Fiscal Insanity Continues II

Today the Washington Post carried the headline: "Obama readies broad plan to reduce deficit". Is there any believability in that headline?  I doubt it. Just more smoke and mirrors.  (Other fiscal insanity posts.)

This past Friday, on the brink of a government shutdown, our politicians agreed to an approximate $38 billion dollar proposed spending reduction within a proposed debt increase of  $1.7 trillion dollars.  Our budget deficit for the current fiscal year will now "only" be $1.662 trillion dollars. A whopping (sarcastic) -2%. (This makes a joke out of the Republican's supposed conversion to fiscally responsible government.) The whole congressional debate was pure theater that allowed for grandstanding but failed to actually address our ever growing deficit.

There is also the issue of the fact that the 2011 budget was supposed to have been passed by September 30th of 2010. It wasn't.  The Democrats failed to meet this obligation. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem to be able to formulate legitimate budgets. Past failure of course does not mean that they will fail in the future, but one has to wonder.

On February 22, 2009, the Post carried this headline: "Obama vows to cut huge deficit in half". Instead of even making a superficial gesture in deficit reduction, Obama's 2012 budget proposal according to the Post will result in a  record $1.6 trillion deficit.

Well what about the Bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and its recommendations for cutting the budget? Seems that his Commission has been regulated to the dust bin of history.  All that Obama seems to have said about it was solely regulated to the State of the Union speech, when he stated that he did not agree with some of the proposals. Based on the lack of any reference or follow-up to the Deficit Reduction Commission recommendations, I take it that the word "some" really meant that all the recommendations have been placed in the trash.

Based on the experience of the past, we are in for more smoke and mirrors that will claim that the deficit will somehow be "reduced" while it is actually being increased.

Snippets from Forbes

The April 11, 2001 issue of Forbes had worthwhile comments concerning copyright.  Lewis DVorkin in the article "The soul of media: For Forbes, it’s editing" observed that "On the Web today, knowledgeable people can publish content for next to nothing. With the tools of social media, those same people can build followings for next to nothing."

In recognition of this trend, Mr. DVorkin goes on to say "Forbes is adapting to this world while still adhering to what made us a trusted business news provider. Our full-time staff of experienced editors and reporters is now both covering the news and recruiting hundreds of qualified contributors — in effect, curators — to create the content our voracious audience requires. Forbes is “editing” these curators by hand picking them (just as we do our full-time staff) based on their credentials." A refreshing acknowledgement that it is better to adapt to a changing market by soliciting content from those willing to contribute.

 Jon Bruner in the interview "Steal This E-Book"  asks tech publisher Tim O'Reillly "On all your titles you've dropped digital-rights management (DRM), which limits file sharing and copying. Aren't you worried about piracy?"

Mr. Reilly responds with "No. And so what? Let's say my goal is to sell 10,000 copies of something. And let's say that if by putting DRM in it I sell 10,000 copies and I make my money, and if by having no DRM 100,000 copies go into circulation and I still sell 10,000 copies. Which of those is the better outcome? I think having 100,000 in circulation and selling 10,000 is way better than having just the 10,000 that are paid for and nobody else benefits. ... People who don't pay you generally wouldn't have paid you anyway. We're delighted when people who can't afford our books don't pay us for them, if they go out and do something useful with that information. ... I think having faith in that basic logic of the market is important. Besides, DRM interferes with the user experience. It makes it much harder to have people adopt your product."  Again, another refreshing acknowledgement that adaption to a changing market is a superior approach.

Today's Passing Casual Scene

Two cartoons caught my attention today. One by Nina Paley below, concerning the growing absurdity of lawsuits today.

Scott Adams cartoon below is indicative of the "mad rush" by companies to go "green".  I have a sneaky suspicion that many of our "green" products are simply the old product with new labeling.

Rude Re-Awaking

This morning Fox News jolted me awake with the remembrance that Obama had undeservedly received the Noble Peace Prize before actually accomplishing anything positive. Back in December 2009 I wrote about Obama's  Nobel Peace Prize Travesty, which had since faded from my memory.  Tom Tooles also had an excellent cartoon concerning the granting of the award.

Since receiving the Noble Peace Prize, Obama has continued our military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan.  He still has not closed GITMO. Now he has initiated new military actions in Libya.  Of course, Fox News gleefully reviewed all of Obama's broken campaign promises. Even more amusing, Fox News actually gave Micheal Moore of all people an ata-boy for condemning our new military involvement in Libya.  The Toronto Sun writes: "Taking to his Twitter page, Moore rages, "We have neither the troops, stomach, or $$ (dollars) to fight a ground war for months/years to defeat (Moammar Gadhafi)... May I suggest a 50-mile evacuation zone around Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?"" (Emphasis added).  Amazing to see Fox News and Moore on the "same" page.

Well, thanks Fox News for reminding me that Obama was undeservedly granted the Nobel Peace prize. Unfortunately, Toles hope that Obama would run a good race has not panned out.

Balanced Budget Amendment Circus

Festering in the background of our unimaginable deficit spending orgy is the resurrection of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. On the surface this sounds reasonable, but in realty it is nothing more than pure political theater.  It is a distraction from the fact that our congress people are simply not doing their job of being fiscally responsible.

Logically, if Congress cannot balance the budget now; how would a piece of paper with some ink on it motivate them to implement a balanced budget.  It won't.

Congress has a propensity to pass laws that appear strict but turnout to be toothless.  Should any balanced budget amendment pass I predict that it would contain an "escape" clause of some form that would allow Congress to declare some sort of "emergency" so that they can continue spending without restraint. 

The answer is electing Congressional people who will do their job of running the country in a fiscally responsible manner. A piece of paper will not magically transform irresponsible politicians into responsible decision makers.