Articles tagged as

Budgets

New Hampshire Exceptional, Yet Again.

Stopping the spending and the out of control growth was and is exactly what you need and want from your US congress, but cannot yet achieve with a Democrat Senate and a Democrat President. And you will never get it as long as the left controls any those parts of your Federal government.

A Typical Day In Mr. Buckley’s Neighborhood

These folks have all insisted, in one way or another, that things like unemployment, food stamps, even destruction of public and private property, are good for the economy. So using their metrics, these are things Democrats should not complain about unless they are actually bad for the economy.

Would You Suck Twice as Hard for Half as Much?

I appreciate it when democrats give you the rope with which to hang their half baked ideas.  Take Mark Fernald for example.  Mr. Fernald is a sometime New Hampshire Democrat candidate for this or that, and prominent member of the left wing Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (GSFTC).  He recently (sorry, frequently) forwards  partisan, left wing economic spin, to justify his pet obsession with rising taxes and class warfare. 

This most recent email to the arm chair central planners in his fan base is just another in a string of left wing editorials that attempts to contrast democrat spending against that of our previous president. It is typical Fernald; an oranges to rotten apples comparison that uses incomplete data, wild assumptions (about Obama’s future affect in every case), misleading graphs, cherry picked data, and resulting percentages that stretch the fabric of reality so thin that you could easily pass into the alternate dimension in which Democrats and faeries dance widderershins around the deficit mound, as money appears out of nowhere to pay for whatever theirr tiny, narrow, Marxist minds can imagine.

donkey with hed up assThis particualr faerie story centers around three graphs from the Government Printing Office (GPO).  Not the fed, the treasury, or even some fruit-loop left wing think tank, but the GPO.  The GPO prints stuff, and answers to the Executive branch.  So right out of the toy-box we have to question these partisan stills, presented as they are in a partisan manner, bearing guestimated facts and assumptions, with no basis in reality any greater than anything that has ever escaped Mr. Obama’s teleprompter; you do recall all the Obama the non-partisan, deficit cutting, cost reducing, globe saving, health care giving, unifying, auto company saving, mortgage rescuing, goodness?  How about the transparent lobbyist-less,  open to ideas, new tone, we need to work together Obama?  No?  You probably remember the we won, closed door, partisan, hate those bankers, Tea Partiers are terrorists,  intimidation tactics, don’t interrupt my vacation, Arrest Ron Paul supporters, dozens of lobbyists, shadow cabinet, Attack Arizona, hunt down my enemies, anti-free speech, black panthers can scare away voters, give guns to Mexican drug lords, nohting is my fault Obama with the double action golf-club grip?  Well his printing office is the source.  Are we surprised it tries to make him look good?

So what can we glean that goes beyond the objective of showing your Republican friends that they are wrong about Obama?  How about using facts to show that those Republicans are actually right?

Read more

Bernanke’s Bender

Bernanke sober- or so it seems(Note:This arrived in my mail box unattributed, but I have discovered that it is from The Onion.  I have edited any questionable language by replacing letters with asterisks.  This image is not associated with the article at The Onion.)
 
SEWARD, NE—Claiming he wasn’t afraid to let everyone in attendance know about "the real mess we’re in," Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke reportedly got drunk Tuesday and told everyone at Elwood’s Corner Tavern about how absolutely f****d the U.S. economy actually is.
 
Bernanke, who sources confirmed was "totally sloshed," arrived at the drinking establishment at approximately 5:30 p.m., ensconced himself upon a bar stool, and consumed several bottles of Miller High Life and a half-dozen shots of whiskey while loudly proclaiming to any patron who would listen that the economic outlook was "pretty goddamned awful if you want the God’s honest truth."
 
"Look, they don’t want anyone except for the Washington, D.C. bigwigs to know how bad shit really is," said Bernanke, slurring his words as he spoke. "Mounting debt exacerbated—and not relieved—by unchecked consumption, spiraling interest rates, and the grim realities of an inevitable worldwide energy crisis are projected to leave our entire economy in the sh****r for, like, a generation, man, I’m telling you."

Read more

THE SHRILL KATHY And Her Bill O’Brien Rant

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” ~Ronald Reagan

Shrill_Kathy_Chronicals_Grok.jpg

When one reads the Shrill Kathy’s latest diatribe in the Union Leader, there is one theme that plays like a broken record: Tax, Tax, Tax…Spend, Spend, Spend.  The Shrill Kathy complains, “a 10-cent cut in the cigarette tax, did not change prices for smokers because the tobacco companies raised their prices…” I think I missed something because the former argument of the day was that the tobacco tax reduction would increase youth smoking. So, now here’s Kathy Sullivan arguing the ill merits of a tax typically inflicted upon Granite Staters who earn the least….a tax on the poor…which of many, smoke.

Next, the Shrill Kathy complains that, “House budget writers ignored every signal that the federal government was about to impose a $35 million penalty for Medicaid errors dating back to the Benson administration…” adding that, “Their irresponsibility has caused a gaping hole in their ballyhooed ‘balanced budget’.”  How conveniently she ignores the fact that her beloved Democratic party, led by Teri “Billion-dollar deficit” Norelli had two full terms to reconcile and fix this issue, but did not do so. Instead, they created more layers of government, increased over one-hundred fees and taxes and put into motion record unsustainable budgets, creating the fiscal mess this state now faces.

The Shrill Kathy whines, “New Hampshire hospitals are laying off hundreds of employees because O’Brien and his Republican colleagues took away federal money that had paid hospital costs for the poor…” Yet it hard to ignore the countless millions of construction dollars hospitals are using to competitively outspend one-another in an unquenchable drive to be better than the next facility.  Now that the Democrats have created yet another constituency cash cow that becomes as angry as any other when bloated coffers are not being filled, The dependable Shrill Kathy is all too willing to step into the limelight and pimp their cash loss off onto the poor. Isn’t it about time we stop the demagoguing and manipulation of the less fortunate? Let’s be honest here; You don’t really care about poor people, Kathy.

Mayor Gatsas is no different than any other cash cow constituent, be it Republican or Democrat. Every entity that gets some form of funding for something from the state or federal government cries, cut theirs…but NOT MINE!  Cuts made to the at-risk juvenile program, shows no indication of any highly-paid hacks taking any pay cuts or losing their jobs. Nope! self-preservation trumps program delivery.

Read more

Teri Norelli Cries Foul on the Budget: Insert Yawn Here

“If you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.” ~Milton Friedman, Economist Democratic leader Terri Norelli takes pen to the Union Leader this morning to decry the Republican budget. Norelli does a masterful work in her use of descriptors and categorizations demagoguing the Republicans … Read more

Why You Should Run Screaming From A Balanced Budget Amendment

Run away -Photo Credit UK Daily MailI’ve never understood the Republican-conservative, Libertarian, Right-Wing-in General, love affair with the idea of a balanced budget amendment.  And it is not just my fear of letting the same modern Americans who think doing away with the electoral college is a good idea have a whack at the US Constitution.  It’s actually much simpler than that. A balance has two sides, and all things being equal, the side paying will get screwed.

And yes, I understand that almost every state has to balance it’s budget.  Even New Hampshire–despite what former governor (and dopey US Senator) Jeanne Shaheen thinks–must do this by law.  But this is no guarantee that a government will not spend more than it takes in.  The same government that decides what it spends will decide what it takes in.  And  unless you are a Granite Stater with a severe case of ADD, or just a very short memory, you may recall that balancing the budget need not have a single thing to do with austerity, control, or concern for the people who pay for government.  It merely requires you to find revenues to equal your spending.

For a quick review of how bad that scenario is, lets grab Simon and Mr. Peabody and jump into our way-back machine to the halcyon days after the 2006 elections when Democrats had complete control of the New Hampshire government for four years. " Balanced Budget" meant 100’s of new taxes and fees, many of them forced through at the last possible minute.  There were taxes that were enacted without a single hearing (in violation of other portions of New Hampshire law).  Land would be sold to raise revenue without anyone knowing what land or who might buy it, for how much, or if we could even sell it.  There was one time money, imagined cost shifting, raiding of dedicated funds, transfers from future years, and all manner of dark accounting magic used to create the illusion of a ‘balanced’ budget," perched in a Rube Goldbergian maze, upon a pedestal,  in a pentagram, guarded by straw men arranging goat entrails, scrying into alternate fiscal dimensions to hold off the demons of structural deficits yet to be.  To put a finer point on it, revenues were imagined to cover desired spending, without the revenue every actually being there to begin with, and when it failed to appear, someone had to pay for it to balance the budget. That or cut programs and spending. Typically, it is not the latter.

So having witnessed this abuse in one of the most politically active states, under some of the most withering scrutiny, with the benefit of the third largest representative body in the world, makes me wonder why anyone who lived through it would even suggest that things would be just ducky if we let distant, professional legislators, have a whack at it along the shores of the Potomac?

Sounds scary.  But could it get worse? Of course it could.

Read more

John Boehner’s plan: THERE ARE NO CUTS. Thus, the question is this:

Is Boehner stupid, blind, ignorant, or perfidious? (I believe it’s #2: He has been blinded by the pervasive corruption of thought, language, deed, and outlook of Washington, DC.) 

This from Dr. Jerry Pournelle’s blog:

There Are No Cuts

Everyone is talking about Draconian cuts to the budget. The President won’t sign the Boehner Plan because of the cuts. Yet there are no cuts in that plan or in any plan proposed.

There are no cuts. None. Zip, Nada, Bupkis, Zero. None.

We need to understand how “budget cuts” are measured. The base line budget projects a $9.5 Trillion Dollar increase in spending over the next ten years. Any reduction in this increase in spending is officially a “cut.” Thus the Republican Deficit Plan mandates an approximate “cut” of $1 Trillion over the next decade in exchange for a rise in the Deficit Limit of $2 Trillion. Note that the $1 T “cut” isn’t assured, since it takes place in the future, and one Congress cannot bind another. (Note that. One Congress cannot bind a future Congress. It might be well to remember this.) But even if the $1 Trillion “cut” is faithfully carried out, the effect is that there will be an $8.5 Trillion increase in spending (and thus in Debt) over the next decade.

Put it this way. If Congress were to freeze spending: we will spend next year precisely what we spent this year on each project, none of them increased and none decreased – if Congress were to do that, the result would officially be a $9.5 Trillion cut. It would be a cut in government pay, in school lunches, in Medicare and Medicaid, to the Army and Navy, to the DOE SWAT team and the Department of Agriculture Pet Bunny Inspectors, a cut to Head Start, a cut the FDA, a cut to – well, you get the idea. Not spending more money every year is a cut, and a freeze on spending is a $9.5 Trillion Cut in Federal Spending. Cuts to school lunches, Medicare, Medicaid – well, we’ve said all that. Not spending more is a cut.

It hasn’t always been this way. Back in the 1960’s a “cut” was actually a cut; if a department’s budget got cut it meant that it got less money. But since the budget acts of the 70’s Federal spending automatically increases year after year and any reduction in that increase is scored as a cut.

So: if we adopt the Boehner Plan, we get what amounts to a $10 Trillion increase in spending over the next decade. And that, we are told, is the best we can hope for, and we ought to wheedle the Democrats and the President graciously to concede to give it to us good and hard.

Let me repeat that because while most of you know it, some don’t, and those who haven’t thought of it will find it hard to believe. A freeze in spending: a mandate that no department of government spend more next year than it spent this year; will be reported as a $9.5 Trillion cut. If Boehner gets all he asks for and then some, say a $1.5 Trillion cut over the next decade, he will have locked in an $8 Trillion increase in government expenditures (and thus the Deficit) over the next ten years. And the Democrats will decry the Draconian cuts in school lunches, education spending, Medicare, etc., etc. And at the moment the “non partisan Congressional Budget Office” believes that Boehner Plan would only “cut” $0.85 Trillion over ten years, meaning $850 Billion, meaning $85 Billion/year. The United States borrows $100 Billion a month.

There are never any actual cuts in spending. No one is proposing any. There are only temporary reductions in spending increases. No Plan by either Party contemplates any actual cut in spending. We are arguing over how much more we will let the deficit rise: $8 Trillion or $10 Trillion. If it only rises by $8 Trillion that will be counted a great victory with a $2 Trillion cut. Be prepared to pay.

Read more

Americans Deserve Better

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, ‘the buck stops here’. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

No Debt Ceiling Increase without Cut, Cap, and Balance

To the Editor:  

Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner failed to deliver acceptable proposals for raising the debt ceiling and both failed to explain the real situation to the American people.  

President Obama hasn’t provided specifics for a  plan, he makes no real attempt at compromise, his desired taxes on “the rich” provide a minuscule income, he continues to lie about the Bush tax cuts which actually increased tax revenues and shifted more of the tax burden to the rich, and he continues to threaten seniors and financial catastrophe.  (We hear similar threats every time our leaders try to pressure our representatives into doing bad things.)   

Read more

Gee, and I thought the RSAs were pretty much clear on this

OK, because I am a blogger but not a lawyer (nor play one on the ‘Grok), a bleg and favor to all those folks, lawyers and legislators, that can send some advice! 

As I have blogged before, I am an elected official in my NH hamlet – the Budget Committee (SB2).  Now as a former biz analyst, I like data – a LOTS of it.  Now, the last couple of years, I’ve looked at what was presented: each department with each of its own line items (e.g., electric, phone, salary, benefits, inventories, et al).  And then at the end, I re-aggregated all the like items together (all electric, all salaries,…) and was none too happy.

Well, this year, I’ve made a bunch of data requests to both the Town and School District for long term trending data on these same items; stuff that i bet no one has ever asked for before.  After all, if only presented with a couple or three years of data, it is all but impossible to say if there is a cost trend, and if there is, is it advantageous for taxpayers or against them?  And the RSAs clearly state that the Budget Committee is allowed to do so.  Period.

Well, it has come to my attention that the Selectmen and the Town Administrator have decided that they have the ability to add their own restrictions:

Selectmen have notified the chairman the town’s Budget Committee that requests for detailed fiscal information may be getting out of hand, and they feel requests for in-depth budget analysis be supported by a vote of the committee.

In a letter to Budget Committee Chairman Dick Hickok selectmen said committee members have a certain role to fulfill and a protocol will be set up to request information after a member of the committee was asking questions that might have exceeded his responsibility.

The letter to Hickok was send after a request made by Budget Committee member Skip Murphy. In the letter dated July 13, the town states the concern of possible other requests, similar to what was made by Murphy, could be forthcoming from each and every other member of the committee, which could hold up town resources from a time perspective.

…“With this in mind, the selectmen are concerned that this particular request may not truly reflect the ‘pertinent information’ needs of the Budget Committee as a whole, absent a vote taken at a duly public meeting that reflects a majority decision along those lines,” states the letter.

The town is requesting that a formal vote is to be taken if a member of the committee requests information on RSAs, regulations, unfunded mandates, financial consequences stemming from donating, 10-year trending data, hourly cost of service or other specific information.

“In addition, please be advised that we are troubled by the voluminous nature of the information being requested that will require research and the preparation of reports that are not currently available, especially given the dubious value of this information when you consider the level of line item detail that is typically provided with the budgets along with the numerous opportunities Budget Committee members will have to directly question department managers,” the letter states.

But like the salary studies I did my first year on the BudComm (that reverberated around our larger community and effected a number of fiscal structural changes in our town), I’m betting this data will do the same. 

And I’m betting they know it too.   Problem is for the Selectmen, the Town Administrator, and the lawyer that is most likely advising them, they have a huge problem…the RSAs do not have the Selectmen in the driver’s seat, they have the Budget Committee. If you read them (after the jump), there is NOTHING in the RSAs that allow the Selectment (or the School Board) the ability to direct how the Budget Committee does its job, makes it requests, or how it votes.

And since it is the Budget Committee that is judging the two respective budgets, nor should they.  And the Chair of the Budget Committee has made the formal request.

Read more

Manchester Needs a ‘Full-Time Refugee” Coordinator?

Liberals love to spend money. No doubt about it. Especially when the money they are spending taxpayer money. Despite tough economic times for the rank and file taxpayer, City Hall liberals are still crafting ways to generate new spending in an effort to expand the almighty nanny-feifdom of city government.

How Much Is Enough? (And Other Problems With Left Wing Policy)

How much Is EnoughWhy can’t democrats trust their own constituents to do the right thing?  Their first response to every problem is to institutionalize it with more government, typically as far up the legislative food chain as possible.  That means as far away from you as they can manage, even to the point of giving control to unelected bureaucrats you can’t punish, just to keep you from messing with it.  They entrench it in a bureaucracy, make it impossibly inefficient and expensive and then refuse to let anyone touch it ever again, while charging you more and more to maintain it.

The only reason I can think of for that kind of knee jerk behavior is that Democrats use themselves as the template for the rest of us. The left by their very nature must be selfish, insecure, inconsiderate and un-trusting. Only people so un-giving of themselves or simply incapable of volunteering their time and energy would have to mandate volunteerism and "giving" by legalizing the taking of other peoples time or property through mandates.

Read more

A Democrat quote about NH’s responsible budget

Gov. John "Can’t do nuttin’" Lynch bowed to reality and has decided to let the "controversial" new budget become law without vetoing or signing it – deciding to do nothing.  With veto-proof margins by Republicans in the House and Senate, there is nothing that he could do – and he could not muster sufficient courage to make a stand and even issue a symbolic message from the Democrat side.

So, once again, he has to rely on others to make that token attempt.  In Friday’s Laconia Sun (P 11), both Terrie Norelli and Lou D’Allesandro put up the obligatory taunts:

“Let it be known that today we traded the wellbeing of thousands of New Hampshire citizens for higher cigarette company profits,” objected House Democratic Leader Terie Norelli of Portsmouth.

Really, Terrie?  How hypocritical!  For the last four years, the Democrats could have done anything you wanted – especially you as the Speaker of the House!  You could have easily decided to run a bill through the House, throw it over the Democrat controlled Senate, and then on to Gov "Can’t do nuttin" to sign that would have said "Tobacco is illegal in NH".  Why not?  After all, there are ‘dry states" where the sale of alcohol is banned.  Failing that, you could have boosted the taxes so high so as to effectively do the same thing – except for the very rich.

Instead, you punted, knowing the real truth – you crave the money that comes with the taxes. You desired that money so as to grow the size of goverment and in concert, continue the march to demanding how citizens would live their lives (e.g., HassanCare and HassanSpeech being two prime examples). No, Terrie, the Republican controlled House and Senate did not trade the wellness of sovereign citizens for anything.  Unlike you, Republicans…

Read more

Share to...
BufferCopyFlipboardHacker NewsLineLinkedInMastodonMessengerMixPinterestPrintRedditSMSTelegramTumblrVKWhatsAppXingYummly