Maybe This Will Help

We're going broke, you know. Not you specifically me and not me specifically, but rather the country. That's the 'we' in this equation. The country is going broke. Rapidly. And no one seems to care. Either that or they just don't get it. But it's not that complicated, is it? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is just SO complicated that no one can understand it and that's why all of the elected officials continue to insist on spending my money like a bunch of drunken sailors on leave. (Apologies to all drunken sailors on leave. I know you're more responsible than that. It's just a saying.) Well, if that's the case, then we're all in luck! Below is a very short little video which acts out in layman's terms just how big of a problem this country's spending actually is. It's so funny that it's incredibly sad. Behold!

Sphere: Related Content

Those Aren't Cuts!

Remember that budget deal that all of those weasels in Congress waited until the very last freaking minute to agree upon? Yeah, that's the one. And remember how they were all smiles afterward and acted like they had accomplished something monumental? (I know that whenever they do nothing they think it's monumental, but this time they were really pleased with their own act.) And then after it was all said and done we were told that they managed to cut about $38 billion dollars? Remember? Of course you do! It was only a couple of days ago for cryin' out loud. It turns out that the $38 billion dollars that they claim to be cutting isn't anywhere close to what they actually cut. No, in fact, the amount that they actually cut is so ridiculous that it seems damn near pointless to cut it at all. It really is a "Why bother?" scenario.

This new but not surprising information comes to us from the fine folks over there at The Washington Post. They learned from the Congressional Budget Office that "A federal budget compromise that was hailed as historic for proposing to cut about $38 billion would reduce federal spending by only $352 million this fiscal year, less than 1 percent of the bill’s advertised amount". Now look, I'm not one to be someone to claim "Oh, that's just a drop in the bucket." But, come on! $352 million?! Less than one freaking percent?! How did this happen? I'll tell you how this happened. It happened in part because "...$13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involve money that existed only on paper and was unlikely to be tapped in the next decade." Oh, good! They're trying to fix our impending fiscal doom with accounting tricks. Next up? Fun house mirrors! And they act so freaking proud of themselves.

Here's the best part. Even though those $352 million in cuts will happen, for some reason, no one felt like factoring in "emergency" money for military action. You know. Like if we end up in Libya or something like that. (Yeah, like that's really going to happen. Wait. Didn't we....? Yeah. We did. Hmm. Disregard that statement.) Now, I don't know why they wouldn't factor those things in. If I'm doing a household budget and I have emergency money that I have spent or am spending, I'm going to have to factor in that it's going to get used. There's no way around that. You can call it whatever you want, but you still have to count it. But I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't want to count it when they were forming the budget out of snake oil is because if they did then "...the overall spending for this fiscal year may actually increase, by more than $3 billion." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Their little accounting tricks don't end there. "A Washington Post analysis of the 459-page budget revealed at least 98 cases in which Congress took back unused IOUs and called it a cut." HOW is that a cut? Don't answer that. There's more. "When the Capitol Visitor Center was under construction, lawmakers allotted $621 million to pay for it. The project wound up costing less than $600 million. In the compromise budget, lawmakers took back $15 million of the unused budget authority." Well, I should hope that they took it back! They didn't USE IT!

I'm making myself crazy here. This is insane. Instead of saving any money at all, Congress has very well (and probably very likely) passed a budget that is going to be costing the country MORE money. And people wonder why folks get so up in arms about spending! It's because it is out of control. President Barry said the other day that the greatest threat to our national security was our debt. And if he truly believes that and he ends up signing this budget, then we are so scroomed that there's not even any point. If both sides of Congress are going to flat out lie to us, it's over. And both sides, by saying that this budget cuts $38 billion dollars, are lying to us. Thus, it's over. We're scroomed. Goodbye, sweet America.

Sphere: Related Content

California Is On Crack

It's official. California is definitely some sort of crack addict who is selling anything and everything that it has so that it can get its next fix. Oh, sure, it will give the state immediate access to some cash that it needs, but that's just the instant gratification part of the deal. In the long run, it will end up costing the state more and probably making things worse for a state that is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy due to its unwillingness to cut anything at all out of the budget.

Here's the story as reported by the lovely folks over at ABC News and by the ever so diligent reporters over at the LA Times. See, California needs cash because it spends way more than it takes in. I won't even begin to delve into how the extremely large population of folks who are in this country illegally plays into this dilemma, but I will say that there are many areas in which California could trim its budget, yet it chooses not to. Just like a crack addict, California wants what it wants when it wants it.

So, California came up with a way to make a couple of billion dollars. And some of that could even be applied to its debt! California decided to sell 24 of however many buildings that it owns for the whopping total of $2.23 billion. While that sounds like a lot, just keep your pants on (because if California catches you without your pants on, you're going to be in for quite the surprise). Of the $2.23 billion, only $1.2 billion will go into the state general fund. That's because $1.09 billion goes to pay off bonds on the buildings. (I'm not sure what happened to the other .04 billion. Those are the figures that the LA Times gives me.) OK, so problem solved, right? Not so fast.

See, California is still using those buildings. It's not like they were abandoned or anything like that. No, they're fully in use every single day. They sold buildings like the Attorney General Building and the Franchise Tax Board Complex up in Sacramento. Yeah, California still needs those. But that's OK. Now California is just going to pay rent to the people that own them. Wait. What now?

Correct. Whereas before California owned the buildings, now it does not and it must rent them from the new owners. It would be like if you had a car that you owned and, because you needed some crack right that very moment, you sold it to the neighbor. Now you have money, but you have no car. Now you have to take that money that you got and you turn around and lease the car that you just sold your neighbor. How smart does that sound? Not very? Welcome to California.

According to the estimates from the California Legislative Analyst's Office "...It will cost the state $30 million more in the first year to remain in those buildings and that differential will increase to almost $200 million over the course of the 20 year leases." But do it now because you need crack now! What a bunch of morons.

Tell me something. What good is the Legislative Analyst's Office if no one listens to them? This state is already in a financial freefall into the abyss of bankruptcy, what say they trim a little bit off of the budget by eliminating the Legislative Analyst's Office. No one listens to them anyway. They just do what they want because why? They're addicted to crack, that is correct.

We're so doomed. And now we're screwed. We're totally scroomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Now We Know What's In The Bill. Or Do We?

Here are four words I never thought I'd think, much less type: Nancy Pelosi was right.

On March 9, 2010, Speaker Pelosi (who I'm pretty sure is missing a human soul and warms her body by sunning herself on a rock) gave a little speech to the Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties and during said speech, she actually said what I thought might have been the most ridiculous thing to ever come out of her mouth. She said, in reference to the then-pending health care bill, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it". Um, what now?

That's what she said. I swear. The text of the entire speech is over at her website. That particular little gem is about six paragraphs up from the bottom. But it turns out, she was right. How did I determine that? I came to that conclusion after reading an article by the extremely talented reporter William La Jeunesse of Fox News. The article outlined a provision of the bill, which is now law, called the Class Act, "...otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act" which "...is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program."

Now, why we didn't hear about this beforehand is beyond me. No, wait. No, it's not. We didn't hear about it because people out there in the media are simply not doing their jobs. It's not like this bill wasn't available for review beforehand. (Right? It was available, right?) Granted, the thing clocked in at over 2,000 pages long. Am I supposed to read all of those 2,000 pages? Technically, I think that I should want to. And don't get me wrong, I DO want to want to. I DON'T want to, though. But again, technically, I don't think that I should have to. (Don't get me started on how I don't think that ANYTHING should be 2,000 pages long, unless it's a document telling me how great I am, and even then that would be pushing it. My greatness can easily be summed up in a thousand pages or so.) It's not my JOB to read the damn thing. That's the job of the media. Their job is to report. They can't report unless they know what they're reporting on. The only way to know that is to do their damn job and read all 2,000 freaking pages. But no one did, otherwise we would have heard about this before now.

Ready for this? I hope you're either sitting down or sharpening your pitchfork tines. "...The program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care." Wait. What now? How much? A month?!

Now, call me silly, but can't you get long term care from the insurance that you're already supposed to be mandated to be purchasing thanks to the passage of the health care bill? I'm thinking that something along those lines would make the most sense. Ohh. That's why they didn't do it that way. It would have made sense. Carry on.

Now, this is a policy where you are automatically opted into unless you opt out. That is the complete opposite of what I thought that things were supposed to be being done. I thought it was supposed to be that you were automatically opted out of something unless you wanted to opt in. Oh, right. That's for things that the federal government isn't trying to siphon money from you for. Got it.

According to William's article, here are some of the more pressing details that you need to know about:

The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240. Wait. The CBO and the Medicare/Medicaid folks have figures that differ in cost of around a hundred bucks? Shocking, I know. Who am I going to believe? I'm going to go with the Medicare/Medicaid folks, as they are already ridiculously underpaid, thus the CBO's low estimate would seem to be wrong, all things considered. I'm also going to with with how that seems like an awful lot of money to be deducted monthly from folks. (And just remember, those figures are an "average". That means that some people will pay more than that and some people will pay less than that. My guess is that some people will pay much, much less.)

After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care. Only a five year vesting period? And then you're good? How do they figure that? By my calculations (and I'll go with the higher figure just to give them the benefit of the doubt), if you're paying in $240 a month, after five years, you'll have contributed $14,400. At benefits of $75 a day that you can tap if you need to after those five years, you'll have yourself a whopping 192 days of care. That's not a full year. That's barely over six months. Now, I don't know what your definition of "long term care" is, but mine is definitely more than six months. Six months isn't what I'd call "long term". Six months is "just gettin' started".

Here's the other frightening part of this: The money that is put into this fund (generously and likely erroneously estimated to be $109 billion in collected premiums by 2019 after being implemented as early as 2012) will not be in a "lockbox" sort of situation. No, it's going to be more of a general fund sort of situation. You know how Social Security money is supposed to be just for Social Security? You know how the Social Security funds have been tapped by everything else AND how it will give out more than it takes in next year? You know how that works? Sure you do. Now, do you expect that this thing will work any differently? Of course you don't. Thus, it's going to end up being what? A mitigated disaster, that is correct.

Of course "The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion." Sounds great. Good thing that this was passed into law so that we could find out that this was in it!

Since I enjoy math and numbers, let's look at a few more, shall we? If this thing starts in 2012, $109 billion in premiums by 2019 equals out to be $15.57 billion a year. If folks are paying $240 a month, that's 5,228,125 people needed to sustain that figure. If folks are paying $146 a year, that's 8,594,178 people needed to sustain that figure. That's a difference of 3,366,053 people. Um, that's kind of a lot. How do they figure this is going to work? AT ALL! And let's not forget, those are the figures to make it all work out without money being drawn out of the fund. Those are just the numbers for money being theoretically deposited into the fund.

But let's say you participate in this charade starting from the time you're 20. And let's say that you're paying the low, low rate of $146 a month. Fast forward forty five years. You're now sixty five and you're going to retire. You'll have amassed for yourself, after forty five years of paying premiums and at the flex-rate of $75 per day allotted to you for long term care, a whopping three years of long term care. Three. Forty five years, $146 a month for a total of $78,840. That gets you three years of in-home long term care. That doesn't seem like a lot to me. Wouldn't you be better off taking that $146 and investing it somewhere or even setting up a 401k type of dealio so that you can take care of your own expenses? Wouldn't that $146 amount to a hell of a lot more than the $78,840 after 45 years? I'm kind of thinking that it would.

This is ridiculous. And it's now law. Congratulations, Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for saddling the country with another obligation that it cannot afford. What in the hell happened to people taking care of themselves when they retire anyway? (Has she not noticed the high unemployment rate which is still besieging the country? Perhaps she has overlooked the still sagging economy? The perpetually high foreclosure rate? And she's thinking that folks in "times like these" are going to be OK with forking over another $200 a month? Not to be unjustifiably disrespectful to the soulless snake, but she's high.)

I don't say things like this very often, but please read William's article and pass it along to your friends. I guarantee that the majority of them, if not all of them, have never heard a single word about this. I guarantee that the majority of them have no idea that they've already been opted into a plan that is going to cost them a minimum of $146 a month unless they opt out. And again, the reason that people don't know this is because people in the media are not doing their job. Well, except for William. William rocks at his job. But everyone else just sucks. I can't wait to find out what else is in the bill now that it's passed into law. How exciting!

Sphere: Related Content

California Budget Busters

Look, there are a lot of great things about living in the People's Gay-Public of Drugifornia (also known as California), but I've gotta tell you, there are a lot of not so great things about living here. It's really borderline sucky to live here if you're asking me. And I'm doing just fine. The walled off compound protects me from the morons of society quite nicely, thank you. Employment isn't an issue and neither is revenue. But unfortunately, employment and revenue are an issue for the state.

The current unemployment rate in California is hovering somewhere around 12.3% and the state is also expected to be running a deficit which is somewhere right around $15 billion. (Yep, billion. With a B.) And that's "deficit". As in "not enough money". So with that knowledge, what has the California Senate decided to do? Well, according to the SF Gate they "...passed a measure to create a state-run, single-payer health system." Wait. They what now?

Correct. The California Senate voted 22-14 to pass this thing. Only one Democrat had the sanity to vote against this measure. That Democrat would be a one Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana. You can vote for him next time. The rest of the Democrats? Yeah, you're going to want to be NOT voting for them. The Republicans? They can stay. Lou can stay. Everyone else? Out. Out!

Now, this might not sound like such a big deal. I mean, after all, a state-run, single-payer health system sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Sure it does. And when you get back from Xanadu, let me know how it works there because it certainly isn't a viable option in this utopia that the Senators appear to be trying to create.

Let's just run over the basic basics of the state of California's fiscal issues, shall we? I'll be brief. That will be easy to do because there really isn't a lot to talk about, seeing as how the state is running that deficit of about $15 billion (still with a B). According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (the ol' LAO) California stands to make in revenue somewhere in the neighborhood of $82.5 billion. Sure, that sounds like a lot, but when you consider that it's around $5 billion less than a couple of years ago, you're going to kind of get the idea that revenue, well, it ain't what it used to be.

But here's the kicker: This utopian health care plan "All state residents would be provided health care and people could buy private health care to cover services not offered through the state plan." Um....what?

Everyone gets health care?! Score! Oh, wait. Maybe not. After all, this has just passed through the California Senate. The Governator has vetoed things like this before, so can I take it to mean that he's going to veto this as well? I should certainly hope so because, again according to the SF Gate, "It is anticipated to cost about $200 billion a year."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

It's going to cost what? $200 billion? A YEAR?! But...but....the state only takes IN about $82 billion a year. See....see....that....that....that's NOT ENOUGH! What in the world is wrong with those morons?!

I want an explanation from every single one of those morons who voted for this. What could their rationale possibly be?! Oh, that it sounds good?! It's because of all of the "sound good" and "feel good" programs that they're constantly passing legislation on that the state is in the fiscal toilet that it swirls around in daily! This isn't news! The state handed out IOUs last summer, for cryin' out loud! They're not kidding! The state is broke!!

You people in the California Senate have a lot of nerve, I'll tell you that. Every single one of you who voted for this garbage clearly have about as many brains as the state has surplus cash. That is to say NONE! Nice waste of time. Nice job wasting everyone's time and money to pass something that the Governator is sure to veto. Nice job accomplishing nothing. You morons.

It's $200 billion dollars! And that's just for this health care fantasy that they passed! It's not like there isn't the rest of the budget to continue to fund! You remember the rest of the budget, don't you? It's that thing that isn't fully funded as it is! Now just tack on another $200 billion to that. Oh, sure. Let me know how that works out, will you? I'll be over here, making the walls on my walled off compound even higher. After this show of stupidity, I'm considering adding a dome. We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

$100 Million Little Cuts

I wouldn't normally think that a headline in The Wall Street Journal would be so snippy that it would make me laugh, but that's exactly what happened when I read: "In a Savings Shocker, the Government Discovers The Paper Has Two Sides". The subtitle was equally as amusing, as it read: "Front-and-Back Copies, Other Wonders Help Agencies Save $102 Million". Of course, I was enjoying myself far too much, which is why I suspect that they threw in this last part of the subtitle in order to jolt me back into my usual surly state: ".006% of Deficit". And it was going so well, too. Morons. But more on that later.

Here's the scoop: According to CBS News, back in April, President Barry "...challenged his Cabinet to find ways to trim the budget." And perhaps coincidentally, he did so on the 20th, which happens to be Adolf Hitler's birthday. (Hey, I'm just sayin' is all. You do the math.) He was asking for the departments to find ways to cut a total of at least $100 million from the budget. In a rare show of efficiency, they were actually able to find those $100 million in cuts AND managed to find another "$243 million through 2010 and even more in years after that." Well that didn't seem so hard, did it?! All you had to do was ASK! Sheesh! Come on, do you really think it was THAT easy for the government, THE GOVERNMENT, to find ways to cut $100 million from their spending? It must have been grueling! Because as we all know, the government tries to run its operations at the most efficient spending level possible with a minimal amount of waste and redundancy, right? Why are you laughing? (Hey! Did that guy faint when I said that?! Crap, I was hoping to be up to 10 readers by now. SO close! Way to go, dude.)

Over on the White House website, they have the list of all of the cuts that were found to be possible to make. Let's take a look at some of the areas which were discovered to not have been functioning at the most fiscally sound levels, shall we? Here we go....

- The Department of Justice will save an estimated $4 million in FY 2010 by requiring personnel to make their travel arrangements online, rather than relying on travel agents. ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Travel agents? They were using travel agents? To book their flights on zeppelins? Tell me, when they went to book their itineraries with said travel agents, did they get in touch with them via two cans and a string? Who uses travel agents? Oh, that's right. Organizations such as the state of California still use travel agents. How's their fiscal situation looking? That's right, about as good as the moral situation of their state legislature - damn near bankrupt.

- The Forest Service will no longer repaint its new, white vehicles green immediately upon purchase. They're going to wait awhile instead. Um, couldn't they just BUY green ones to begin with? Is there a shortage of green vehicles in the automotive industry? Given their dire straits, you wouldn't think there would be. That's odd.

- The National Telecommunications and Information Administration is, among other things, going to "establish moratoria on unnecessary office renovations and office supply purchases". And while I commend them for identifying both of these as areas where waste can be reduced, I'm curious as to what SORT of office renovations will be deemed "unnecessary". I'd also like to know why "office supplies" that were unnecessary were being purchased in the first place. (I'd really like to know the KIND of unnecessary office supplies that were being purchased. I mean, if you don't need it in your office, why order it? My guess? Printer ink cartridges, which conveniently fit the home printers of several office employees as well. Allegedly.)

- They apparently weren't able to make much of a difference in the Redundant Department of Redundancy Division, as the Renovations Department "will save $131,000 by placing a moratorium on unnecessary office renovations in FY 2009." So the Renovations Department will be cutting back on renovations. Clever.

- Along those same lines, Over there in the Department of Homeland Security, the Equipment and Maintenance Department is planning to realize efficiencies and savings related to equipment and maintenance. Brilliant. They're BRILLIANT!

- FEMA's innovative, cost cutting measures? Instead of just THROWING AWAY 120,000 temporary housing units (ie, Katrina trailers), they're going to find other uses for them OR sell them. And again I say, BRILLIANT!

- HUD is going to (wait for it) "reduce HUD's energy consumption by turning off lights during non-working hours, and centralizing the power management of personal computers (PCs)." ::: sigh ::: God, we're a dumb, dumb nation.

- Taking a cue from HUD is the Department of Justice. "Many DOJ computers remain on when not in use for prolonged periods. DOJ is configuring these computers to automatically shut-down, which will reduce power consumption and costs." The DOJ is also "streamlining its process for paying credit card bills, saving an estimated $2 million annually." Wait. Does that mean we've been paying LATE FEES for the DOJ credit card bills?? DO you KNOW what the interest rate is on those things?! What is WRONG with you people? Late credit card payments! Lights on! Computers on! Office supplies up the wazoo!

- They also discovered that "A large number of DOJ copiers and printers can be configured to automatically print double-sided. Increasing the frequency of double-sided printing will reduce paper consumption and lower costs." And thus, the Wall Street Journal's headline was born!

- The Treasury Department will be shutting off computers when they're not being used and they will also not be running the air conditioning during the evening and on weekends. You know, when there's NO ONE THERE! (See? I learn stuff like that and that is why every time I hear some politician talking about the damned ozone layer and global warming I want to hang myself. They can't even turn off the freaking lights when they go home for the weekend, but I'M supposed to be composting my own feces in order to save the planet?! I don't think so.)

- I also learned about some seemingly antiquated ways that our government has of performing certain tasks. Take over there at the Treasury Department again. "Treasury has implemented an initiative to recycle used material...Treasury will shred classified materials into blocks to be used for recycling in lieu of burning." What now?

What was that last part? After recycling? In lieu of BURNING?!?! What the hell?! Burning?! Are you telling me that all of this time, as I picture folks standing around a big mound of papers with the office pages squirting starter fluid all over the piles, and someone (probably wearing a jungle mask, grass skirt and waving a couple of chicken bones around) strikes that match to throw it on the mound and ignite the documents (probably to protect national security and other, um, stuff), no one EVER thought, "Does this seem right? Couldn't we be doing something other than BURNING all of this crap?" No? Not until now, eh? Just kept right on keeping on with all of the burning, did ya? Interesting. Please see my earlier comments about how I twist off whenever I hear the words "global warming" uttered.

I kept waiting to read that they were going to dismantle ICE, being as how it doesn't do much in the first place, but I never did. It was odd. (Oh, but I kid! Relax! They do a fine job! Of welcoming people from other lands into our country.)

Granted, when I read about some of the cuts, I couldn't help but wonder if they could have cut just a BIT further. Take for example, the training that goes on within Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. They found that they can cut back on face-to-face trainings and instead use conference calls to save money. They says that they've used this method "to train new staff in Asia on its Offshore Pest Information program." And my question is "Do we NEED an Offshore Pest Information Program? They're offshore! It's right there in the name! Why do I care about the pest's information? Let 'em keep it and let me keep my money!" (There was a question in there somewhere, right? Oh, sure! There it is. Whew! Sometimes I get a bit caught up in the moment, I forget what I had originally intended.)

And then there's NOAA. Man, they cleaned house over there. The summary of their cuts is: "The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposes to save $1.5 million over FY 2009-10 by reducing conferences and other non-critical travel, revising existing training programs to focus on in-house seminars and virtual programs, consolidating purchases of office supplies and minor equipment purchases, terminating non-safety renovations at NOAA headquarters, reviewing program administration and information technology support contracts for efficiencies, setting paperwork usage standards, and converting to electronic signatures." (I have an inside source over there at NOAA and from what I can tell, all of these things are a pretty good place to start.)

But that part about the cuts being only ".006% of the deficit"? That makes me insane. And it is a perfect example of why I suspect that the government, at all levels, has a difficult time with the concept of things like "budgetary means" and "savings" and "cost cutting". For some reason, unless the cuts and the savings are monumental (you know, like their spending plans) then they are somehow less meaningful than if they did wipe out the national debt in the blink of an eye. (Just the one eye though. The other one was lost during one of those "eye for an eye" fiascoes.) I don't care if it was .001% of the deficit. It's something!

And you could tell that they weren't even trying very hard to come up with those cost cutting measures. Those seemed to be pretty obvious to me. (Come on! Printing on BOTH sides of the paper?! How long did it take them to noodle that one through and come up with a solution?) Imagine how much of OUR money could be saved if they actually tried to find ways to really cut down on costs?

Sphere: Related Content