Coralville Courier

An End of Session Review of Federal Finances

Washington, D.C. - On the last day of the First Session of the 111^th Congress, the House passed two bills that are indicative of the overall state of federal finances.  First, the House passed legislation to increase the national debt limit by $290 billion (the fifth such increase since January 2007).   This vote was followed soon thereafter by a vote on the Democrats’ second “stimulus” bill of the year, which would add $150 billion to the nation’s debt.  Below are some of the highlights of federal finances as the First Session of the 111^th Congress comes to a close. 

 

A Record Deficit:  Since the Democrats took control of Congress, the federal deficit has increased from $162 billion (FY 2007), to $459 billion (FY 2008), to $1.42 trillion (FY 2009).  This is an increase of $1.3 trillion or 774.7% in just two years.   Last year’s deficit was the highest in U.S. history in nominal terms.  It beat the previous record—the $459 billion FY 2008 deficit—by $958 billion or 208.7%.  The FY 2009 deficit was 9.9% of GDP, the highest level since World War II.   

 

FY 2010 Starts Off Worse Than FY 2009:  In just the first two months of FY 2010, the federal government has run up a deficit of $292 billion.  In only five years in U.S. history (all of them during this decade) has the U.S. run a higher deficit for a year than what the FY 2010 deficit equals through just two months.  The deficit through the first two months of FY 2010 is actually $11 billion higher than the same period of FY 2009. 

 

Federal Spending Is Soaring:  In FY 2009, the federal government spent the record amount of $3.5 trillion. This was an increase of $532 billion or 17.8% compared to the previous year.  FY 2009 federal spending was 24.7% of GDP, which is also the highest level since World War II. 

 

Climbing Debt Burden:  The national debt exceeds $12.1 trillion ($39,500 per U.S. citizen).  Since Democrats took over Congress less than three years ago, the national debt has crossed the $9 trillion, $10 trillion, $11 trillion, and $12 trillion marks.

 

Habitual Debt Limit Increases:  In order to accommodate all of this new debt, in less than 3 years, the Democrat-controlled Congress has increased the debt limit five times, from $8.97 trillion in January 2007 to $12.39 trillion today—an increase of $3.4 trillion or 38.2%.  Even with the most recent increase, it is expected that the debt limit will have to be increased yet again in the spring. 

 

Growing Interest Payments Threaten Rest of Federal Budget:  During the current fiscal year, CBO projects interest payments on the debt will amount to $196 billion ($536 million per day).  According to CBO, if the budget is put on automatic pilot over the next decade, this figure grows to $722 billion in 2019 ($2 billion per day). 

 

Unsustainable Borrowing Outlook:  The public debt increased from 40.8% of GDP to 53.8% of GDP in FY 2009.  The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projects that it will reach 85% of GDP by 2018, 100% of GDP by 2022, and 200% of GDP by 2038 (the record is 109% of GDP at end of World War II). 

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Time to reverse spending spree

by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley

After a $700 billion bailout that was supposed to keep credit flowing to Main Street, but ended up in Detroit and on Wall Street; a $787 billion stimulus package that was supposed to jump-start the economy but left us with record unemployment; and a $410 billion appropriations bill signed by the President in March, it’s little wonder Iowans are fed up with Washington’s appetite for spending their hard-earned tax dollars. In fact, what started out as moderate indigestion is feeling more like toxic shock to many taxpayers across the country.

Consider the facts. The U.S. budget faced a $1.4 trillion shortfall in fiscal 2009. Federal spending soared above 25 percent of our national income while revenues fell below 15 percent. Nonpartisan budget forecasters say the national debt is projected to reach $20 trillion in a decade. This translates into a legacy of unbelievable debt to our children and grandchildren. That debt burden will be in addition to personal living expenses, mortgage payments, college tuition and the proposed health care entitlement being considered in Congress.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/sheets/hist07z1.xls

Talk about the Grinch who stole Christmas. Big spenders in Washington effectively dumped lumps of coal in the stockings of taxpayers for generations to come. Taxpayers are confronting the largest annual deficits since World War II. And yet, the current political leadership in Washington seems oblivious to the long-term consequences.

The debt’s obvious downside is the burden on taxpayers to repay what is owed, including the interest on the national debt that chews up an increasing share of the federal budget. The big picture shows us the dark side of the addiction to deficit spending. Continuous deficit spending restricts available revenue for other priorities and throttles private investment in the workforce, innovation and technology. In congressional testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office cautioned lawmakers about the perils of unbridled federal spending sprees. Financing chronic federal deficits risks higher interest rates and higher inflation; excessive federal borrowing weakens the dollar and international competitiveness.

As a deficit hawk in the U.S. Senate, I’m working to keep a tight-fisted grip on the purse strings in Congress, and I don’t let loose when tax dollars leave the U.S. Treasury. As a taxpayer watchdog, I keep up a congressional crusade against fraud, waste and abuse that demands accountability, oversight and transparency when tax dollars are on the line. It’s why I’ve insisted on ramping up better transparency, management and oversight of bailout dollars flowing out from the U.S. Treasury.

Massive federal spending this year hasn’t turned around the struggling economy or jump-started job creation. Now the President and congressional leaders want to pass health care legislation that would create yet another unsustainable permanent entitlement that would worsen the national debt. I agree with the majority of Iowans who created standing-room-only gatherings at my town meetings this year and asked: When is enough, enough? When Washington recycles your hard-earned tax dollars and pumps them through the economy, it invariably creates winners and losers and takes money out of circulation for household budgets, wage growth, local commerce and small business start-ups. That’s not the best use of greenbacks or limited resources.

It’s time to put the brakes on the federal spending spree. We can start by letting the Troubled Asset Relief Program – or TARP -- rest in peace. The Treasury Secretary has the authority to extend the bailout program through October 2010. I’ve introduced a bill to rescind the program so it expires at year’s end.

Unfortunately, American taxpayers have trillions of reasons to fault reckless government spending. Unless Washington reverses course and gets serious about taming the deficit, taxpayers won’t have much merriment to celebrate for many holidays to come.

The arrogance of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs *shines* through

This testy exchange between Robert "I don't give frank answers" Gibbs and April Ryan of American Urban Radio was sparked by the issue of White House Social Secretary Desiree Roger's role in allowing access to Tareq and Michaele Salahi - the party crashers - at the recent state dinner.

U.S. Sen. Grassley: Exposes carve-out in Reid health care bill

Iowa senator prepares amendment to reverse carve-out, also include White House in new health care exchanges

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Chuck Grassley said it is unacceptable that staff of Senate leadership and committees is now exempted from the requirement that members of Congress and congressional staff get their employer-based health insurance through the same exchanges that would be created for the rest of the country under the Senate Majority Leader’s health care legislation.

A Grassley amendment adopted by the Finance Committee in September established this requirement for all congressional staff, along with members of Congress.

“Careful examination by the Congressional Research Service of the bill that Senator Reid brought to the floor revealed that one of the things that happened behind closed doors was that leadership and committee staff ended up being carved out from having to live under the new health care exchanges that this legislation would create and impose on the rest of the country,” Grassley said. “This creates a double standard. It’s inexcusable.”

Grassley said he’ll offer an amendment to restore his amendment, which the Finance Committee accepted without objection, and which the Congressional Research Service said made clear that leadership and committee staff would be required to access the new exchange.

Grassley said his floor amendment also will expand the requirement to include the President, the Vice President and all political appointees in the executive branch. “The President, the White House staff and cabinet secretaries are working very hard for this massive overhaul of America’s health care system. It’s only fair and logical that if this bill becomes law, these leaders should themselves be subject to the reforms,” he said.

Currently, members of Congress, congressional staff, the President, Vice President, cabinet secretaries, and political appointees participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. The exchange that would be established by the legislation pending in the Senate is modeled after this federal employees’ program and is supposed to give participants the same kind of choices and options for health care coverage as federal employees.

Grassley’s interest in having policy makers participate in the exchange is consistent with his long-held view that Congress should live under the same laws it passes for the rest of the country. In 1995, President Clinton signed into law the Congressional Accountability Act, which Grassley authored and fought to advance for six years before it was enacted. Grassley’s Congressional Accountability Act gives employees of the legislative branch protections under 12 civil rights, labor and workplace safety laws by making those laws apply to Congress.

Before enactment of the Congressional Accountability Act, Congress had exempted itself from these laws:

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993

The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Veterans’ employment and reemployment rights at Chapter 43 of Title 38 of the U.S. Code

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1989.

The Congressional Accountability Act was amended in 1998 to include certain provisions of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998.

Turmoil for Government Motors continues

The head of Government Motors (formerly known as General Motors) has *resigned* under pressure from the White House.  Translation:  He got fired.

Frederick 'Fritz' Henderson was put in place as CEO by Obama back in March after the President fired former CEO Rick Wagoner.   Can you say, "In violation of the Constitution?"  Yes you can....

So since Obama bought GM with your money and for the second time in a year, the President is making a management change in his car company.

Take money from the government, get told what to do and how to do it by the government.  It's all about power and control, Constitution be damned.

By the way, the Obama administration has the least amount of real world business experience in modern history.  It's almost non-existent.  Isn't that great?

Obama will continue to drive this once proud company into the ground.

SNL slams Obama: "Each of Your Plans to Save Money Involves Spending Even More Money"

Good comedy is always based in the truth and Saturday Night Live nails Obama and the liberal proposals he's pushing.

3rd Quarter GDP revised downward

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 2.8 percent in the third quarter of 2009, (that is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP decreased 0.7 percent.

The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 3.5
percent.

The full text of the release on BEA's Web site can be found at http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm.

Grassley Pushes Attorney General to Honor Administration’s Ethics and Transparency Commitment and Answer Conflicts of Interest Questions

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Chuck Grassley today is urging the U.S. Attorney General to fully answer questions about conflicts of interest in detainee policies at the Justice Department.  Grassley asked the questions at a November 18 Justice Department oversight hearing.

During the hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder only said he would “consider” Grassley’s request for a list of Justice Department attorneys who may have conflicts of interest with detainee issues being worked on at the department.
 
“The decisions to bring detainees into the United States and afford them civilian trials are highly questionable.  I want to know more about who is advising the Attorney General.  I understand that there are attorneys at the Justice Department working on these issues who either represented Guantanamo detainees or worked for groups who advocated for them.  This prior representation creates apparent conflicts of interest,” Grassley said. “My request is about establishing transparency and holding the Administration to its word to make the Government’s business public.”

In a letter to Holder, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee joined Grassley in pressing the Attorney General to answer Grassley’s questions.

Here is the text of the letter to Holder followed by an editorial from the November 22 issue of the Washington Times. 

November 24, 2009

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Holder:

At the November 18, 2009, hearing “Oversight of the Department of Justice,” Senator Grassley asked you for information regarding attorneys at the Justice Department who are advising you on terrorism and detainee policy.  Senator Grassley’s questions focused on what appear to be conflicts of interest arising from the prior representation of individual detainees, advocacy on behalf of groups of detainees, or advocacy on detainee policy by attorneys now employed at the Justice Department. 

These questions follow public accounts of what appear to be conflicts of interest by current Justice Department employees.  For example, National Journal reported that Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, continues to work on high level terrorism and detainee policy despite his previous legal representation of Osama Bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard.  Further, The New York Post reported that Jennifer Daskal was hired to serve in the Justice Department’s National Security Division and a to serve on a terrorist detainee task force despite having no prosecutorial experience and a long history of advocating for detainees.  These public accounts of apparent conflicts of interest by those crafting terrorism and detainee policies raise serious concerns that need to be addressed.  

To better understand the scope of these apparent conflicts of interest, Senator Grassley asked for the following information:

(1)   The names of political appointees in the Department who represented detainees, worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees, or worked for organizations advocating on terrorism or detainee policy;
(2)   The cases or projects that these appointees worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department;
(3)   The cases or projects relating to detainees that they have worked on since joining the Justice Department; and
(4)   A list of all political appointees who have been instructed to, or have voluntarily recused themselves from working on specific detainee cases, projects, or matters pending before the courts or at the Justice Department.  

Unfortunately, your response to Senator Grassley’s request was less than encouraging as you repeatedly stated you would merely “consider” the request.  It is imperative that the Committee have this information so we can assure the American people that the Department is in fact formulating terrorism and detainee policy without bias or preconceived beliefs. 

In addition to the information requested at the hearing, we ask that you also provide responses to the following related questions:

(1)   Have any ethics waivers been granted to individuals working on terrorism or detainee issues pursuant to President Obama’s Executive Order dated January 21, 2009, titled “Ethical Considerations for Executive Branch Employees?”
(2)   What  are the Department’s criteria for recusing an individual  who previously lobbied on detainee issues, represented specific detainees, worked on terrorism or detainee policy for advocacy groups, or formulated terrorism or detainee policy?
(3)   What is the scope of recusal for each of the political appointees who have recused themselves from working on specific detainee cases, projects, or matters?  (e.g. is an individual  who previously represented a detainee recused only from matters related to that individual or from other detainees?)  Please provide a detailed listing of the scope of each recusal. 

We ask that you provide the requested information in unredacted format as soon as possible.  This information is important and will help to uphold the promise President Obama made to the American public to make his administration the most ethical and transparent ever.  We trust that you share our concerns with avoiding conflicts of interest and promoting transparency at the Department. 

Sincerely,

Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Orrin Hatch of Utah
Jon Kyl of Arizona
Jeff Sessions of Alabama
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
John Cornyn of Texas
Tom Coburn of Oklahoma

Sunday, November 22, 2009

EDITORIAL EXCLUSIVE: On terrorists, Justice recused

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

According to documents obtained exclusively by The Washington Times, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, No. 3 official in the Justice Department, had to recuse himself on at least 13 active detainee cases and at least 26 cases listed as either closed or mooted.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, made waves Nov. 18 when he demanded that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. provide a list of all the suspected-terrorist detainee cases from which current Justice Department political appointees have had to recuse themselves. The extent of the conflicts at the department is still unclear.

Read On.....

NY Times just now getting around to reporting how bad U.S. Debt is

With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html?_r=1&ref=us

Editor's Note:  Any reasonable person knows that voters have been sounding the alarm on the national debt for years.  Problem is, arrogant elected officials don't listen.

Are you being lied to, again?

Several news agencies are reporting that Recovery.gov, the Obama administration's Web site to track stimulus spending, has been calculating jobs created or *saved* in non-existent congressional districts.

Examples of the website either making things up or just being inept:

The site listed Minnesota receiving $400,000 in stimulus funds for district "00".  There's no such district.  Other fake districts listed included the non-existent 57th, 42nd and 27th.

Where did that $400,000 go?  

The much touted Recovery Act website, which was 'revamped' some months ago for something in the neighborhood of $18 million taxpayer, listed Connecticut's 42nd congressional district as bringing in 25 new jobs there.   The state doesn't have a 42nd congressional district.  Nor do they have a 9th district, which apparently received $18.3 million in stimulus funds.  The website listed money received or jobs created or *saved* in the 6th, 64th, 20th and 86th too, but those aren't real districts.

Where did that $18.3 million go?

These examples are just a few of MANY.  Arizona, Iowa, the list goes on.....

According to this supposedly state-of-the-art tracking website, stimulus funds are being spent in districts that just don't exist.  Jobs are being created or *saved* in districts that just don't exist, and we haven't even started to talk about how those jobs numbers are inflated, that's another story....

How's that transparency working for 'ya?