E!!

Whatever your political leanings, you should give yourself the gift of a quick education and read this 12-page report from Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.  It is an excellent overview and contains many easy to understand charts, graphs, and summaries.

There is no denying that this budget contains enormous spending increases and will lead to unprecedented levels of national debt.  And Obama’s ”spending cuts” are nowhere to be found.  (Where is the promised scalpel, sir?!)  For example: 

– Obama proposes to move some items from the “discretionary” to “mandatory” spending category, but that is just re-arranging chairs.

– About half the total “savings” come from tax increases.

– Another large chunk of “savings” is really just money ($170 billion a year) that won’t be spent in Iraq after 2012.  But the Bush administration never planned to extend anything like the current levels of spending beyond 2012.  It’s not “saving” to not spend money that was NEVER going to be spent.

Fake savings and tax increases aside, this budget is scary because it is a permanent expansion of the federal government as a percent of GDP.  The simple chart on page 12 sums it up very nicely.  De Rugy, an expert in her field, predicts “slower growth rates, higher unemployment rates, lower standards of living, and higher levels of poverty.”

Change is definitely on the way, folks.  And you better hope your family is spared.

It seems the New York Times decided to fill 2009’s quota for poignant, truthful reporting on the very first day of the year. Having published a surprisingly straightforward and touchingly personal account of the Cuban-American story, they can now return to their regularly scheduled brainwashing.

(The online piece is dated Dec. 31, but the article appeared in the NYT print edition yesterday.)

Patrick Gibbons, a researcher-analyst at the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI), has a new piece up.

It’s worth the read if you want to (1) understand where Nevada REALLY is with its budget issues, (2) be informed about the questions that remain unanswered, and (C) be reminded that when it comes to politics and money, the devil is always in the details.

Gibbons points out that depending on which newspaper, pundit or politician you believe, you might think Nevada has a budget shortfall of $5.6 billion, $4.5 billion, $2.5 billion, $1.2 billion – or no real shortfall at all. And so you might think we need to cut between 34% and 0% of the budget in order to cover the shortfall.

The questions are: Who is right, and what accounts for the differences in math? And how can the public (or our elected officials) have intelligent policy discussions if we can’t even agree on the basis basics?

In order to wade through it all, one first needs to understand that the General Fund (GF) is not the same as the total state budget. In fact, the GF makes up only 37.5% of the overall budget. The recommendation for the General Fund for the current biennium (FYI: we do our state budgets two years at a time, if you didn’t know that) was $5.8 billion, but the overall recommendation for the state budget was $18 billion.

The other thing to know (ask!) when talking about either the General Fund or the overall state budget is whether people are extrapolating their numbers from (1) the originally projected and appropriated sums or or the currently projected sums, and (2) ditto on the revenue.

Read the NPRI piece and see for yourself!

(And if you have any questions, submit them here and we’ll see if we can get Patrick to stop by and explain things.)