Tendentious Liberal Claptrap

President Obama has brought us the worst economic recovery since the great depression. His flaccid “recovery” pales in comparison to the mighty Reagan’s.

And by the way, now that Obama has ended one war and is winding down another, where is the dividend?

Liberals told us the war was costing over 500 billion per year! Where’s the savings?!! Back in the Bush years, a $500 billion drop in savings would have resulted in a surplus!

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

Left Blogistani Shaw Kenaw, bless her articulate soul, featured one of those ridiculous articles where a liberal invents some obscure meaningless statistic to “prove” that Obama isn’t a big spender.

Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s. (Nutting)

I accept the data upon which Nutting based his tendentious article, but the data is meaningless. He is measuring annual increases in spending from one year to the next to come up with the meaningless soundbite that spending is rising slower under Obama than it did under any hated Republican president, Reagan and Bush being the most mentioned.

It's a trick

First, he includes Obama’s White House projection for 2013 (which of course projects no spending increase), to bring Obama's average annual spending increase number down. The other sneaky trick is using averages instead of absolute values. Nutting averages the percentage increases, which hides the magnitude of the actual numbers.

An example...

Which is bigger 5% of 50 or 3% of 100? That is where the mathematical mischief lies. For the mathematically challenged, 5% of 50 is 2.5, and 3% of 100 is 3. Likewise, Obama’s smaller percentage increases work on a much bigger number, but dealing in percentages hides the gargantuan magnitude of his spending. In truth, he has spent more than Bush and Reagan combined.

Bush is by no means blameless. He blew $787 billion on the bank bailout, setting Obama a super-high budgeting baseline from which to compare annual spending. Obama didn’t need to dramatically increase spending, he just needed to continue the spending while looking responsible as he points to his modest budget increases (the propaganda Nutting is propagating). An honest president, as opposed to a corrupt Chicago Machine pol, would have reset the baseline to $797 billion less than what Bush spent his last year.

A question I have for the Obamabots is, What did Obama do with the extra $787 billion every year after Bush’s “one time” bailout? Were Obama the paragon of fiscal rectitude, his spending would have went down $787 billion for each subsequent year, since that was a one-time spike.  Since Obama is instead a big spending pol, he brazenly pushed through his dramatic spending programs and rewards to cronies with Bush’s stimulus as cover, allowing him to blow almost an extra trillion per year in progressive pet projects while absurdly claiming he has not increased spending. 

The Official Government Numbers Damn Obama's Record

Nutting does do us one favor: He links to official government data. I recommend you go through it yourself instead of letting partisan screwballs filter it for you.

I particularly recommend to you table 1.3, where you will see how Obama's deficits dwarf those of Reagan and Bush.

Table 2.3 is also useful.  In it you will see that even with their hated tax cuts, Reagan and Bush collected more revenue as a percentage of GDP than Obama.  

How did they do it?  They grew the economy, expanded it, instead of choking the life out of it as Obama is doing.  Look at table 10.1 and you will see that Reagan doubled the size of our economy, Clinton and Bush each expanded it by almost another 50%, with Clinton having the slightly better record on GDP growth and clearly the winner on reducing annual deficits. 

By Obama's own laughably Pollyannish projections, if he were to be reelected, he would barely add a third to our economy.  

The record is Clear.  Obama has been a horrible president, shriveling the economy and ballooning the national debt, while unemployment remains high and government grows.  It's not an opinion, it's a fact.  

Just found this.  James Pethokoukis explains it better than I ever could, with charts:  Actually, the Obama Spending Binge Really Did Happen

Polifact.com also does some excellent fisking of shady democrat "statistics."  H/T and muchas gracias to AOW for this most excellent find!

Bad Politics Kills Good Ideas

Reason without Passion is heartless.  Passion without Reason is brainless

I greatly respect George Will and Charles Krauthammer.  Some hotheads on the right get upset with these men from time to time, but they provide the intellectual wellspring of modern American conservatism (although Krauthammer is not a conservative, strictly speaking, he is a brilliant tactician for our side).

Patience is a Virtue

George Will reminds us how much ground the tea party has won in only a few short years, and he cheers these gains.  The Democrats have gone from the billowy expansiveness of Obama's Hope and Change ever expanding government, to now arguing over what and how much to cut.  Thanks to the tea party, we have reframed the debate and moved it onto our turf.

Having said that, Will issues a caution:

Will, a student of Burke, went on to say, “It really is fanciful to believe that the regulatory welfare state that has been built over 80 years can be substantially deconstructed in August over a debt ceiling vote. It’s going to take a little longer than that.”

“We ought to pocket these gains and prepare for the next fight – and to understand, nothing fundamentally will be changed until we change the president who is determined to veto fundamental change,” Will added. (Wehner - Tea Party Should Listen to George Will)

If that doesn't convince you, please continue reading.  Dr. Krauthammer has some words of wisdom as well:

I have every sympathy with the conservative counterrevolutionaries. Their containment of the Obama experiment has been remarkable. But reversal — rollback, in Cold War parlance — is simply not achievable until conservatives receive a mandate to govern from the White House.

  [...]they don’t have the Senate, they don’t have the White House. And under our constitutional system, you cannot govern from one house alone.(NRO-Krauthammer)

Do the Math:  We Can't Fix it all in one Bite

Aside from the political realities, we also hit a wall of math.  Obama is running annual deficits of $1.5 trillion, and the debt is over $14 trillion.  Cut all federal spending, everything, and fire every government worker and shutter every department, zeroing out these $3.7 trillion annual budgets, and it would still take over a decade to wipe out the debt. 

Another factor:  A present congresses cannot tie the hands of future ones.  Harry Reid can promise to cut one million bajillion over the next ten year all he wants, but spending is voted on year to year.  The new congress elected in 2012 will thumb its nose at such promises, since it is legally under no obligation whatsoever to fulfill them.

Add to this the fact that real people are dependent on government programs, hooked like junkies thanks to years of progressive predations that stripped them of the will and the means to care for themselves.  This cannot be fixed overnight.

"Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes"

The GOP and tea partiers need to realize this debt ceiling fight is DC Kabuki.  It won't solve anything.  Indeed, raising the debt ceiling hastens our shambolic stagger into the pit of financial penury.  Ever known anyone or any nation to spend itself to prosperity?

The GOP need to avoid immediate draconian cuts that will be sensationalized by the Democratic party propagandists in the news media.  Smile, care, look intelligent and grown-up, and get this damned thing over with so we can shine the spotlight on the disaster scene that Obamanomics has wrought.  Ask Obama every day where the jobs are, and continue explaining to the American people how we cannot continue spending like this.

This opens a path to 2012 victory, and a GOP senate and GOP president can join with a GOP house to finally tame the government beast.  If they don't, I will be joining the passionate millions of tea partiers storming the capitol with torches and pitchforks.

National Debt: A Simple Solution

The debt limit issue is not a crisis, and resolving it still leaves us increasing the national debt by $15 trillion over the next decade.  We have problems, but the debt ceiling is the least of them.



A little snarky perspective is in order...

Was 2007 the Dark Ages? Was Grandma forced to make soup out of dewdrops and moss? Were our soldiers sent into battle with spitballs and slingshots? Were scientists and researchers shaking tin cups in doorways? Were our 18-year-olds unable to scrape together enough loans to attend our finest universities so they could prepare for a dynamic global job market by sharpening their Beer Pong and sexting skills? (Forbes - Kyle Smith)

He goes on to explain how what we are facing is nothing compared to Greece's calamity.  They are spending 50% of GDP.  Here in America...

Federal spending has averaged 20.2% over the past half-century. As recently as 2007, the last year before the (permanent?) state of emergency began, federal spending was 20% of GDP. And that takes into account the huge increases in spending on homeland security, not to mention Iraqland and Afghanistanland security. In 2011, spending is suddenly 24% of GDP. In a quarter of a century, that figure will be 33.9% of GDP if something isn’t done to alter the trend line.

So compared to Greece, our travails are a piffle.  Trim annual spending to 18% of GDP and our financial situation is stabilized.  Cut an extra 1-2 % off and we're now starting to fill in that deep hole we've been digging for over 180 years now.

The solutions are so obvious even a politician can see it...

Indeed, they are so obvious even the politicians are aware of what they are: turn Medicaid into block grants for states, reorganize Medicare as a subsidy for well-regulated private insurers along the lines of the Paul Ryan plan, raise the qualifying age for Medicare and Social Security and means-test the latter to return it to its roots as a cure for elderly poverty instead of a checkbook-abusing free-for-all.

 As a bonus, stop giving money to fetid foreign sewers full of bug-eyed screamers who hate us, and declare a moratorium on foreign military adventures and global community organizing.

Teach Government to Live on 18% of GDP

History suggests that Americans have a settled notion of what the federal government is worth: about 18% of GDP. Why should shopping for public services be any different than shopping for groceries? We Americans know what we can afford.

People like Ducky perform the useful task of reminding us it's not just income tax.  There's also payroll taxes, state, city, county and local taxes, not to mention business taxes.  Who can calculate the final horrible total that is sucked into the voracious bureaucratic beast's insatiable maw?

And I don't trust the bond market people either.  The US goose is laying golden eggs for them and these rent-seekers need that goose to stay healthy, and in debt.  If the US cleaned up it's debt and only engaged in current account-type borrowing, that would be a huge blow to the global debt markets.

Once the curtain descends on the latest DC kabuki, a good reporter would ask the president how long he thinks the US can continue to borrow $1.5 trillion per annum.  Don't hold your breath.

Kyle Smith - Debt Ceiling Panic Button 
Heritage Foundation - Balanced Budget Amendment
Mark Zandi - How to Cut the Deficit

A Deficit of Leadership

While Democrats and Republicans argue over how to rearrange the deck chairs, the Titanic continues to sink.  I've included links to three articles that put the debate in perspective.

Keynesianism has Failed. The Monetarists are Proven Wrong

The Fed has extended the banks trillions of dollars in easy money, but this hasn't produced a commensurate expansion of lending. Why not?

The Great Recession demonstrates that the money supply is not the ultimate driver of the economy. The ultimate driver is very simple: has the government created a safe climate for investment? (RCM - Tracinski)

Dodd-Frank: Creating Chaos out of Order

The federal government has sown chaos and uncertainty in the markets. Nobody understands Dodd-Frank.  Not the congressional dimbulbs who voted for it, not the regulators, nor the regulated. It is a blank check for government caprice and regulatory whimsy, creating a regulatory free-fire zone where bureaucrats run rampant.  Would you put your money in a game where the rules were murky and subject to reinterpretation?

The Obama administration and the Democratic Congress have [...] created a hostile climate for investment, and they have done so through one measure that is directly smothering the economic recovery: the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Dodd-Frank has injected a lethal dose of uncertainty into the very heart of the financial sector--and we're only halfway through the worst of this effect. (RCM - Tracinski)

Tracinski explains how this flies in the face of the concept of the rule of law, which is a cornerstone of successful markets: Making clear laws understood by all and applicable to all.

Washington, We Have a Spending Problem

Ed Morrisy explains (text and chart are from Hot Air):

... look what happened to federal revenue after the much-maligned Bush tax cuts took full effect in 2003.  Economic activity expanded rapidly — and so did federal revenues.  In fact, the economy during that period boomed, and receipts from both personal and corporate taxes peaked as a result.  The Bush tax rates, as they are properly called today, did not create a revenue vacuum; they helped produce an expansion that enhanced rather than lost revenue.

While revenues have tripled during this period, federal spending has more than quintupled.  

It’s Later than We Think

And as if you didn't have enough to worry about, James Pethokoukis explains why the debt crisis is actually much scarier than we realize. Current projections are based upon rosy government scenarios.  Those of us who live in the real world know life is more thorns than roses.  As interest rates rise (and this is inevitable), interest payments will consume us. Go read it all here: Pethokoukis – Debt Crisis Fast Track

Where did all the Money Go?

Everybody is broke, including whole countries. I heard somewhere that total global debt is over 100 trillion! Simply put, progressive government programs were built with borrowed money, and they are not self-sustaining, they are draining. China holds the mortgage note, and the progressive version of the American Dream has turned into a nightmare.

So, Where did all the Money Go?

In the throes of the 2008 crisis, the money didn’t disappear. President Bush explained that it was "stuck," and "clogging the system." Not the disaster he made it out to be, but not good either.

Finance and the banking system facilitates business transactions that power our economy. Think of the truck that regularly delivers goods to your grocery store. The store manager doesn’t stand on the loading dock and write a check in order to get the driver to unload. No, the driver unloads and presses on. Revolving credit accounts facilitate this and millions of other daily transactions. If the financial system locks up, so do these accounts, freezing economic activity.

Making a Bad Situation Worse

Tarp favored large institutions over smaller ones, and our banking system is in even worse shape because of it. Wall Street is gambling bigger than ever, and Uncle Sam is behind them with promises of credit if they shoot craps again, which they will indeed.

community banks have given way to big banks and excessive industry concentration; profits are increasingly driven by risky trading; leverage is taking precedence over prudent lending; compensation is out of control. This toxic combination leads to continued taxpayer risk and threatens long- term U.S. prosperity. (Bloomberg)

Still Too Big to Fail

Fortune Magazine explains that the Dodd-Frank Banking Scam made provisions for too big to fail institutions to have "living wills," which are agreements on how to break them up if another crisis happens.  This is folly:

These "wills," which banks are currently discussing informally with regulators, are a weak, pathetic substitute for what Washington should have really done: that is, break up "systemically important financial institutions" into much smaller pieces. Or segregate their federally-insured-deposit parts from risky things like creating and trading derivatives. (Fortune)

The Fortune writer has nailed it, but alas, it will never happen because it curtails the profits of the banking giants and politicians can't extract bribes from them with such a simple plan.

International Banking:  A Multi-Tentacled Monster

One ugly scene that some analysts are imagining involves a default by Greece leading to losses inflicted on banks in other European countries that own large amounts of Greek debt. [...]

Those losses could then cascade to the United States because the American and European banking systems are so interlocked, lending billions of dollars to each other every day.

American banks and insurance companies may also be liable for the biggest share of default insurance payments to European institutions if Greece or other countries fail. And the trillion-dollar money market fund industry could also suffer.

About 44.3 percent of money-market fund assets are European bank debt... (NY Times - Worries Grow)

The Gig is Up

The beast is strangling us, and we've done it to ourselves.  If our progressive governments had not gone into hock to the tune of tens of trillions, these international Snidely Whiplashes would not now be tweedling the ends of their pointy mustaches and threatening us with foreclosure.  Our politicians, paralyzed with fear and cowering like the trapped rats they are, don't know what to do other than borrow even more.

It has sent the message that we have hit the moment of demosclerosis. Washington is home to a vertiginous tangle of industry associations, activist groups, think tanks and communications shops. These forces have overwhelmed the government that was originally conceived by the founders. (David Brooks - Who is James Johnson)

The solution is clear but impossible:  Get out of debt and disentangle the federal government from its sweaty pornographic embrace with high finance and big business.  The federal government should not be Wall Street's drinking buddy.  It needs to be the cop with the nightstick who cracks the big banksters over the head when they reel out of the saloon drunk and begin marauding and threatening innocent citizens.

The answer to the question, of "Where did the money go?" 

The answer is that it never existed in the first place.  The money was conjured out of thin air.  That's what credit is, and it must be paid back.

Higher Taxes or Increased Revenue: Which do You Want?

Big government statists make the common mistake of confusing taxes and revenue. They are not the same thing

Taxes are an assessment by government on your earnings. Revenue is the money flowing to the US treasury as a result of taxation. There is not a direct correlation between the two.   In fact, government data shows that often it is an inverse relationship.





Liberal Nostalgia

Poor liberals, staggering blindly around Left and Right Blogistan, suffering under the crack-brained theories of a Robert Reich or Rachel Maddow, parroting nonsensical "theories."  The latest shiny ideological bauble that has enraptured Left Blogistanis is the idea that government can restore fiscal sanity by returning to the sky high tax rates of the 1950's.

Why 70% Tax rates won’t work

...and this is what Mr. Reich and his friends always fail to mention—the individual income tax actually brought in less revenue when the highest tax rate was 70% to 91% than it did when the highest tax rate was 28%.

President John F. Kennedy's across-the-board tax cuts reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 14% and 70% respectively after 1964, yet revenues (after excluding the 5%-10% surtaxes of 1969-70) rose to 8% of GDP. 

President Reagan's across-the-board tax cuts further reduced the lowest and highest tax rates to 11% and 50%, yet revenues rose again to 8.3% of GDP. The 1986 tax reform slashed the top tax rate to 28%, yet revenues dipped trivially to 8.1% of GDP.  (WSJ - Alan Reynolds)

So Robert Reich and his fellow travelers are peddling a cartload of statist crap.  The other factor these petty statists ignore is that in the 1950's we were the only viable post-WWII economy still standing.  We weren't just the only game in town, we were the only game in the world!  The rich had few options to hide their money from the avaricious clutches of the US government. Nowadays, the wealthy have a global smorgasbord of tax avoidance options.  They won't just sit here and take that level of taxation.

Our tax code is an incoherent mess. Half pay no income tax, the rich escape it, the working class cannot, businesses keep their money overseas to avoid US taxation, and friends of Obama like GM poobah Jeffrey HeMelts pay no taxes at all.

Caroline Baum lays out the solution quite nicely:

The solution, of course, is “the lowest rate on the broadest base with the least incentive to avoid, evade or not report taxable income,” Laffer says.

And once we find that illusive rate, let’s leave it there. Walk away. Forget about it. Tax policy, almost all experts agree, should be designed to raise revenue for necessary government programs as simply and as fairly as possible while minimizing economic inefficiency.

As things stand, tax policy is informed by special interests and implemented by lawmakers in the service of those interests. What’s good for one isn’t good for all, which is why tax uniformity should be the goal.

But no, some progressives don't care about facts and numbers, they just want to punish the rich, even if it results in less revenue flowing into the treasury, higher unemployment, and tax breaks for friends of Obama.

Picture yoinked from The Astute Bloggers

Digging Our Way Out of a Hole

Here are some fun thoughts going into the weekend...

Greece could still tip over...

First, the bailouts are not actually making it any more likely that Greece will be able to pay its debts back. Perhaps just the opposite. The bailouts are trying to solve Greece's debt problem with debt. 

And then what? However you slice it and dice it, Greece's debt is unsustainable, and the bailout process being employed to fix the problem is equally unsustainable. (Time)

The US is in worse shape than Greece...

All that separates us from Greece is the fact that we can still print our own money.

The national debt will exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy by 2021 — and balloon to nearly 200 percent of GDP within 25 years — without dramatic cuts to federal health and retirement programs or steep tax increases, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.

“The health care programs are the main drivers of that growth,” the CBO said, responsible for 80 percent of the projected rise in spending on those programs over the next 25 years. (WaPo)

We would have to cut $700 billion per year just to keep our debt from getting worse!

According to the CBO report, policymakers would have to come up with immediate and permanent savings of more than $700 billion a year — more than $7 trillion over the next decade — just to keep the debt at its current level of roughly 69 percent of GDP through 2035. Reducing the debt as a share of the economy would require even more dramatic changes. (WaPo)

Even Democrats are ringing the alarm bells, so you know this is serious, unlike VP Biden's paltry $2 trillion in phony cuts over 12 years or whatever the latest unserious White House proposal is.  We are out of easy answers

Have a great weekend!

GOP is Winning the Budget Debate

Those poor Democrats are looking more and more like Wiley Coyote. They buy the Acme Socialist Propaganda kit guaranteed to defeat that GOP roadrunner, but they end up dropping an anvil on their own heads.







From a DNC fundraising letter, courtesy of Johah Goldberg at NRO…

“Under the Republican budget, if you’re a millionaire, you win the lottery. If you’re a senior, you lose your Medicare.” (Jonah Goldberg – NRO)

Great propaganda points perfectly tuned for the true believers, but blatant lies. Tax rates go down, but loopholes (overwhelmingly used by the rich) disappear. The tax proposal is revenue neutral, and it comes from Obama’s Debt Commission.

Democrat Mediscare Lies and Propaganda

USA Today calls it counterintuitive: Despite Democrat demagoguery, seniors back Ryan’s budget plan. So do those in their prime working and family-raising years. Only with the under 30 crowd does Obama’s sketchy plan outpoll Ryan’s. It’s simple really. Older people study the facts. Younger people tend not to, especially those in the thralls of political hero worship.

Responsible adults who have pulled their heads out of their MSNBC and studied the facts realize that Ryan’s plan changes nothing for those over 55. Obama’s plan is just a sketchy scheme with no hard details, full of gouge the rich and ration the care.

Republicans are winning the Budget Debate

Contrary to what the lying liars on the left are saying, USA Today/Gallup polling shows Americans are reluctantly coming to grips with the harsh realities of deficit reduction. Better yet, the GOP has not just touched the third rail; they’ve tapped into it to light their budgetary platform, and lived to fight on. I can’t believe it, but it looks like the GOP may actually be winning the debate.

“Republicans hold a 12-percentage-point edge over Democrats as the party better able to handle the budget, and a 5-point edge on the economy in general.” (USA Today)

Also encouraging…

“By more than 3-to-1, those surveyed say the deficit stems from too much spending, rather than too little tax revenue.” (USA Today)

Even more bad news for liberals: A growing cohort of Democrat congressmen and senators oppose raising the debt ceiling and voters overwhelmingly want spending cut, while only 11% dream the impossible dream of solving the debt with tax increases: 

“When it comes to solving the deficit problem, about half of Americans, 48%, want to do it entirely or mostly with spending cuts. Some 37% support an equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases; 11% prefer mostly tax hikes.” (USA Today)

Two Stubborn Facts:
+ Government Spending = 22% of GDP;
+ Taxation Stubbornly Sticks at 18% of GDP

Government spending is at around 22% of GDP and rising, which means government gets almost a quarter of every dollar the economy produces. Meanwhile, regardless of tax rates (Eisenhower = high; Reagan=low) the percentage of taxes collected as a percentage of GDP stubbornly sticks at around 18%.

The Solution
This leads to what I consider the smartest thinking on the issue: The federal government should base taxation, spending and budgeting upon these two facts. Size the budget to 18% of GDP and the problem is essentially solved.

Stupid Debt Tricks

How does Obama propose to handle our Big Fat Greek-Style Debt?  Feed it, of course!

My solution involves stink bombs.  Please read all the way to the end.



Conservatives on Fire, a most excellent blog, recently posted about Obama's sneaky plan for automatic tax increases.  He disguises the plan as a "Debt Fail Safe Trigger."

Called a “debt failsafe trigger,” Obama’s scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much.

Here's how the White House pitches it.  Note the Plouffian Newspeak...

A Debt Failsafe that will trigger across-the-board spending reductions (both in direct spending and spending through the tax code) (Whitehouse.gov)

Only a confiscatory progressive could come up with something that clever...  Calling a tax increase a "Spending reduction through the tax code."

Notice how with liberals it's never that we're spending too much?  For progressive statists, the answer is always that we're not stuffing enough taxpayer money into the insatiable maw of the soulless government beast.

Here's my idea for a "Debt Fail Safe Trigger."
  
The US Capitol will be rigged with noxious stinkbombs that automatically drop from the ceilings when the debt goes over the limit.  The antidote could be quickly triggered by pushing a button that automatically slashed government programs across the board to get us back under the limit.

* - For more in-depth analysis, see LD Jackson's post at Political Realities

Stupid Statement of the Week

I love it when liberals slip up and reveal the truth...

It's easy to get a liberal to admit our growing debt is a problem.  It's the solution we differ on.

Like the Miller Lite commercials (Tastes Great!  Less Filling!) Conservatives and liberals shout at one another, "More Taxes!"  "Less Spending!"
 
Here's Uber lib Michael Tomasky making the case for taxing the rich (and inadvertently blowing it) :

If wealthy Americans were paying taxes at the rate they did 50 years ago, says former Clinton labour secretary Robert Reich, the government would be taking in $350bn more a year: budget woes over.  (Michael Tomasky – Guardian)

Hahahahahahahahaha! "budget woes over?"  Hardly!  350 billion would barely make a dent in Obama's 1.5 Trillion annual deficits.  Tomasky just proved the opposite: We cannot put our fiscal house in order by gouging the rich.

Thanks Michael!  And Thanks Robert Reich for blowing a humongous hole in your Soak The Rich argument!

When Winning Really Isn't Winning

Liberals were crowing about knocking off a conservative Wisconsin state supreme court justice, and the liberal candidate who stupidly declared victory before the votes were counted now has egg on her face.

The ballot count now shows the conservative incumbent with a probably insurmountable lead.  The results are not yet final, but even if the liberal Kloppenburg somehow wins, it is still not a liberal victory

Consider:  This election was held in the afterglow of the Madison liberal loon lollapalooza, the rage-filled teacher marches, trashing the capitol and protesting those union-busting meanies in the GOP who have the temerity to look after the interests of the taxpayer.  This election had an unprecedented turnout thanks to millions in union money and the rank and file marching in lockstep to the polling place.

And what does the left have to show for it?  50%.  Only 50% in the deep blue union stronghold of Wisconsin.  This is their high water mark.  Liberalism is a spent force in Wisconsin.  Sean Trend breaks down the numbers.

Finally, if those two little tidbits didn't start your weekend on a lighthearted note, this will: Uncoached - 10 Great Vintage Miller Lite Commercials

Government Statistics Made Easy!

Another day, another liberal blogger making outrageous charges in a feeble attempt to score cheap political points...


 If you're interested in learning how to quickly (less than 5 minutes!) get to the bottom of government facts and figures, follow along with me. Learning how to do this is invaluable, especially when combating wild slurs from the left.

Unhinged Liberal:
"The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.

We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false."

Of course, he's wrong.  You can go here and run the numbers yourself.  It is not a government site, but it uses publicly available government statistics from GPO Access.

Contrary to the unhinged liberal's claim, the data show that revenue did increase after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush II tax cuts. The chart to the left is for the Reagan years and it shows the growth in constant 2005 dollars.  You can punch in the 2000-2010 timespan and you'll see continued revenue increases after the Bush tax cut as well.




The data plainly show that revenue increased after each tax cut, and GDP also kept climbing. So clearly, the culprit in all of this is the spending.

Unfortunately, government spending grew at an even greater rate than the revenue increase, resulting in the growth of the national debt.

Look at the chart during the Reagan 80's, and you'll see why liberals (and libertarians,and fiscal conservatives) criticize Reagan and the Democratic House.  They increased spending even more than revenue increased, adding to the public debt.  Clinton and a Republican congress eventually flatlined it around 1997, and even started it downward.  Bush II ramped it up even more, and Obama is on course to set new spending records.

A False Nexus
This is where the mischief comes in.  Liberals scream and point to the debt chart, ignoring the first chart showing the increase in revenue.  To them, this "proves" that tax cuts cause debt.  They have to leave out the fact that revenue increased and the economy grew in order to "prove" this.  That tax cuts caused the debt is patently and provably false.  Too much spending is what exploded the debt.

An Easy to Use Tool to Analyze Government Data

I highly recommend Christopher Chantrill's Government Spending site.   Look on the left sidebar and you will find links to the sister sites, US Government Debt, and US Government Revenue. 

You can use the interactive charts to zoom in on areas of interest.  All of his charts are powered by US Government data accessed at GPOAccess.Gov.  You can also download all the data yourself for your own analysis from that same site.

Chantrill's site makes this very easy to do.  If you click the little "Here" link below the charts, you can build your own interactive line chart that displays the data from year to year.  % of GDP is a good choice to display for government spending, since it shows you how big of a slice the federal government takes out of the economy.  I also like the "$ billion 2005" setting, which displays all data in constant 2005 numbers.  This is important since the dollar's value is constantly eroding and it allows us to compare the 1930's with the 1980's by basing all numbers in constant dollars.

Avoid Petty Partisan Spats and Focus on the Stats
I bring all of this to you because I am tired of arguing with people who just want to tear down republicans or score some cheap political point.  Engaging in these kinds of arguments is a descent into madness.  Stick to the facts, and you can at least make some headway towards understanding, if not for the lib you are arguing with, then at least for yourself.