the Super Committee, sounds daunting. When you put those numbers into the context of the total federal budget and our exploding national debt, however, you realize it shouldn't be so hard. The Committee's real challenge—and it's a doozy—is a political system that discourages common sense.
"I have great respect for each of you individually, but collectively I'm worried that you're going to fail -- fail the country," former Bill Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles said last week to the 12-member joint congressional supercommittee tasked with cutting the federal deficit by some $1.2 trillion over 10 years.