Tag Archives: budget


A bold faced lie is a lie told with a straight and confident face (hence “bold-faced”), usually with the corresponding tone of voice and emphatic body language of one confidently speaking the truth. That’s the definition of a bold faced lie according to Wikipedia.

The Democratically controlled Senate has not voted on a budget in 3 ½ years. That’s a fact and it is contrary to law. It has been a major point of contention so there is no possibility whatever that Sen. Claire McCaskill does not know that the Senate has failed to pass a budget in all that time. Now watch the video and see what a bold faced lie looks like.


Richard Foster is the chief actuary for Medicare.  An actuary is someone who is a whiz bang with numbers and smarter than Einstein or even Paul Ryan.  Foster is the man behind the numbers of the recently released Medicare Trustee’s Annual Report.  At a conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Foster explained that his calculations show Medicare (with Obamacare included) will run totally out of funds in 2024 as it is currently structured.

Foster’s actuarial machinations assume the federal government will cut payments to doctors by 30.9% in compliance with mandates already written into the law.  But they won’t do that.  Without that reduction in government expense the funds will be depleted even sooner.  The assumption is unrealistic, but as Foster explains, government actuaries are not given the latitude to do their math on the basis that the government will not enforce the law.

In the name of extending coverage to include everyone, the Democrats created a plan that in 10 years will cover no one.  Something will have to change.  That’s not an opinion; it’s arithmetic.


It is not news when an unopposed candidate wins an election.  However, it is news when a virtually unopposed incumbent President only wins state primaries by small margins against perennial crank contenders.  But it’s news that goes unreported. Many people don’t even know there are Democratic primaries this year.  Obama may actually lose in Arkansas.  Read more

Obama’s budget proposal was defeated 414 to zero in the house and 99 to zero in the Senate.  Not a single Democrat supported the President in his plan.  Even the New York Times reports these defeats, so the voters are aware of them.

The attempt to paint Republicans as engaging in a war against women is backfiring.  Romney is staying on target with his Debt clock.

The case is building for a possible resounding defeat.  The hurdle remains getting enough electoral votes to overcome the solidly Democratic states.


The most predictable financial crisis the nation has ever faced and Democrats fight every attempt to thwart it.  Our problems are Afghanistan, Iran, jobs, declining quality of healthcare and skyrocketing federal debt.  But all the Democrats want to discuss is sex.

It is hard to know which is worse, this diversionary tactic by the Democratic machine or Republicans for giving it legs.  Given Obama’s horrible record on both domestic and international fronts, you can hardly blame the Democrats for wanting to change the subject.  Paul Ryan is the man with the right message and he sticks to it.  The candidates would do well to do the same.


Why the Debt Ceiling Fight Is So Fierce

Really now, how serious is this national debt problem?.  Figures fly at us like a fleet of locusts.  The onslaught of numbers comes from all directions, talk radio, think tanks, politicians and from agencies of the government itself.  The size alone makes it impossible to relate.

We have been told how many freight cars it would take to hold a trillion one dollar bills and how many times a trillion dollars worth of sawbucks would go around the world laid end to end.  But that doesn’t tell us anything useful; it just shows the numbers are big.  We knew that.  Then we read about percentages of GDP.  What does that mean?  How can we relate?  How can we make sense of it?  We do it by relating expenses and debt to income, not to freight cars or GDP.  Our table relates the financial state of the nation to basic family finances.

The government numbers in the table are fixed.  Except for Unfunded Liabilities which is an estimate; the figures are reported facts.  The family side is a “what-if” table.  It answers the question — if a family had an income of 80,000 dollars with spending and debt in the same ratio to family income as the government ratios, where would the family be?

The answer is nearly unimaginable.  Such a family would have a half million dollars in outstanding debt, over 600,000 dollars in additional future commitments, no savings and still spending nearly 60% more than they earn.  Is it any wonder the rating agencies are prepping us for a downgrade?  Is it any wonder why there is a stalemate in Congress when some members, with the backing of the president, actually want to increase federal spending and debt while others insist on cutting both before it’s too late?

If your income is half the 80,000, cut the rest of the numbers on the family side in half.  If your income is double, double them.  If you have a blog please feel free to take the table and use it as you wish.  The more distribution it gets, the better.

Click the table to enlarge it.


Reuters reports:
“Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings.” Reid said on the Senate floor.

Republicans want to Kill Women
One of the leading pro-abortion members of the House is causing furor with her comment to the effect that the pro-life Republicans recently elected to Congress want women to die of cancer.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D NY) compared Republican efforts to revoke taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood to actions taken by the Nazi regime in Germany during World War II.

“This is probably one of the worst times we’ve seen because the numbers of people elected to Congress. I went through this as co-chair of the arts caucus,” Slaughter said, according to a CNS News report. ”In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women.”

You can watch the video here.

There are three things I would like to see documented:
1. How many times Democrat politicos have compared conservatives to Nazis in a public forum, and that includes organized demonstrations.
2. How many times Democrat politicos have accused conservatives of doing that in public forums.
3. How often conservatives have actually done it.


John E. Silvia is the chief economist at Wells Fargo bank. On Wednesday he told CNBC that “the plot in Greece and Portugal sounds an awful lot like the same plot that’s going on in the United States”, the only thing different is the names of the players, he said.

Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, sees the path the nation is on as one ending in insolvency. “It’s not a question of philosophy. It’s simply arithmetic.” he said.
Last October we published an article entitled “Fruit from the Obama Tree” in which we quoted Pravda.

From the Russian newspaper PRAVDA
Commenting in the Spring of 2009, “like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath-taking speed.”

Whatever one may say about PRAVDA, they know Marxism when they see it.

Senator Schumer (D-NY) tells fellow Democrats to use the word “extreme” when speaking to the press about the Republican efforts to trim about 3% from the Democrat’s spending plan. Considering the direction in which the country is going, a better word for attempting to trim the budget by only 3%  might be “pathetic”.


The money is running out in Britain. When the money runs out, riots are what you get. If you hand feed a voracious wild animal, don’t expect gratitude for the handout or understanding when the food is gone.

When the growth rate of spending exceeds the growth rate of income the money will run out. It is not an opinion or philosophical point of view; its just arithmetic. When the only solutions the arithmetic allows, require drastic reductions in government largesse, there comes a point when the only choices are riots now or greater riots later. Here in America we are on the cusp of such a fulcrum point.

Here at Random Thots we have come up with a simple table that gets rid of all those zeros and provides some perspective we can understand. All the government figures are for the year 2010. We took a hypothetical family and gave them an income of 80,000 dollars. Then we calculated the proportion our family’s income was to the federal government’s total tax and other revenue. Finally, we applied the same proportion to other government figures like debt and total spending. Here is what we got.

Federal Revenues (billions)  2,217      Family income (dollars)        80,000
Federal spending                        4,472     Family spending would be   161,371
Federal debt                                13,561      Family debt would be           489,346
Annual interest                                414      Family equivalent                    14,940

Can you assure me the money will not run out? Can you assure me there will not be riots in the streets, right here in River City?

You can relate other government financial figures for 2010 to an 80,000 dollar income by multiplying the federal number as expressed in billions by 36.0858. Actually 36 is close enough for government work.

We chose accrual accounting for the federal spending in the table. Accrual accounting records an expense when an obligation is incurred; cash accounting ignores the expense until the day it is paid. Under cash accounting federal spending was about 2,780 B and which would equate to 100,389 for the family, a much lower number, but also a much less realistic one.


The runaway party has run away again. This comes from the Washington Times

House lawmakers stayed until 4:41 a.m. Saturday to finish up a spending bill to keep the government open, and sent it over to the Senate — only to be met with an empty chamber. Senators had closed up shop two days before and went home for a 10-day break to honor George Washington’s birthday.

“We will do our work, but where is the Senate? They’re on vacation,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg, a Montana Republican and member of the House Appropriations Committee who ran part of the floor debate over cutting spending for the new health care law. “Here we are knocking up against a March 4 deadline and they’re missing the deadline again.”

So Harry Reid closed up the shop.
Harry’s step one – close down the Senate so there can be no debate or vote on the budget.
Harry’s step two – will be to blame the lack of a budget agreement on Republicans.

This will be the first real test of the new Republican Party. Bill Clinton was successful in swinging public sentiment his way in 1995. This is where great communicators like Chris Christie or the new star, Allen West are needed. Let’s see how the GOP does this time.


Obama’s new budget has aroused some of the honest folks on the left. Andrew Sullivan writes The Daily Dish for the left leaning publication known as The Atlantic. Sullivan has been an ardent supporter of President Barack Obama. We quote from his article covering the 2011 budget. The article is entitled “Obama To The Next Generation: Screw You, Suckers”.

[Members of the Senate] have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president…

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down.

All of us who took Obama’s pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.

Sullivan recognizes that our debt crisis is due the costs of Medicare, Social Security and other entrenched programs like that, all considered to be “non-discretionary entitlements“. Yet the President’s budget leaves the so-called “entitlements” untouched. We expected as much. Apparently Sullivan did not. But he is learning.