View Full Version : Coburn: Control Government Spending or Face 'Apocalyptic Pain'
Interesting little piece.
Perhaps Sen. Coburn overstates the case. On the other hand, there is at least one fellow who suggests he understates it - link to that alternative view at the end of the piece.
Coburn Article Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/26/coburn-control-government-spending-face-apocalyptic-pain/?test=latestnews)
"Apocalyptic pain" from an out-of-control debt could cause 18 percent unemployment and a massive contraction in the economy that would destroy the middle class, a leading Republican deficit hawk said in an interview that aired Sunday.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who recently issued a report on government waste, warned that the U.S. only has about three or four years to get its fiscal house in order or it could find itself facing austerity measures seen in Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and earlier in Japan.
NMAP: See link at end, in which it is suggested we have zero years.
"The history of republics is they average 200 years of life. And they all fail in the history over fiscal matters. They rot from within before they collapse or are attacked," Coburn told "Fox News Sunday."
"The problem that faces our country today, the last 30 years we have lived off the future, and the bill is coming due," he added.
The senator, who was recently elected to a second -- and he pledges -- final term in Congress, said he's not trying to scare anyone, but eliminating waste in the federal government's ledgers is imperative not just to prevent default but a massive implosion that he defined in catastrophic terms.
"I think you'll see a 15 to 18 percent unemployment rate. I think you will see an 8 to 9 percent decline in GDP. I think you'll see the middle class just destroyed if we don't do this. And the people that it will harm the most will be the poorest of the poor, because we'll print money to try to debase our currency and get out of it and what you will see is hyperinflation," Coburn said.
"If we didn't take some pain now, we're going to experience apocalyptic pain, and it's going to be out of our control. The idea should be that we control it," he said.
Coburn said he can come up with $350 billion off the top of his head in inefficiency and waste that could be eliminated without impacting anyone in a practical sense. He noted $50 billion in programs that are duplicative and $100 billion in Medicare and Medicaid fraud that was not addressed in the health care law.
"We have 267 job training programs across 39 different agencies. Why do we have 267 of them? We have 105 programs to encourage people to go into science and technology, engineering and math. That's 105 sets of bureaucrats. None of them have metrics on it," he said.
"The Pentagon can't even audit its own books. It doesn't even know where its money is going. And we refuse to have the tough forces go on the Pentagon so that at least they are efficient with the money they're spending," Coburn added.
In one of his last acts in the lame-duck session that ended last week, Coburn, an obstetrician who earned the nickname "Dr. No" for his refusal to spend taxpayer dollars, was a critical factor in getting a health care program for Sept. 11 responders reduced in scope and cost. The $7.2 billion program was cut to $4.3 billion and was paid for through additional fees and reductions in other spending.
Coburn called the agreement a rare example of Congress being willing to do the hard work.
"I took all the heat, but we solved the problem and spent $7.2 billion less than we would have, and there is not going to be any difference in impact for the people we're trying to help," he said.
Coburn acknowledged that most of the cuts he is currently proposing are discretionary spending, which is only a fraction of the budget. Still, he said, a couple hundred billion dollars of the nearly $1 trillion in stimulus spending could be cut without hurting a fragile recovery.
The senator, who was also a member of President Obama's deficit commission that deadlocked earlier this month on recommendations for Congress to reduce its debt, added that structural changes need to be made to the way government works.
"The very fact that we have $1.1 trillion in tax expenditures every year that directs capital in a way that the government says it should be directed rather than the way it should be directed based on markets, tells us that we have a terrible tax system," Coburn said.
"I don't care if you're rich or poor, liberal or conservative. If we don't fix the problems in front of us, everybody is going to pay a significant price," he said.
----------------------------
And if that isn't gloomy enough, here's something that suggests triple the pain.
LINK (http://market-ticker.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=175883)
Why, yes, actually, I am having a pleasant holiday. :D
GratefulCitizen
12-27-2010, 12:54
"I don't care if you're rich or poor, liberal or conservative. If we don't fix the problems in front of us, everybody is going to pay a significant price," he said.
Not true.
You're going to pay a significant price if you're dependent upon government.
The government will renege on promises and do their best to hide it.
The private sector will still find a way to profit in this environment.
If your fate is hitched to the government, it's time to make some adjustments.
The stake you had is a "sunken cost", don't wait.
Not true.
You're going to pay a significant price if you're dependent upon government.
The government will renege on promises and do their best to hide it.
The private sector will still find a way to profit in this environment.
If your fate is hitched to the government, it's time to make some adjustments.
The stake you had is a "sunken cost", don't wait.
Ahhh considering that the The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, and that does not even include the states, industries and companies that they subsidize. So in one way, shape or form I feel the vast majority of us has a reliance on the .GOV. It may not be as overt as a welfare check or government employment but there are many other covert ways it all trickles down or up into the rest of societies fabric.
Are you considering a government job? The federal government employs approximately 2 million federal workers plus 700,000 Postal workers and hires hundreds of thousands each year to replace civil service workers that transfer to other federal government jobs, retire, or leave for other reasons. Average annual salary for full-time federal government jobs now exceeds $79,197.
The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, hiring about 2.0 percent of the nation's work force and the workforce is expanding significantly due to health care reform, in-sourcing, and many new regulatory programs. Federal government jobs can be found in every state and large metropolitan area, including overseas in over 200 countries. The average annual federal workers compensation, including pay plus benefits, now exceeds $119,982 compared to just $59,909 for the private sector according to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis.
http://federaljobs.net/
GratefulCitizen
12-27-2010, 14:04
Ahhh considering that the The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the United States, and that does not even include the states, industries and companies that they subsidize. So in one way, shape or form I feel the vast majority of us has a reliance on the .GOV. It may not be as overt as a welfare check or government employment but there are many other covert ways it all trickles down or up into the rest of societies fabric.
Indeed it is in everything.
However, the policy makers are not as smart or nimble as the private sector.
Nor are the policy makers terribly concerned with the well-being of the individuals affected.
Being affected by government is not an either/or condition; it comes in degrees.
It would be wise for individuals to reduce their individual exposure to risk.
All (central) governmental policy tools are just shell games/musical chairs which effectively protect the already powerful.
Every "solution" is just socialization of losses incurred by the powerful.
Don't play more than is required.
Indeed it is in everything.
However, the policy makers are not as smart or nimble as the private sector.
Nor are the policy makers terribly concerned with the well-being of the individuals affected.
Being affected by government is not an either/or condition; it comes in degrees.
It would be wise for individuals to reduce their individual exposure to risk.
All (central) governmental policy tools are just shell games/musical chairs which effectively protect the already powerful.
Every "solution" is just socialization of losses incurred by the powerful.
Don't play more than is required.
Agreed the policy makers are to a large degree incompetent and do far more harm than good with their intervention(s). Many seem to realize it, yet most want others to step away from the slop trough, while they continue to gorge themselves.
chemical cookie
12-27-2010, 21:00
Not true.
You're going to pay a significant price if you're dependent upon government.
The government will renege on promises and do their best to hide it.
The private sector will still find a way to profit in this environment.
If your fate is hitched to the government, it's time to make some adjustments.
The stake you had is a "sunken cost", don't wait.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on the level and depth government cutbacks will be taken to. DOD, DOS, type funded programs or welfare, job training type cut backs?
I'm curious to know your thoughts on the level and depth government cutbacks will be taken to. DOD, DOS, type funded programs or welfare, job training type cut backs?
I don't see it happening. Our critters in DC will continue to play 3 Card Monte until we finally flat line.
chemical cookie
12-28-2010, 12:58
I don't see it happening. Our critters in DC will continue to play 3 Card Monte until we finally flat line.
So take the money and run?! :confused: :(
So take the money and run?! :confused: :(
Confused???? Me too.
Take advantage of it while I can, oh well that's life...That is pretty much what I hear from many.
IMO the Government runs a game, they take money from here, and they put it somewhere else. Those that benefit from the game as a whole could care less at whose expense they make their gain. The problem is over time the gamer has fewer people to take from and the number of players benefiting from the game becomes fewer and fewer. Eventually it becomes clear it is a game which feeds upon itself.
I liken our Government to Bernie Madoff. Social Security might be a good example of the game. The government sold SS as insurance and retirement. Now with fewer people paying in and more receiving benefits the Government cannot meet it's obligation. Raising taxes and/or slashing benefits merely puts off the inevitable and allows the DC Critters to keep their jobs another day.
As deep as we are in the hole slashing budgets, raising taxes, lowering benefits is merely a controlled burn that may allow some to escape.
In the end we all lose.
Confused???? Me too.
Please add me to that list! ;)
As deep as we are in the hole slashing budgets, raising taxes, lowering benefits is merely a controlled burn that may allow some to escape.
In the end we all lose.
Well...I'm not so sure. Let's consider someone like Soros. According to Russell in his Dow Theory Letter, Soros is urging people not to buy gold. At the same time, he's buying a lot of gold.
So is Soros confused? Or is he a clever manipulator of persons and markets? I suspect the latter.
If one has one's money in the right things...owes money in the right areas (and currencies)...is able to move things around deftly...I think there is a lot of money to be made. If, on the other hand, one works for wages, depends on Social Security and pension plans, and is in a situation where deftly moving things around means taking a $5 dollar bill out of one's pants pocket and transferring it into one's shirt pocket, then one is well and truly (naughty expletive left to the reader's imagination.)
In essence, this will accomplish a transfer ( a mass transfer) of wealth from the bottom 90% (95%?) to the top 10%. All IMO, YMMV. Whether that is "good" or "bad" is, of course, a function of one's perspective.
Please add me to that list! ;)
Well...I'm not so sure. Let's consider someone like Soros. According to Russell in his Dow Theory Letter, Soros is urging people not to buy gold. At the same time, he's buying a lot of gold.
So is Soros confused? Or is he a clever manipulator of persons and markets? I suspect the latter.
If one has one's money in the right things...owes money in the right areas (and currencies)...is able to move things around deftly...I think there is a lot of money to be made. If, on the other hand, one works for wages, depends on Social Security and pension plans, and is in a situation where deftly moving things around means taking a $5 dollar bill out of one's pants pocket and transferring it into one's shirt pocket, then one is well and truly (naughty expletive left to the reader's imagination.)
In essence, this will accomplish a transfer ( a mass transfer) of wealth from the bottom 90% (95%?) to the top 10%. All IMO, YMMV. Whether that is "good" or "bad" is, of course, a function of one's perspective.
Bad or good may depend which end of the totem pole you find yourself at and their won't likely be much in the middle.
GratefulCitizen
12-28-2010, 20:23
If one has one's money in the right things...owes money in the right areas (and currencies)...is able to move things around deftly...I think there is a lot of money to be made. If, on the other hand, one works for wages, depends on Social Security and pension plans, and is in a situation where deftly moving things around means taking a $5 dollar bill out of one's pants pocket and transferring it into one's shirt pocket, then one is well and truly (naughty expletive left to the reader's imagination.)
DING DING DING!!!
We have a winner.
You don't have to have a great deal of money.
You do need enough discipline to maintain a margin between income and expenses.
After the whole discipline thing is accomplished, learn the math and choose your priorities.
Far too many people leave their fates in the hands of others.
DING DING DING!!!
We have a winner.
You don't have to have a great deal of money.
You do need enough discipline to maintain a margin between income and expenses.
After the whole discipline thing is accomplished, learn the math and choose your priorities.
Far too many people leave their fates in the hands of others.
Sounds too simple, but maybe not and that it is assuming you are someone with a job. Because without a means to generate an income you can only extend what you have, to maintain this type of decline adds up to zero. Or in the Governments case they generate money by printing more and the zero figure becomes a insurmountable negative well beyond zero.
Now if your fortunate enough to have employment through all this, yes you have a chance....if not you are screwed.
Now if your fortunate enough to have employment through all this, yes you have a chance....if not you are screwed.
This has been intermittently blasted by various news organizations. I find it telling that I haven't seen a single major march or rally demanding that our Representatives immediately begin work on fixing it.
Plenty anti/pro war, abortion, internet freedom, team Edward vs Jacob.
Most people in the affected age group think this will fix itself.
This has been intermittently blasted by various news organizations. I find it telling that I haven't seen a single major march or rally demanding that our Representatives immediately begin work on fixing it.
Plenty anti/pro war, abortion, internet freedom, team Edward vs Jacob.
Most people in the affected age group think this will fix itself.
What affected age group?
Having the politicians fixing things is much of the reason we are in the mess we are in. What are they going to do? Raise taxes? Cut a entitlement? Cut a Budget? Do away with a Agency?
I know don't want my taxes raised.
But I wouldn't mind seeing Medicare and SS benefits for non-citizens ended. I wouldn't have a problem if they closed the IRS, BATFE, TSA, DHS, EPA and BLM to cut expenses......at least cut their budgets in half! But I bet a lot of people would be bitching to high heaven if it happened.....they might have to find jobs! And they probably think I ought to just pay more taxes so they can have a job or free benefits.
Who do you want to cut off?
What affected age group?
Who do you want to cut off?
From the looks of things 0-40 year olds.
As far as cuts are concerned I would start with cutting a large percentage of individual payouts like unemployment and welfare.
Eventually I would get around to shrinking almost all of the major federal aid departments.
I would also increase taxes a 'deficit percentage.' The added revenue would go directly to paying off the deficit. No pit stops in individual or business' pockets.
Am I ready to see the hardship that this would cause lead to an increase in crime and disillusionment with 'the American Dream'? yes. Is America? no.
Am I ready to see the hardship that this would cause lead to an increase in crime and disillusionment with 'the American Dream'? yes. Is America? no.
Hardship might a understatement, 'The Road' comes to mind.
chemical cookie
12-29-2010, 07:30
Several of you are painting a bleak picture. I find it interesting and wonder how Americans of today will handle a situation like mentioned above. I for one am slowly but surely preparing my family for the day when zombies will come into town. But even still I don't know how, once we are in the mess they plan to get us out of it. That is more important than the slow but gradual slide we are taking into the mess.
Several of you are painting a bleak picture. I find it interesting and wonder how Americans of today will handle a situation like mentioned above. I for one am slowly but surely preparing my family for the day when zombies will come into town. But even still I don't know how, once we are in the mess they plan to get us out of it. That is more important than the slow but gradual slide we are taking into the mess.
I dunno about Zombies, but there are many things in play, how it all plays out I don't know. It would appear that we are in a financial mess, and gov is running out of ways and enablers to make ends met. They have no plan to get us out of it, they are too busy running around trying to find their next fix of financial crack.
Yet their are plenty of people of the mind that this is a soft recovery and the road to happiness is just over the ridge........Cramer can see it! He told me!
Mom told me last week things were improving because retail sales were up 15%.....Up 15% from what....if it is +15% of a 65% decline your still in the hole 50% and people are finding extended benefits not jobs. Admittedly 15% is a step in the right direction, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
It all makes my f-ing head spin.
All I know is the more you can do for yourself the better off you are.
GratefulCitizen
12-30-2010, 12:24
I'm curious to know your thoughts on the level and depth government cutbacks will be taken to. DOD, DOS, type funded programs or welfare, job training type cut backs?
Entitlement programs (especially pensions) will not receive COLA in line with actual inflation. (already happening)
Numerous bureaucratic hurdles will be erected to prevent receipt of entitlements. (already happening)
Certain employees in government service will find their workload increasing, without increase in compensation.
A government form of "corporate anorexia" will occur.
Furious lobbying and government infighting will determine who keeps staffing/funding.
Lacking lobbyists, military personnel will probably draw the short straw.
********************
********************
The modern idea of pensions is not mathematically sustainable.
People live too long.
IMO-
Retirement ages should be much older.
The exception would be for emergency services personnel (firefighters, etc.), LEOs, and military.
There is a sound reason for having early retirement ages for the mentioned exceptions.
The public benefits greatly when these people can focus on the present, not having to worry for their future.
Those who put themselves in harm's way should be rewarded for spending their youth and strength.
Everyone else should meter their efforts with an eye for the future.
Might be preaching to the choir given the nature of this site.
Doesn't make the argument any less valid.
TOMAHAWK9521
12-31-2010, 02:47
I dunno about Zombies, but there are many things in play, how it all plays out I don't know.
Let's see, masses of mindless, illiterate useful idiots dependent upon government handouts and beholding to the Charlatan-in-Charge. Sounds like zombies to me. :D
chemical cookie
12-31-2010, 07:07
Let's see, masses of mindless, illiterate useful idiots dependent upon government handouts and beholding to the Charlatan-in-Charge. Sounds like zombies to me. :D
:eek: Tomahawk you beat me to it! :D
Let's see, masses of mindless, illiterate useful idiots dependent upon government handouts and beholding to the Charlatan-in-Charge. Sounds like zombies to me. :D
As long as we aren't talking zombies by means of genetic alteration, exposure toxic chemicals I would tend to agree ;)
Let's see, masses of mindless, illiterate useful idiots dependent upon government handouts and beholding to the Charlatan-in-Charge. Sounds like zombies to me. :D
Well played!
Reminds me of the movie "Idiocracy" :munchin