Tag Archives: Budget

Commentary

Keith Hennessey explains the looming crisis of entitlement spending

Leave a comment

This is the best post I have ever seen on the problem of demographics and entitlement spending, which is due to explode in about a few years. I’ll summarize so that you will click through and read this post for yourself. There is almost no text in the post, it is all graphs, and they are self explanatory. It will take your about 5 minutes to scare yourself into a coma.

Summary of the post:

  • There are 3 entitlement programs: social security, medicare and medicaid
  • These programs are funded by taxes on young people who are still working
  • These 3 programs currently cost 9% of GDP.
  • By 2050, the costs will have doubled to 18% GDP.
  • Some of this increase will be due to excess growth in health costs
  • And some of this increase will be due to demographics

Let me talk more about the demographics problem:

  • More people are living longer
  • That means that benefits are being paid out over more years, per person
  • A huge group of babies from the Baby Boom started retiring in 2008
  • But the number of younger workers who pay their benefits is not growing fast enough
  • The number of workers needed to pay each retiree’s benefits is shrinking
  • Taxes will have to increase, or benefits will have to decrease

Please read the article. It will help you to put Obama’s massive spending and tax hikes in perspective. By the way, this is a great post to forward to your friends and neighbor’s who voted for Obama who do not like to read about economics and finance.

Commentary

How much profit does the non-profit Planned Parenthood make?

6 Comments

This article from the American Spectator provides the answer.

Excerpt:

Left-wing activists are indignant at obscene oil company profits, hefty CEO bonuses, and sweet golden parachutes — but what about expansion of the No. 1 violator of human rights in the United States?

No, it’s not Dick Cheney and the CIA. It’s Planned Parenthood. The abortion giant took home $85 million in “excess of revenue over expenses” (a nifty way of saying profits) and had an operating budget of over $1 billion for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, according to its latest annual report. Included in that budget was $350 million in “government grants and contracts” (an equally nifty way of saying your tax dollars). An increase in the number of abortions performed helped fuel the profits.

Should government money be going to special interest groups that helped Obama to get elected?

Uncle Sam helps, too. The federal government has morphed into Planned Parenthood’s sugar daddy, and the co-dependency is only going to get worse in the age of Obama. Fully one-third of the organization’s revenue last year came from the government, compared with less than one-fourth from private contributions. If Planned Parenthood can’t get your money voluntarily, its advocates in Congress will coercively.

That’s why limited government advocates have a stake in the pro-life cause. On April 15, over one million Americans flocked to state capitals, public parks, and town halls to protest runaway government spending — and rightly so. Although most of the movement’s furor was directed at bailouts and stimulus packages, government’s love tryst with the abortion lobby should be exhibit A in the tea partiers’ future arsenal.

The first target should be Obama’s executive order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, which had ensured that American taxpayer funds would never be used for overseas abortions. The move didn’t get much ink because of the media’s preoccupation with the economic crisis, but it stands as an example of both Obama’s abortion radicalism and intention, even in a troubled economy, to throw public money at groups that helped him get elected.

Yet another reason why fiscal conservatives should be social conservatives.

Related posts

Commentary

How government forces private firms out of business with predatory pricing

1 Comment

This article on Fox News’ Forum is by John Lott. He explains the threat of predatory pricing as it relates to Obama’s health care plan.

First, Lott explains the stated goal of Obama’s plan:

President Obama is selling government health insurance to the American people as the way to save money.  That government health insurance will merely provide competition to keep private insurance companies from gouging their customers.

But here is the problem with a parallel system run by the government:

There are a couple of problems with Obama’s argument.  Government is just not known for its cost effectiveness or quality.  And the way for government enterprises to survive is with massive taxpayer subsidies and charging customers prices below the firm’s actual costs, driving more efficient private firms out of business.  These subsidies mean that when government enterprises “win” they do so by driving more efficient private firms out of business.

Here is an an example of how it works with USPS vs Fedex:

The U.S. Postal Service would often increase its first-class mail rate, where it had a monopoly, to raise money to subsidize its overnight delivery service where it faced stiff competition.  For example, it raised first-class mail to thirty-three cents in January 1999 and simultaneously reduced the price of domestic overnight express mail from $15.00 to $13.70, even though it was already losing money at the $15.00 rate. The price, which was lowered in response to increasingly successful competition in overnight delivery from FedEx and UPS Overnight, remained below $15.00 for the next seven years.  Clearly the Postal Service was not able to drive its competitors out of business with this maneuver, in part because its on-time delivery record and quality was poorer.

The Postal Service lost money on its overnight deliveries despite advantages that FedEx and UPS could only dream of.  The Postal Service is exempt from paying state sales, property and income taxes.  And it uses some of the most expensive real estate in the country — rent-free. The competition that Obama advocates between government and private insurance companies isn’t going to be any fairer.

The government can run huge deficits, effectively transferring money from the productive private sector into their parallel public competitor, with the end goal being complete control of consumer purchases. Obama intends to run private companies out of business so that you have only one place where you can go to purchase health care: OBAMA. And you will do anything he tells you in order to get that health care.

It’s all about controlling your behavior by taking your money and then restricting your access to services. The end goal is that everyone will have equal life outcomes regardless of how hard they work, and how risky and/or immoral their lifestyle. Democrats do not trust you to keep the money you earn, and to spend your money on the things that you want. They think government knows best.

In his book “Freedomnomics”, Lott has even more examples of predatory pricing. I recommend that book, especially for the chapter on abortion and crime. Pro-lifers will find the book very useful. It’s important for people to understand that the more involved government gets in the free market, the less liberty we have as consumers.