Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (66885)	6/15/2009 11:36:20 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

EDITORIAL: Walpin-gate Obama fires an IG By \| Monday, June 15, 2009 Congress ought to open an investigation, New York Times editorialists should be in a state of apoplexy, and MSNBC hosts ought to be frothing at the mouth. Without appropriate documentation or good reason, President Obama has fired a federal investigator who was on the case against a political ally of the president's. Mr. Obama's move has the stench of scandal. On June 11, Mr. Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general for the Corporation for National and Community Service. He offered no public reason for doing so other than that he "no longer" had "the fullest confidence" in Mr. Walpin. Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican, is rightly questioning the firing and the explanation for it. The senator noted that the Inspector General Reform Act requires the president to "communicate in writing ... the reasons for any such removal." Losing one's "fullest confidence" hardly qualifies as a justifiable reason. The Senate report language attached to the act explains: "The requirement to notify the Congress in advance of the reasons for the removal should serve to ensure that Inspectors General are not removed for political reasons." Yet, as Associated Press noted, "Obama's move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star." Further, "The IG found that Johnson ... had used Americorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car." Sacramento U.S. Attorney Larry Brown criticized Mr. Walpin for publicly announcing the investigation rather than more quietly cooperating with federal prosecutors. Clearly, though, there was merit to Mr. Walpin's charges: Mr. Brown's office reached a settlement ordering the nonprofit organization to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it received - with $72,836.50 of that repayment coming from Mr. Johnson's own pocket. Mr. Grassley said, "There have been no negative findings against Mr. Walpin by the Integrity Committee of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and [Mr. Walpin] has identified millions of dollars in Americorps funds either wasted outright or spent in violation of established guidelines. In other words, it appears he has been doing his job. We cannot afford to have Inspector General independence threatened." We concur. It is highly unusual and very suspicious when an IG is summarily fired, especially when political entanglements are involved. There will be much more to report in coming days on this White House action, which was heavy-handed and almost certainly unethical.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (66885)	6/17/2009 8:42:44 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224858

Perhaps everything he put in the formal budget requests. I'm not so sure about that either, but I don't have evidence to the contrary so I'll accept that arguendo for now. The point is that passing his budget requests (or giving his policies more money, or making larger cuts in programs he wanted to cut, or spending less than the budget submitted, or any other point your trying to make) DOESN'T equal giving him what he wanted. The budget proposals are submitted to try to get the proposal or at least something close to it passed. If the votes clearly aren't there for major change X, or minor change Y, then X and Y don't get included in the budget.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (66885)	6/24/2009 6:40:04 PM
From: TimF	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224858

Wrong, Kenneth Budget Myths President Reagan entered the White House with an attitude of working honest deals with the Congress on spending. He wanted more defense spending, lower entitlement spending, lower tax rates which would boost the economy (and thus revenues) and seemed to achieve that agreement with Congress in both 1981 and 1982. However, despite getting concessions on taxes, congress never once cut spending, and the actual budgets were higher than what Reagan asked for 7 out of 8 years. This attitude of "cut spending later" helped continue the debt trends that began under Ford and Carter. By the end of Reagans terms, debt had increased by $2 trillion. We've all heard the myth: President Reagan asked for far more spending than congress wanted and/or congress actually spent less than what Reagan asked for...yet the truth once again tells a different story. Federal Budget Outlays Proposed (Reagan) and Actual (Congress) and Cumulative Percent Difference (billions of dollars) FY Proposed Actual % Difference Cumulative Differences 1982 695.3 745.8 7.3 0.0 1983 773.3 808.4 4.5 12.1 1984 862.5 851.8 -1.2 10.8 1985 940.3 946.4 0.7 11.6 1986 973.7 990.3 1.7 13.5 1987 994.0 1003.9 1.0 14.6 1988 1024.3 1064.1 3.9 19.1 1989 1094.2 1144.2 4.6 24.5 Totals 7,357.6 7,554.9 Avg 2.8 Avg 3.1 So there you have it. On average, Congress spent 2.8% more than Reagan asked for, while the cumulative (yearly compounding rate) was a whopping 24.5% more. If the budget in 1989 had been 24.5% smaller (i.e., 280 billion dollars) there could have been a surplus of about 130 billion dollars instead of a deficit. This is equivalent to a constant compounding increase of 2.8% every year during the 8 budgets above and beyond the previous year's spending. If anyone still thinks that is not a significant amount, they should ask themselves whether a balanced budget in 1989 would have been significant... presidentreagan.info