Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
List of the states and their budget shortfalls are contained here.

CA's shortfall was over 50% of the budget in FY '10. FY '11 numbers are incomplete, so the number given in the chart is not accurate; according to other sources, it's approaching $30 billion. IL's shortfalls are also comically high - approaching 50% for 3 straight years (FY '10, '11, and '12). Arizona and Nevada both have awful percentages as well. Note: a majority of states are < 20%.

Of course it's important to keep in mind that these are the shortfalls before the budgets are fixed. We've had really bad shortfalls here in AZ the last few years, but each year they, at least eventually, pass a budget that balances for that year. Admittedly they use a little slight of hand/accounting gimmicks, but fundamentally it's balanced at the end of the year. So, no comparison to the out-of-control federal budget where 41% of spending has no revenue to back it up.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=711
List of the states and their budget shortfalls are contained here.

CA's shortfall was over 50% of the budget in FY '10. FY '11 numbers are incomplete, so the number given in the chart is not accurate; according to other sources, it's approaching $30 billion. IL's shortfalls are also comically high - approaching 50% for 3 straight years (FY '10, '11, and '12). Arizona and Nevada both have awful percentages as well. Note: a majority of states are < 20%.

Only 4 states (Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota) without shortfalls. All relatively small population and if I remember correctly ND had some major oil finds.

Our state budget this year is at all time high... supposedly it's not going to create budget problems in the future since it's mostly one time capital projects. I miss Sarah ... we could use another $1000 bucks for every state resident.

Each time our state had a shortfall they tapped into the reserves ($10billion+ saved so far i believe) and try to pass a state income/sales tax. And try to tap into the permanent fund. EVERY $#@# time we have budget shortfall. it's comical. maybe I can go along with state sales/income tax if they can ever control the spending side for a change when oil prices are high.

 

[Tundra]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I didn't vote for Sarah but she did right by windfall taxes on oil drilling up here. I thought it was removal of state oil tax breaks but whatever... it was the right thing to do.

Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska's Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry — a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared

And looks like our capital expenditure went from $1.5B to $2B ... with $1B federal funds for total of about $3B. And that's without the bridge to nowhere. lots of talk about pork barrel and we still get the bucks.

 

[SteveF]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

yet she criticizes anyone else who attempts to raise taxes. more hypocrisy, not surprising.

 

[Sloe Gin]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

So why this sudden need to quit spending now? Why not ten years ago? 8? I didn't see you guys on here then sayiing the utmost pressing need of government was to cut spending. None of you were whining and complaining while Bush was running up the largest deficits in history

I'll chime in by first saying I love how everyone here proves you wrong; yet you continue to spew your faulty logic.

I've been clamoring for spending to stop ever since I learned about politics. I don't want it to stop being spent on things that matter, like our military. I want it to stop where it counts, like teachers and schools; like welfare and social security that just encourage people to use the system instead of being productive members of society; like giving aid to countries that don't deserve it.

New Jersey got it right by standing up to the idiots. I hope the rest of our country can do the same.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

sounds like our current regime. and i bring up the media because I don't expect them to profile Michelle Obama's trip anytime soon, nor Obama's every 3rd week vacation schedule.

What am I missing here? Why are you bringing up the First Lady's vacation in Europe? Do you see some ulterior motive coming from it?

I've never understood peoples' obsession with presidential vacations (or, in the is case, it's the President's family). It's not like the POTUS is cut off from the world while on vacation. The guy will get four or five hours to himself that day rather than his normal one hour. People need to get off the POTUS vacation kick. I saw it with Pres. Bush while he would go home to his ranch, and I saw it earlier this summer when Pres. Obama went to Maine. It's just silly.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

When you ask the common schmucks of the country to "make sacrifices" and then go on vacation on the taxpayers' dime, it's a bit ridiculous. And yes, the president being on vacation somehow being cut off from the daily **** he has to learn about / make decisions on is equally ridiculous. He still gets his briefings, just like any other day and is always in touch with his advisors.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I'll chime in by first saying I love how everyone here proves you wrong; yet you continue to spew your faulty logic.

I've been clamoring for spending to stop ever since I learned about politics. I don't want it to stop being spent on things that matter, like our military. I want it to stop where it counts, like teachers and schools; like welfare and social security that just encourage people to use the system instead of being productive members of society; like giving aid to countries that don't deserve it.

New Jersey got it right by standing up to the idiots. I hope the rest of our country can do the same.

Your position is really indicative with the whole...stop govt spending! movement.

You don't want one dollar spent...on things that you don't want spending on. What kind of stance is that? Its like Bob who says...stop spending! Of course, he wants to ramp up govt spending on his own issues.

And everyone has their issue...I see education as critical to the country's competitive future and the military as a huge drain on the country's competitiveness. Often business conservatives love corporate welfare.

If you really believe in low spending you have to be quick to cut spending on all issues and for you that may mean the military, NASA and limit border security. Otherwise your just like everyone else (wanting spending on just your issues), the only difference that you just talk about govt spending and others don't.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

What am I missing here? Why are you bringing up the First Lady's vacation in Europe? Do you see some ulterior motive coming from it?

I've never understood peoples' obsession with presidential vacations (or, in the is case, it's the President's family). It's not like the POTUS is cut off from the world while on vacation. The guy will get four or five hours to himself that day rather than his normal one hour. People need to get off the POTUS vacation kick. I saw it with Pres. Bush while he would go home to his ranch, and I saw it earlier this summer when Pres. Obama went to Maine. It's just silly.

I bring it up because A. they're not spending money here.
B. the media crucified Bush for all of his vacations which were I believe less than 1/2 of the Obama's thusfar, maybe even less.
C. the golf trips. Comparison of B vs. O and it's pretty stark

again, I don't care THAT much about it, but since the media are unwilling to scrutinize Obama in any meaningful way such as examining his policies/plans and potential outcomes I find it more and more interesting as time goes on just how much he can get away with

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Your position is really indicative with the whole...stop govt spending! movement.

You don't want one dollar spent...on things that you don't want spending on. What kind of stance is that? Its like Bob who says...stop spending! Of course, he wants to ramp up govt spending on his own issues.

And everyone has their issue...I see education as critical to the country's competitive future and the military as a huge drain on the country's competitiveness. Often business conservatives love corporate welfare.

If you really believe in low spending you have to be quick to cut spending on all issues and for you that may mean the military, NASA and limit border security. Otherwise your just like everyone else (wanting spending on just your issues), the only difference that you just talk about govt spending and others don't.

Well one thing you have to seperate is the spending thing the federal government is constitutionally required to provide (i.e. military to protect us, control national borders, conduct foreign policy) vs all the other crap that has bloated the federal budget. Education is critical to the country's competitive future but show me a study that says spending more actually results in smart kids. Education is a dangerous money pit. Teachers want more money to get better results but then turn around and say they can't be judged on results because its about the family structure and teachers can only do so much. They can't have it both ways...

Corporate welfare is stupid, the whole point of the free market is that you must stay competitive to survive. Propping up businesses that don't learn this lesson is bad for everyone. Businesses need to fail if they can't stay competitive. I can't stand the billion spend on GM, Banks, etc.

The military whether you like it or not is a necessary expense. Now I will concede that there plenty of waste within the military like every other government entity. There is no reason to have bases in some if not most of the following countries: Bulgaria, Greenland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK, Kosovo, Iraq, Cuba, Djibouti, Kuwait, Brazil, Bahrain, and Greece.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Well one thing you have to seperate is the spending thing the federal government is constitutionally required to provide (i.e. military to protect us, control national borders, conduct foreign policy) vs all the other crap that has bloated the federal budget. Education is critical to the country's competitive future but show me a study that says spending more actually results in smart kids. Education is a dangerous money pit. Teachers want more money to get better results but then turn around and say they can't be judged on results because its about the family structure and teachers can only do so much. They can't have it both ways...

Corporate welfare is stupid, the whole point of the free market is that you must stay competitive to survive. Propping up businesses that don't learn this lesson is bad for everyone. Businesses need to fail if they can't stay competitive. I can't stand the billion spend on GM, Banks, etc.

The military whether you like it or not is a necessary expense. Now I will concede that there plenty of waste within the military like every other government entity. There is no reason to have bases in some if not most of the following countries: Bulgaria, Greenland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, UK, Kosovo, Iraq, Cuba, Djibouti, Kuwait, Brazil, Bahrain, and Greece.

There was a time (during the Kennedy administration, for instance) that DOD accounted for over 50% of the federal budget. And we were at peace, JFK had only started ramping up our presence in Viet Nam.

Remember, aside from the salaries, benefits and costs of maintaining a huge active force (which we've seen recently is probably insufficient) DOD is the only entity in the federal government in the business of buying things. Hugely expensive things and lots of 'em. Other departments of the federal government are generally in the business of redistributing tax funds.

And while there are occasional problems with the costs associated with that acquisition, the urban legends about 500 dollar hammers and all the rest are grotesquely exagerrated. The military equivalents of prosaic pieces of civilian equipment can seem outrageously expensive if we ignore the circumstandces under which that equipment will be used.

Most of us, when it starts raining, take our gear inside and wait for the sun to come out--not the military. Most of us suspend our activities at night--not the military (in fact, night is the preferred environment in a lot of cases). Most of us don't parachute or rapel to work--not the military. Most of us, when at work or play, don't seek out the roughest terrain we can find--not the military.

So the article of faith among the true believers of the left that DOD is a huge pit of wasteful spending endures, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yes there are inter-service rivalries. Yes new weapons systems create "consituencies" in the multiple states where they will be built. All true. But taking the long view (which our bretheren on the left never seem to do) the taxpayers have been well served by DOD in the post war era. And hopefully will be into the future.

During WWII the Nazis had the best of technology: the ME262, Tiger tanks, type XXI U-boats, V-1 and V-2. And we prevailed by burying them with enormous numbers of our less sophisticated weapons. I don't include the atomic bomb in this analysis since it wasn't operational in time to use against the Reich (as we surely would have). During the Cold War the situation was exactly reversed: we were facing an enemy that vastly out numbered us, and we relied on technology to give us the edge.

Today we must continue relying on technology to give us the edge, not only to make certain our ability to prevail, but to do so in a way that minimizes our casualties. And those goals are and will remain hugely expensive.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

There was a time (during the Kennedy administration, for instance) that DOD accounted for over 50% of the federal budget. And we were at peace, JFK had only started ramping up our presence in Viet Nam.

Remember, aside from the salaries, benefits and costs of maintaining a huge active force (which we've seen recently is probably insufficient) DOD is the only entity in the federal government in the business of buying things. Hugely expensive things and lots of 'em. Other departments of the federal government are generally in the business of redistributing tax funds.

And while there are occasional problems with the costs associated with that acquisition, the urban legends about 500 dollar hammers and all the rest are grotesquely exagerrated. The military equivalents of prosaic pieces of civilian equipment can seem outrageously expensive if we ignore the circumstandces under which that equipment will be used.

Most of us, when it starts raining, take our gear inside and wait for the sun to come out--not the military. Most of us suspend our activities at night--not the military (in fact, night is the preferred environment in a lot of cases). Most of us don't parachute or rapel to work--not the military. Most of us, when at work or play, don't seek out the roughest terrain we can find--not the military.

So the article of faith among the true believers of the left that DOD is a huge pit of wasteful spending endures, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yes there are inter-service rivalries. Yes new weapons systems create "consituencies" in the multiple states where they will be built. All true. But taking the long view (which our bretheren on the left never seem to do) the taxpayers have been well served by DOD in the post war era. And hopefully will be into the future.

During WWII the Nazis had the best of technology: the ME262, Tiger tanks, type XXI U-boats, V-1 and V-2. And we prevailed by burying them with enormous numbers of our less sophisticated weapons. I don't include the atomic bomb in this analysis since it wasn't operational in time to use against the Reich (as we surely would have). During the Cold War the situation was exactly reversed: we were facing an enemy that vastly out numbered us, and we relied on technology to give us the edge.

Today we must continue relying on technology to give us the edge, not only to make certain our ability to prevail, but to do so in a way that minimizes our casualties. And those goals are and will remain hugely expensive.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here at all (caveat: I could easily be accused of being one of those "constituencies" you mentioned, having worked on many defense programs).

However, I do think there's another area of defense cost that you didn't address, specifically as it pertains to the map that Shirtless Guy posted. I get the feeling that far too often, our military is called upon to perform functions that are much more properly in the realm of the State Department. In fact, it seems like some of our foreign bases are simply incredibly inefficient foreign aid projects - sure, it helps the local economy of the host country, but if that is the end goal, is a military base really the best way to go about it?

Given the types of threats we're facing today, and the speed with which intelligence travels and counterstrike forces can be deployed, does it really make sense to have so many huge, "traditional" military bases throughout the world? I hope that the answer is "yes" (since we're spending so much money on it), but in some cases I fear that the answer is "no."

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

And everyone has their issue...I see education as critical to the country's competitive future and the military as a huge drain on the country's competitiveness. Often business conservatives love corporate welfare.

This country spends enormous sums of money on education - what exactly has it gotten us relative to the rest of the industrialized world? Why don't we just pay an auditor to go to some of these other countries consistently rated above us on child performance and copy whatever it is they're doing? Wouldn't that make more sense than just throwing more money at the system that hasn't worked particularly well?

If you really believe in low spending you have to be quick to cut spending on all issues and for you that may mean the military, NASA and limit border security. Otherwise your just like everyone else (wanting spending on just your issues), the only difference that you just talk about govt spending and others don't.

...except for the fact that providing for the common defense and border security are clearly federal responsibilities.

 

[walrus]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

If you really believe in low spending you have to be quick to cut spending on all issues and for you that may mean the military, NASA and limit border security. Otherwise your just like everyone else (wanting spending on just your issues), the only difference that you just talk about govt spending and others don't.

Why can't you cut spending in some areas and not in others? Aren't those the tough decisions our politicians get paid to make.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

This country spends enormous sums of money on education - what exactly has it gotten us relative to the rest of the industrialized world? Why don't we just pay an auditor to go to some of these other countries consistently rated above us on child performance and copy whatever it is they're doing? Wouldn't that make more sense than just throwing more money at the system that hasn't worked particularly well?


...except for the fact that providing for the common defense and border security are clearly federal responsibilities.

not a bad idea but we don't even have to go abroad to find out why it works.

If money were the predominant variable in the equation we'd have the smartest kids in the world. It is a great example of form over substance. We have let professional educators dictate how children learn, what raises their self-esteem etc. and yet the results are terrible. They have spent a generation, or more, wasting money on their ideals of how to promote the student while selling that same student down the river for an increase in pay every other year.

If our kids were completely stupid then no schools would succeed, public or private (or home school). If it was only economic environment then no schools in poor areas would ever produce capable students. If it was only parental then all orphans would do worse than kids with two parents.

We've lowered our expectations for education and we are paying for it. It took a village mind you, it wasn't any one group by itself. BUT, parents have the ultimate responsibility for their children. It's funny, you take motivated parents sending their kids to a private school that doesn't follow the BS being shoveled by the Dept of Ed and the teachers union and you find what?...successful students.

If parents care then they make sure their kids get the best education they can. By whatever means necessary. How many parents send their kids to mediocre schools but still have a boat, a big SUV, a camp by the lake, multiple flat screen TV's, a built in bar-b-q on their paver patio and let the kids watch Jersey Shore instead of doing homework? Do parents spend more money on tutoring or cell phones for kids? Books or itunes?

There are plenty of stories of kids who were offspring of slaves, recent immigrants, high school dropouts (due to work), disabled parents etc. who have gone on to successful lives and most credit the involvement and expectation of their parents.

Any parent can ensure their children get an education..if the parent values education and is willing to make some sacrifices. Instead we have TV commercials touting kids going back to school as 'the most wonderful time of the year' as if getting your kids out of the house is the most important thing.

So, the education system is broken and while parents could overcome that issue, most are too busy watching The Bachlorette or some other drivel.

It really isn't that hard to be a good parent when it comes to education for your kids..you can be poor, not that bright yourself, whatever...put the effort into it and kids will learn.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here at all (caveat: I could easily be accused of being one of those "constituencies" you mentioned, having worked on many defense programs).

However, I do think there's another area of defense cost that you didn't address, specifically as it pertains to the map that Shirtless Guy posted. I get the feeling that far too often, our military is called upon to perform functions that are much more properly in the realm of the State Department. In fact, it seems like some of our foreign bases are simply incredibly inefficient foreign aid projects - sure, it helps the local economy of the host country, but if that is the end goal, is a military base really the best way to go about it?

Given the types of threats we're facing today, and the speed with which intelligence travels and counterstrike forces can be deployed, does it really make sense to have so many huge, "traditional" military bases throughout the world? I hope that the answer is "yes" (since we're spending so much money on it), but in some cases I fear that the answer is "no."

Base closings (domestic) are a horrible headache for DOD. My experience tells me the AF has one basic training base, Lackland. Why do the Army and Marine Corps require more than one? Surely we could expand one Army and one Marine Corps facility to meet their needs and close the others.

Yeah, we do a lot of nation building, but I'm not sure I see any way around it. By that I mean, who else but DOD has the manpower and equipment and organization to carry it out? Certainly not NGO's. And even if we transferred those funtions to another department, the cost wouldn't necessarily go down. More likely the opposite.

When we lost Clark AFB and Subic Bay in the Philippines there was considerable concern about our ability to project power in that part of the world. I guess we've made adjustments, although China's growing military threat, especially their navy, presumably is of great concern to Pentagon planners. And I further assume we are considering what weapons systems and what bases will be necessary to meet that threat.

The Germans, Koreans and Japanese want us in their countries and have been paying an increasing share of the cost of maintaining our forces there. But you raise an interesting point--which of our overseas bases have outlived their usefulness? I'm afraid that's an answer above my pay grade. But I stipulate that the services will do their best to hang on to a base as long as possible.

When I was in the AF an older sergeant told me a tale that I enjoy passing along and hope is true. It involved Wheelus, our SAC base in Libya. When Gaddafy (or however it's spelled) took over the country from King Idris, he demanded that we turn the base over to him, despite the fact that we had just signed a 50 (or was it 100) year lease.

As the story goes, we gave it back to him all right. But not 'til we'd torn every structure down and flown the wreckage out, pumped concrete down every pipe, turned the runways into gravel and pulled out all the wiring. I surely hope that's true.

One of the huge problems faced by our defense establishment is planning so far into the future, in matters great and small. Decisions made today will potentially impact conflicts ten years and more down the road. We generally get it right, but there are occasional problems: GI body armor and up armored humvees in Iraq to name a couple. And we don't have the industrial base and number of defense contractors we had years ago to make up for these deficits as quickly as we would like. Nobody's fault, just the way things are.

Bottom line for me: despite its many faults, I think we get our money's worth from DOD and I wish the rest of the federal establishment was as reliable and successful as our uniformed services.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I'm still not convinced the US education system is as bad as it's made out to be. Sure it's "ranked" behind other countries but by what measure? Which students are tested? Surely you're not going to include China or Japan in any rational conversation because not everyone makes it into the educational system.

The US is somewhat unique in that it provides education to everyone, even those with special needs. When you take countries like China where only the privileged have access to schools it artificially inflates their scores.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

There was a time (during the Kennedy administration, for instance) that DOD accounted for over 50% of the federal budget. And we were at peace, JFK had only started ramping up our presence in Viet Nam.

Remember, aside from the salaries, benefits and costs of maintaining a huge active force (which we've seen recently is probably insufficient) DOD is the only entity in the federal government in the business of buying things. Hugely expensive things and lots of 'em. Other departments of the federal government are generally in the business of redistributing tax funds.

And while there are occasional problems with the costs associated with that acquisition, the urban legends about 500 dollar hammers and all the rest are grotesquely exagerrated. The military equivalents of prosaic pieces of civilian equipment can seem outrageously expensive if we ignore the circumstandces under which that equipment will be used.

Most of us, when it starts raining, take our gear inside and wait for the sun to come out--not the military. Most of us suspend our activities at night--not the military (in fact, night is the preferred environment in a lot of cases). Most of us don't parachute or rapel to work--not the military. Most of us, when at work or play, don't seek out the roughest terrain we can find--not the military.

So the article of faith among the true believers of the left that DOD is a huge pit of wasteful spending endures, notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Yes there are inter-service rivalries. Yes new weapons systems create "consituencies" in the multiple states where they will be built. All true. But taking the long view (which our bretheren on the left never seem to do) the taxpayers have been well served by DOD in the post war era. And hopefully will be into the future.

During WWII the Nazis had the best of technology: the ME262, Tiger tanks, type XXI U-boats, V-1 and V-2. And we prevailed by burying them with enormous numbers of our less sophisticated weapons. I don't include the atomic bomb in this analysis since it wasn't operational in time to use against the Reich (as we surely would have). During the Cold War the situation was exactly reversed: we were facing an enemy that vastly out numbered us, and we relied on technology to give us the edge.

Today we must continue relying on technology to give us the edge, not only to make certain our ability to prevail, but to do so in a way that minimizes our casualties. And those goals are and will remain hugely expensive.

yes, yes, yes. thank you!

 

[MinnFan]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I'm still not convinced the US education system is as bad as it's made out to be. Sure it's "ranked" behind other countries but by what measure? Which students are tested? Surely you're not going to include China or Japan in any rational conversation because not everyone makes it into the educational system.

Regardless, I think we can all agree that it hasn't improved since the Dept. of Education was established.

- My quick and dirty solution to gov't spending:

I think most of us were happy with our standard of living in 2000. I say cut gov't spending back to the level of 2000 and adjust for inflation and population growth. Get rid of the Depts of Education, Energy, Agriculture and Homeland Security. Use that money to fund the increases in our military since 2000 and slowly reduce its budget over time as we pull out of our current conflicts.

After that has taken place pass a constitutional amendment saying that gov't spending can account for no more than 19% of GDP except in times of officially declared war.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

I'm still not convinced the US education system is as bad as it's made out to be. Sure it's "ranked" behind other countries but by what measure? Which students are tested? Surely you're not going to include China or Japan in any rational conversation because not everyone makes it into the educational system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/04/AR2007120400730.html