Powerful video message (click here to view in YouTube):
24
Apr 2012
12
Aug 2011
Grover Norquist took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal in … celebration?… of today’s dubious distinction. It is Cost of Government Day, the day we finally finish working just to pay for the cost of government and after which we can finally begin working to pay for our own lives. Norquist notes:
The drama of the last-minute vote to increase the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion has focused on projected deficits of the federal government and how they will add to the national debt. Those numbers are large. The national debt was $10 trillion when President Obama was inaugurated and is expected to be $15.5 trillion at the end of the year.
Yet focusing on the deficit understates the true cost of government. In fact, this year’s deficit of $1.5 trillion is “only” 40% of federal spending. And while federal spending has jumped to $3.8 trillion in 2011 from $2.9 trillion in 2008—a 31% increase—that does not include state and local spending, which is estimated to total $1.6 trillion in 2011, according to new report from the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation (ATRF). Nor do these numbers include the cost of individuals and businesses complying with federal regulations: The total cost of such compliance is estimated to be $1.8 trillion.
Focusing national attention on the deficit rather than on the total cost of government—federal, state and local spending plus the cost of the federal and state regulatory burden—causes several problems. First, it deliberately understates the true cost of government. It also allows advocates of ever-larger government to misdirect our attention away from the bigger picture to just “the deficit.” And there are ways to dramatically increase the cost of government without adding to the deficit: new regulations and new spending programs matched with higher taxes. (Think ObamaCare and cap-and-trade rules from the Environmental Protection Agency.)
To more accurately measure the true cost of government, ATRF has calculated a Cost of Government Day. We determine this each year by adding the cost of government spending at all levels to a conservative estimate of all regulatory burdens—and then counting how many days of the year Americans work to pay the costs of government.
The Tax Foundation divides total federal, state and local taxes by total national income to come up with Tax Freedom Day. This year America worked until April 12 to pay all taxes.
When you include the costs of federal deficit spending and the regulatory burden this year, however, you don’t reach the Cost of Government Day until Aug. 12. Americans will work for 103 days to pay for federal spending, 44 days for state and local spending and 77 days to cover the cost of the regulatory burden.
This is the third year in a row that Americans will work into August to pay for the cost of government. Before2009, the day never fell later than July 21. Looking back, we see that the Reagan years held the Cost of Government Day steady at July 4. Under the first President Bush, it moved forward 15 days. But Americans gained 15 days when the day moved back in the last six years of divided government with a Republican Congress against President Bill Clinton.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, however, Cost of Government Day moved forward to July 16 in 2008, from June 28 in 2000, costing taxpayers 18 days of extra labor. Since he took office, President Barack Obama has pushed the day all the way forward to Aug. 12. In other words, Americans are now working 27 more days per year to pay for government spending and regulations than on the day Mr. Obama became president.
Read Norquist’s conclusions here. I got these images from Professor Mark Perry’s blog post on the Cost of Government Day, which is worth a read — and I like his comment in conclusion:
Isn’t it a bit ironic that Americans celebrate Independence Day on July 4 to recognize our rejection of oppressive British regulation, mercantilism and taxation, and yet the typical American now works until the middle of August to pay for today’s Big Government? That is, we celebrate our declaration of independence from the British government when we are a still more than a month away from really being free from the tax and regulatory burden of our current government.
For more details from Americans for Tax Reform, check out their 2011 Cost of Government Day Report.
Related Posts:
10
Aug 2011
Enough said.
Related Posts:
11
Apr 2011
We have previously covered efforts by the City of Albuquerque–or, more specifically, by Mayor Berry–to create a more open and transparent government (here and here). Well, it looks like the commissioners of Bernalillo County will now have a chance to demonstrate where they stand on the issue.
At its meeting tomorrow evening, the Bernalillo County Commission will be taking up a resolution proposed by District 5 Commissioner Wayne Johnson that is designed to encourage openness and transparency in government. Johnson’s resolution sets minimum standards for information to be included in the county’s new website. Users of the website will have access to the county checkbook, review budgets and department performance, view county contracts, and access a list of county employees that includes compensation, year-to-date, and cost to the county information. The resolution also significantly improves how the county responds to Inspection of Public Records Act requests by requiring that documents provided as a result of the request also be posted on the transparency website.
Read the entire Openness and Transparency Resolution to make up your own mind.
Predictably, county employees are reluctant to have their public salaries made… well… public. Tuesday night’s meeting will reveal the commission’s true dedication to transparency or perhaps a lack thereof.
The current county webpage conveniently has information on how to contact each commissioner if, for example, someone wanted to find out where a particular commissioner stands on government transparency and this proposal. Or, if that same someone wanted to comment on the proposal, tomorrow’s meeting is actually open to the public. It starts at 5pm, although folks wanting to participate should be there at 4:45 at 1 Civic Plaza downtown in the Vincent E Griego Chambers (basement).
Related Posts:
Gubernatorial candidate Susuana Martinez styled herself as a hardline opponent of illegal immigration and Governor Martinez demonstrated her commitment to that position yesterday. Executive Order 2011-009 (.pdf) rescinds Richardson Order 2005-019 and requires state law enforcement officers to “inquire into the criminal suspect’s immigration status, and report relevant information to federal immigration enforcement authorities.”
The order forbids inquiry into “the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach law enforcement seeking assistance or reporting a crime.”
Now that Martinez has proven her campaign position on illegal immigration was sincere, we can expect her to move quickly on a controversial pledge: repeal the law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain licenses and revoke those already issued.
As anticipated, Governor Martinez is proving herself to be a tough and dependable lady — and one we will continue to enjoy watching, particularly any time she rolls back the efforts by Richardson’s administration to wreak havoc on our great state.
Related Posts:
10
Jan 2011
By now most readers are probably aware of the horrific tragedy that took place in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday morning. Shortly after 10am local time, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner opened fire on U.S. Congresswoman Gabby Giffords at a townhall meeting she held in the parking lot of a local Safeway. Ms. Giffords remains in critical condition, and 13 others were wounded. Six people died, including federal judge John M. Roll.
News updates will continue to pour in as investigations get underway, but the immediate aftermath of the shooting is so far extraordinarily disappointing.
As the Wall Street Journal points out, “Whatever confused political motives he expressed seem merely to be part of the maelstrom of his mental sickness.” No evidence has yet come out to suggest that Loughner’s motives were political or that he was affiliated with any political party or movement. Yet both ends of the political spectrum were willing to immediately step into the breach to cast blame — most particularly the Democrats apparently looking to pin the tragedy on the tea party.
This all leads me to wonder: will we ever reach a place where blame is appropriately placed on the person who committed the heinous act rather than speculatively targeting all manner of other influences?
One example of the unfortunate blame game was Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik’s early response suggesting that heated political rhetoric somehow caused this tragedy. During his news conference, the Sheriff stated:
There’s reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol. People tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it’s not without consequences.
The Sheriff had good reason to suspect that Loughner was mentally unstable: his office had received several reports of death threats Loughner made against public figures in recent months. Dupnik declined to take action, leaving it up the mental health professionals to deal with Loughner.
Loughner was, indeed, a man with substantial mental problems (based on his own web postings) and there remains no evidence whatsoever that he was politically motivated.
Most ridiculous are those fools who would lay blame at Sarah Palin’s doorstep. Palin is not without her problems, as fellow blogger Dagny Taggart recently explained. And her campaign did post a graphic this past fall that showed Giffords’ district (and others) in the crosshairs as a targeted district. This strategy was not unique to Palin, however, as the Democrats had their own graphics with bullseyes on targeted districts:
Guess what? There is no reason to believe that if only these two images (or, I’m certain, others like them) had not been out there this nutjob would have stayed home on Saturday. Someone who is inclined to pick up a gun, drive to a townhall meeting, and open fire indiscriminately is really, really crazy. It is not Sara Palin’s fault that he is crazy and she did not shoot anyone.
To those fools who would suggest otherwise, or who are now exploiting this tragedy as a “wake up call” regarding political rhetoric that does not appear to have played any role at all, I must ask: do you fall down a lot?
UPDATE: Reason has a couple of good posts, one with some very good links and another on the politicization of the tragedy. Well written, both.
UPDATE 2: Great Reagan quote that underscores my question above:
We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions. Ronald Reagan 1968 GOP Convention Platform Meeting.
Related Posts:
16
Nov 2010
Our friends at the Institute for Justice have a new video highlighting the problems with “clean elections” systems that provide taxpayer financing to political candidates.
IJ’s challenge to Arizona’s “clean elections” is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari, which the Court will consider at its November 23 conference.
BONUS (semi-related) VIDEO: In other news on wasting taxpayer money in ridiculous and likely unconsititutional schemes, this video provides a great summary of “Quantitative Easing”:
Related Posts:
26
Oct 2010
Carly Fiorina is going to the mattresses in her battle to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer and she has done so with a powerful YouTube campaign that is lighting up the social networking sphere. The latest installment is pure genious, and comes courtesy of RightChange and Director David Zucker (comedic genious behind Airplane, Naked Gun, and An American Carol):
RightChange has a page dedicated to the Heinrich-Barela battle, making a pretty important point: No more Democrats, no more Pelosi. Spend half a minute with “Attack of the 50ft Pelosi” and that message is particularly powerful:
Related Posts:
11
Jun 2010
Having philosophical or ideological principles is all well and good, but often we have to consider real world situations where our principles must play out in answering questions of governance actually presented and with real consequences. Recently I was involved in a discussion of this intersection between philosophy and the real world when I received the following questions:
Is there a general philosophical rule for conservatives or libertarians regarding how a state should manage required office space? Is it always better to lease space from the private sector, or to have the state be the owner of land and buildings?
If there is no general philosophically “correct” starting position on the issue, is it then always simply a matter of determining which method has the least cost? This of course means there is no “right” or “wrong” approach to the subject, and that every single circumstance requires an ad hoc decisionmaking process.
By the way, the arguments over which is the least cost are very complex, closely disputed and subject to constant revisions of conclusions as to whether the taxpayers are better off under each approach.
My good friend Ellis Wyat noted in response some very good points:
Keep in mind that the government often uses eminent domain, or the threat of eminent domain, to steal land when it builds a building. Almost any private sector use would be higher and better than any governmental use, so there is typically a social cost when eminent domain is employed for buildings.
Offsetting this is the incentive that favored landlords have in leasing property to the State, and the attendant possibilities of corruption, kickbacks, etc.
But then again, when the State builds something, there are those inflated Davis-Bacon wages…
I can only conclude that both avenues are suboptimal.
My solution is to prohibit the use of eminent domain for government buildings (reserving eminent domain for utility lines and roads, and even then only when absolutely necessary), and repealing the state Davis-Bacon. Repeal that five percent discount that NM contractors get as well.
Then, when the government wants a new building, it has to go out and buy property like everyone else and build its own. Even this method would open the door to corruption in the land acquisition and in the construction process and these must be monitored closely.
So, with the above reservations, I suppose I fall into the “state should own” camp.
The question is certainly a real one for New Mexicans. The General Services currently (pdf at p. 23-24) is responsible for about 6.9 million square feet of state-owned space in 748 buildings, and leases an additional 3.2 million square feet of privately owned space. The Legislative Finance Committee in Santa Fe recently heard testimony regarding a proposal for a ”supercomplex” to house state agencies including Health and Human Services. The supercomplex proposal has been floating around for a few years, requests for proposals apparently went out in 2006, and would involve the state working with developers to build the facility.
When the time came for me to weigh in on the question of state ownership versus state leasing of office space, I managed to pull together a few thoughts as well.
My advice is to follow the constitution. Because of the no-debt provision in New Mexico’s state constitution, in my opinion it is unconstitutional to enter multi-year building leases. This is debt and therefore illegal. (I realize some learned judges may disagree with this view; the same ones who think that legislative retirement is not a “compensation, perquisite or allowance.”). There probably are few landlords who would be willing to lease year-to-year.
If the state wants to own the building, it should pay for it with bonds, after the public votes on them, just like the constitution requires. (No pork bills, which also are prohibited by Article IV, Section 16.)
Once these provisions are complied with, it’s simply a business decision. In the non-government world, people have to decide each day whether to lease or own. There are lots of experts who can help.
Of course, in my humble but accurate opinion, the best philosophical course is indeed the libertarian one: Cut, slash, repeal and abolish–no office space needed.
My conservative and libertarian friends, what say you?