Grievances
Economy
Dems seek cover to boost debt limit
Dems seek cover to boost debt limit
The Senate must soon increase the national debt limit to above $13 trillion — and Democrats are looking for political cover.
Knowing they will face unyielding GOP attacks for voting to increase the eye-popping debt, Democrats are considering attaching a debt increase provision to a must-pass bill, possibly the Defense Department spending bill, according to Democratic and Republican sources.
Adding it to the defense bill would allow Democrats to argue that they voted for the measure to help troops in harm’s way — and downplay that their vote also expanded the limit for how much money the country can borrow.
The strategy has not yet been finalized, aides and senators said. The House already approved a debt limit increase of $925 billion — above the $12.1 trillion ceiling Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus package last February — but Democrats may seek to increase the limit further so they don’t have to revisit the politically treacherous issue until after the 2010 midterm elections.
As of Tuesday, the debt stood at $11.95 trillion, staring at senators amid a roiling health care debate in which critics have seized on the potential costs of the overhaul. Unlike those of the House, the Senate’s rules do not allow it to automatically increase the debt with its adoption of the annual budget resolution. That puts senators in a tough position politically. And if the Senate balks at the increase, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has warned that the slow economic recovery could collapse, as investors around the world would sharply lose confidence in America’s abilities to meet its credit obligations.
“This president inherited, in some ways, an economic fiasco,” said conservative Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. “It’s not going to be a pleasant vote, but it may be necessary until we can get back on track.”
Indeed, Democrats are quick to point out that President George W. Bush left President Barack Obama with a $10.6 trillion debt — and that the debt limit was increased seven times in the Republican’s eight years in the White House. But now Democrats are in charge of Congress and the White House; and the Treasury Department reported last week that the annual deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 stood at a record $1.4 trillion, with that number likely to balloon under Obama’s policies.
With the debt limit about to be eclipsed, Republicans are eager to force Democrats to find the votes to increase it among themselves, putting the majority party in a lose-lose situation and searching for a way to minimize public backlash.
“Regardless of the political treachery, I’m more worried about the economic treachery and the monetary aspects of it with devaluing the dollar,” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.).
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), whose panel is in charge of the debt limit increase, both told POLITICO that appropriators may add the language to must-pass spending legislation.
And Conrad said he wants any debt increase to be coupled with language that would create a “comprehensive” process to force Congress to begin making tough choices to cut the debt — something akin to legislation he and Gregg proposed that would establish a commission to study ways to cut the deficit, whose recommendations would be fast-tracked through Congress.
Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a centrist Democrat, said he wouldn’t support an increase in the debt limit “unless there’s some mechanism to start getting the deficit under control.”
Bayh and nine other Democrats sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week that called on Congress to approve a “special process” to control the deficit — warning that adding trillions more dollars to the country’s credit card could force a sharp rise in interest rates and cause the price of goods and services to decline while limiting the country’s ability to act on a range of pressing issues.
But if that language is attached to a stand-alone bill to increase the debt limit, the House would be forced to vote on the amended version — a vote that House Democratic leaders are eager to avoid. Folding a method to control the deficit — with an increase in the debt limit — into a much larger bill seems to be a more politically palatable solution, several aides said.
“Sen. Reid agrees about the importance of dealing with our long-term fiscal challenges and has been talking with Sen. Conrad, the administration and others in the Democratic leadership about the best way to proceed,” said Jim Manley, senior communications adviser to Reid. “Those discussions are ongoing, and the administration is evaluating what they may want to recommend.”
Republicans are keenly aware that Democrats may try legislative maneuvering to avoid political fallout, with one senior GOP aide saying the defense appropriations route was under “active consideration.”
Three Republicans — Reps. Jerry Lewis and Buck McKeon of California and Rep. Bill Young of Florida — sent a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Wednesday asking Democrats to keep the defense bill clean of extraneous items, including the D.C. Voting Rights Act and an increase in the national debt limit.
A spokesman for Obey, Ellis Brachman, said he “couldn’t speculate on what will be in the final defense appropriations package,” which is awaiting action by a House-Senate conference committee.
Rob Blumenthal, a spokesman for Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), declined to comment.
Since conference reports cannot be amended, the GOP wouldn’t be able to offer amendments to a debt ceiling increase if it’s added to the defense bill.
And GOP Senate leaders — who expect their 40 members to unite against the debt limit increase and force Democrats to find the necessary 60 votes on their own — are eager to have a protracted amendment process on the floor.
“My guess is that we will try to offer some amendments to [the increase] because I think it’ll be a good opportunity for us to have a debate on spending and borrowing, and that’s obviously a debate that we want to engage in,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), No. 4 in the GOP leadership.
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), the Senate’s biggest swing vote, said she was uncertain how she’d vote on a debt limit increase.
“You absolutely have to make government run,” she said, “but I have to look at it.”
From the Red Alert Newsletter
2008 & 2009 Figures show the U.S.A. is bankrupt; Social Security Trust Fund continues to be raided
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113366
No money is being set aside for future Social Security Payments and other entitlements, as explained below
Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium online newsletter
published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and columnist.
The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government released by the U.S. Department of Treasury, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit based on data reported in the 2008 financial report is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.
The calculations in the 2008 financial report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that includes year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.
Economist John Williams, who publishes the website Shadow Government Statistics, told Corsi, "As bad as 2008 was, the $455 billion budget deficit on a cash basis and the $5.1 trillion federal budget deficit on a GAAP accounting basis does reflect any significant money reflected to the financial bailout
or Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which was approved after the close of the fiscal year."
He continued, "For 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the fiscal year 2009 budget deficit as being $1.2 trillion on a cash basis, and that was before taking into consideration the full costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, before the cost of the Obama nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan, or the cost of the second $350 billion tranche in TARP funds, as well as all current bailouts being contemplated by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve."
Williams told Corsi the federal government's deficit is hemorrhaging at a pace that threatens the viability of the financial system. He said the 2009 budget deficit will clearly exceed $2 trillion on a cash basis and the full amount must be funded by Treasury borrowing. He noted that it's not likely to happen without the Federal Reserve acting as lender of last resort by buying Treasury debt and monetizing the debt.
Corsi explained, "'Monetizing the debt' is a term used to signify that the U.S. Treasury will ultimately be required to print cash to meet Treasury debt obligations, acting in this capacity only because the Treasury cannot sell the huge amount of debt elsewhere, possibly not even to the Federal Reserve."
So far, the Treasury has been largely dependent upon foreign buyers, principally China and Japan and other major holders of U.S. dollar foreign exchange reserves, including Middle East oil-producing nations purchasing U.S. debt through their financial agents in London.
"The appetite of foreign buyers to purchase continued trillions of U.S. debt has become more questionable as the world has witnessed the rapid deterioration of the U.S. fiscal condition in the current financial crisis," Williams noted.
Corsi wrote, "The sad reality is that the U.S. Treasury has not reserved any funds to cover the future Social Security and Medicare obligations we are incurring today."
Williams said there are no funds held in reserve today for Social Security and Medicare obligations each year. He said it's only a matter of time until the public realizes that the government is truly bankrupt.
Corsi wrote that if President Obama adds universal health care to list of entitlement payments the federal government is obligated to pay, the negative net worth of the United States government will only get worse.
Calculations from the 2008 Financial Report of the United States Government show that the GAAP negative net worth of the federal government has increased to $59.3 trillion, while the total federal obligations under GAAP accounting now total $65.5 trillion.
Williams explained the federal government is truly bankrupt and argued that in a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, "the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary."
Red Alert's author, whose books "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1981, he worked with banks throughout the U.S. and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. In this career, Corsi developed three different third-party financial services marketing firms that reached gross sales levels of $1 billion in annuities and equal volume in mutual funds. In 1999, he began developing Internet-based financial marketing firms, also adapted to work in conjunction with banks.
In his 25-year financial services career, Corsi has been a noted financial services speaker and writer, publishing three books and numerous articles in professional financial services journals and magazines.
Meet the 'father of world currency'
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Meet the 'father of world currency'
Robert Mundell masterminded China plan to destroy dollar
Posted: October 13, 2009
11:22 pm Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
 Robert Mundell |
A plan to replace the dollar with a world currency originated with Columbia University economics professor Robert Mundell, who won a Nobel Prize in economics in 1999 for creating the euro and is now widely regarded as "the father of the euro."
Mundell, currently an economic consultant to China, is the originator of the suggestion that the International Monetary Fund should utilize Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, to replace the dollar as a new standard for holding foreign exchange reserves in international trade transactions.
U. S. Dollar Ranks 50th in stability
October 9, 2009 - 12:39 ET
GLENN: Try this one. If you look now at the world economic forum, they have just released a report. While Nancy Pelosi is saying we need a second stimulus, Nancy Pelosi, a progressive, says we need a second stimulus at a time that the world is saying the United States is spending too much money. What does the world economic forum, where do they place, out of the top 50, where do they place the stability of the U.S. currency, out of all of the currencies ‑‑ now let me get the, let me get the top 10 here. And you tell me. Who do you think is ‑‑ who do you think is number one, Stu, in currency stability?PAT: Are you talking to Stu or are you talking to me?
GLENN: Stu around?
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: Anybody.
STU: Number one in currency stability?
GLENN: Yeah. The top 20 economies, financial stability. Top 20 economies, number one?
PAT: Stability ‑‑
PAT: I'll say China.
GLENN: No. Norway. China is ‑‑ China's not on top 20.
PAT: Yeah, I'll go with Norway, I guess.
GLENN: Number 2 is Switzerland. Number 3 is Hong Kong. Number 4 is Chile. Number 5 is Singapore. Number 6 is Saudi Arabia. Number 7, Canada. Number 8, Kuwait. Number 9, Australia. Number 10, Germany. These are currency stability. This is the top 20.
STU: Canada?
GLENN: Canada, financial stability. Financial stability.
PAT: Do you remember, though, what used to happen to a Canadian dollar or if you got a Canadian quarter? I mean, for those who live in the northern tier of the country.
GLENN: Of the country.
PAT: You know how awful it is if you ever got a Canadian anything, okay? It was like, this is worthless; I can't do anything with this. Because it was, what, one third of the U.S. dollar at one time?
GLENN: We have, let's see, Germany number 10. Do we get in ‑‑ are we number 15? Finland is number 11. France is number 12. Malaysia, 13. Mexico ‑‑
PAT: You've got to be kidding me.
GLENN: Financial stability, top 20 economies, financial stability, Mexico 14. 15 Brazil. 16, Czech Republic. The Czech Republic. United Arab Emirates. Sweden, number 18. 19, Denmark. The Slovak Republic is number 20. Here we go. Overall financial stability for the United States of America, overall financial stability placing now number 38. Currency stability, the United States places now 50th.
PAT: We're last.
GLENN: 50th. Banking stability, number 36. Our currency is the fifth ‑‑ we are the global currency, the global world standard and we are now ranked at number 50, five‑zero. And you expect that to last? Who are you kidding? Now, when the movers and shakers see the world economic forum come out with a report that says our currency is number five‑zero in the world, 50th in the world, if you hold a lot of dollars, what do you think you're going to do with them? If you see that our overall financial stability is 38, what are you going to do? If you think our banking stability is now, you see that the world economic forum places it at 36th, what do you think you're going to do? Don't you see what's happening? And at the same time all of these cases from these global organizations are moving in the opposite direction and saying bad America, bad America. What is our Nobel Prize winner doing? Our Nobel Prize winner is learning to spend even more money. They are now looking at a second stimulus package... for what? Well, one of the things they would like to look at is they would like to look at, you know, being able, being able to go back and look at the last five years or maybe seven years for companies that have been struggling and been losing money, give them a tax break for those companies that have been losing money. Let them say, "Well, I've got to claim, you know, the losses that I had six years ago." Here's an idea. What do you say that we start giving tax breaks to producers? What do you say we start giving tax breaks to people who are actually making a difference and hiring people? What do you say we give a tax break to, oh, I don't know, everybody, and stop spending money? Top printing money. Stop spending money. Yes, I know what that means. There are people right now in their car who are financial quote/unquote geniuses who are still telling everybody to stay in the market when it was at 13,000, stay in the market when it was at 12,000, stay in the market when it was 10,000, all the way down to 7500: Stay in the market, stay in the market, stay in the market. Yeah, well, thank you for your help, genius.
Now, these same geniuses are telling you don't worry about the economic stability of the United States of America; it will turn around, don't worry about the stability of the dollar; it will turn around. It will not turn around. You know why it won't turn around? Because the people in Washington and the people in the globe don't want it to turn around. So what do you do?
October 9, 2009 - 12:39 ET
GLENN: Try this one. If you look now at the world economic forum, they have just released a report. While Nancy Pelosi is saying we need a second stimulus, Nancy Pelosi, a progressive, says we need a second stimulus at a time that the world is saying the United States is spending too much money. What does the world economic forum, where do they place, out of the top 50, where do they place the stability of the U.S. currency, out of all of the currencies ‑‑ now let me get the, let me get the top 10 here. And you tell me. Who do you think is ‑‑ who do you think is number one, Stu, in currency stability?PAT: Are you talking to Stu or are you talking to me?
GLENN: Stu around?
STU: Yeah.
GLENN: Anybody.
STU: Number one in currency stability?
GLENN: Yeah. The top 20 economies, financial stability. Top 20 economies, number one?
PAT: Stability ‑‑
PAT: I'll say China.
GLENN: No. Norway. China is ‑‑ China's not on top 20.
PAT: Yeah, I'll go with Norway, I guess.
GLENN: Number 2 is Switzerland. Number 3 is Hong Kong. Number 4 is Chile. Number 5 is Singapore. Number 6 is Saudi Arabia. Number 7, Canada. Number 8, Kuwait. Number 9, Australia. Number 10, Germany. These are currency stability. This is the top 20.
STU: Canada?
GLENN: Canada, financial stability. Financial stability.
PAT: Do you remember, though, what used to happen to a Canadian dollar or if you got a Canadian quarter? I mean, for those who live in the northern tier of the country.
GLENN: Of the country.
PAT: You know how awful it is if you ever got a Canadian anything, okay? It was like, this is worthless; I can't do anything with this. Because it was, what, one third of the U.S. dollar at one time?
GLENN: We have, let's see, Germany number 10. Do we get in ‑‑ are we number 15? Finland is number 11. France is number 12. Malaysia, 13. Mexico ‑‑
PAT: You've got to be kidding me.
GLENN: Financial stability, top 20 economies, financial stability, Mexico 14. 15 Brazil. 16, Czech Republic. The Czech Republic. United Arab Emirates. Sweden, number 18. 19, Denmark. The Slovak Republic is number 20. Here we go. Overall financial stability for the United States of America, overall financial stability placing now number 38. Currency stability, the United States places now 50th.
PAT: We're last.
GLENN: 50th. Banking stability, number 36. Our currency is the fifth ‑‑ we are the global currency, the global world standard and we are now ranked at number 50, five‑zero. And you expect that to last? Who are you kidding? Now, when the movers and shakers see the world economic forum come out with a report that says our currency is number five‑zero in the world, 50th in the world, if you hold a lot of dollars, what do you think you're going to do with them? If you see that our overall financial stability is 38, what are you going to do? If you think our banking stability is now, you see that the world economic forum places it at 36th, what do you think you're going to do? Don't you see what's happening? And at the same time all of these cases from these global organizations are moving in the opposite direction and saying bad America, bad America. What is our Nobel Prize winner doing? Our Nobel Prize winner is learning to spend even more money. They are now looking at a second stimulus package... for what? Well, one of the things they would like to look at is they would like to look at, you know, being able, being able to go back and look at the last five years or maybe seven years for companies that have been struggling and been losing money, give them a tax break for those companies that have been losing money. Let them say, "Well, I've got to claim, you know, the losses that I had six years ago." Here's an idea. What do you say that we start giving tax breaks to producers? What do you say we start giving tax breaks to people who are actually making a difference and hiring people? What do you say we give a tax break to, oh, I don't know, everybody, and stop spending money? Top printing money. Stop spending money. Yes, I know what that means. There are people right now in their car who are financial quote/unquote geniuses who are still telling everybody to stay in the market when it was at 13,000, stay in the market when it was at 12,000, stay in the market when it was 10,000, all the way down to 7500: Stay in the market, stay in the market, stay in the market. Yeah, well, thank you for your help, genius.
Now, these same geniuses are telling you don't worry about the economic stability of the United States of America; it will turn around, don't worry about the stability of the dollar; it will turn around. It will not turn around. You know why it won't turn around? Because the people in Washington and the people in the globe don't want it to turn around. So what do you do?
Gerald Celente: The Dollar is Finished
October 7 2009
The Tax Story
Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.
Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for peanuts
Anyway!
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.
Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.
Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.
Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.
When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.
Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.
Put these words
Upon his tomb,
Taxes drove me
to my doom...'
When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently
44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License TaxInheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge T ax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal
Service FeeTax
Telephone Federal, State
and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage
Surcharge=2 0Tax
Telephone Recurring and
Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
Not one of these taxes existed 100
years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We
had a bsolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the
world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?'