Trump Budget Search Engine Bias

*See link to this important article at bottom of this post.

This morning I had planned on detailing some opinion on president Trump's budget proposal.  I went on Google to get some details and did a search.  Actually I did two searches, and the second search gave me pause because it's probably the more common search term being used. The reason it troubled me was the results, which just provided me a sense of search engine bias.

The term I put in for that second search was "gop budget proposal 2017".  The top 2 returns were in regard to the proposal put forward from March 2016 by the GOP. Fair enough, because technically that was the budget proposal for 2017.  But look at the next set of results:

1) New York Times - Trump Budget Is Heavy Lift, Even For G.O.P. Congress

2) New York Times - Eyeing Trump's Budget Plan, Republican Governors Say 'No, Thanks

3) The Atlantic - Trump's Budget Proposal Threatens Democratic and Republican [Ambitions]

4) Washington Post - Capitol Hill Republicans not on board with Trump budget

5) Reuters - Trump's budget cuts to domestic, aid programs draw Republican scorn

6) Denver Post - Trump's first budget will test GOP's ability to keep promises

7) This is followed by a Forbes article on the 2016 GOP budget proposal, and then back to the current proposal with;

8) Politico - Trump budget faces GOP resistance

There's the Top 10 list of search results. 2 links to last year's proposal.  A conservative friendly view of the same, and 7 negative articles on how terrible president Trump's budget proposal is.  Look at the sources - clear a highly liberal group of search results - New York Times, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, Politico, Reuters and then a less obviously liberal source The Denver Post (read the article and tell me it is not a liberal bent article).

Search Engine Bias?  Intentional or not, yes, yes there is.

*Who would Google Vote For?

Trump budget, delivering on what matters

I haven't seen any of president Trump's budget being sent to congress but from the sound of it, it's big on defense spending and big on cuts in other departments.  If so it will be delivered as promised.

...What matters to voters outside that bubble is substance — the actual policies, and the reality of having a president who works to keep campaign promises.

Team Trump understands that better than the media and Beltway do, at least in these first few weeks. The process stories need to get under better control to keep from presenting too much of a distraction, but the substance will overshadow process if Trump can deliver on it. That’s why CPAC turned into a love fest this past week — not because conservatives have surrendered to Trumpism, but because Trump is delivering substantively on the conservative agenda.

If Trump delivers jobs, a solid economy, and quality GDP growth it's not going to stop the protests, the media bashing or liberal opinion. But those things will matter far, far less than they already do, as fewer and fewer people listen to a militant few.

Jerry Brown forced to announce CA broke

Unfortunately, common sense has not yet taken hold on the left coast. The speech is all about spin, blaming others and it avoids the true pain that California will have to face.  Oh well.

HINT: Jerry if you want people to invest in California's future, stop scaring the money away, with more liberal spending foolishness.

Stossel makes it simple

Tired of trying to explain the budget situation to your liberal friends?  John Stossel explains it in relatable, simple terms.  Via Townhall:

Imagine this family budget:

Last year, you earned $24,700. But you spent $37,900, incurring $13,300 in debt, and you were already $153,500 in debt.

So you say, "I promise I'll spend $300 less this year!"

Anyone can see that your cutback is pathetic and that you need to spend much less.

Yet if you add eight zeroes, that's America's budget.

Go read the whole thing.  He talks about the hard choices that need to be made, the same point myself and others have been making for years. 

Help for Obama's coming jobs plan

We all know that beyond rhetorically, the president has had a really hard time pivoting to a jobs focus.  He's supposedly pivoted to jobs a few times now, but there's been no evidence that he's actually done anything beyond his original free-for-all stimulus known as ARRA (or porkulus).  There's also little evidence that what he's done has accomplished anything - except for more debt that is.  So with him ready to deliver a new jobs plan with all the appearance of him having gone away to work on a high school project in time for a due date (including the typical high school minimal and haphazard effort), he's not likely to come up with anything new, or good.

New Category of Republicans

What can Brown do for you? Not much. He's no UPS.

Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown has decided to not endorse Paul Ryan's budget plan.  Understandably, in the liberal state of Massachusetts it's hard to be a Republican and do anything.  Especially in the seat formerly known as "Ted Kennedy's seat" and find things to actually be Republican about.  Something.  Anything?

Video: Path To Prosperity

If you haven't seen the Paul Ryan Path to Prosperity video outlining the Republican 2012 budget in terms of what they are up against, here it is.  This doesn't talk about the specifics of the plan, just the net effect of the spending cuts. It's an important comparison, but it is just the starting point of the coming debate.

Pelosi's War on Reality

Pelosi's war on reality and being prone to hyperbole continues unabated.

Monthly Federal Deficit Hits Record

According to an article in the Washington Times, the latest monthly deficit number is stunningly atrocious:

The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning.

That figure tops last February’s record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red — a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse.

Rachel Maddow, Just Wrong or a Liar?

From Newsbusters, Rachel Maddow Exposed for Lying About Wisconsin Having Budget Surplus.

To sum up, from Rachel;

I’m here to report that there is nothing wrong in the state of Wisconsin. Wisconsin is fine. Wisconsin is great, actually. Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsin’s finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year.

And from the left-leaning Politifact;

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it. [...]

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in [Director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau Robert] Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

So is she lying or just wrong? I'm sure she'll be clarifying any moment now. Not reading the fine print is an honest mistake (albeit shoddy journalism) that can be corrected easily by issuing an apology and/or correction. Lying in journalism, would be bad....Clarifying any moment now.

NOTE: I did not get to this story early, I'm just piling on.

Outfoxing Obama on Spending Cuts

Since the President has decided to use tricks like a five year freeze on increases in non-defense discretionary spending as a way to talk about saving hundreds of billions of dollars over the next five years, the Republicans are in a tricky situation trying to initiate real cuts that the Democrats will brand as draconian  by comparison.  But there is a way Republicans can accomplish bigger cuts using the same sort of tricks that Democrats do.  While it is political as opposed to practical, a successful role back of this progressivist agenda will require political solutions as well as practical solutions and if there is a way to accomplish both, then why not.

The solution to creating bigger numbers in the cut back dollar war is to use President Obama's so called cuts as the baseline and then any cuts the Republicans want to accomplish beyond that would be added to that number.  For example, if Obama's budget is to save $400 billion, then by cancelling the high speed rail costs that the President wants to spend, would bring the total savings up to $453 billion.  This is the sort of accounting trick the Democrats use all the time to get their talking points out there.  This way the Republican cut back numbers would end up looking very large indeed.  That ends up looking impressive to those who are only marginally paying attention but and may help voters who want seriousness in spending cuts.  Meanwhile, it does not take away from the fact that real spending cuts will be included in the numbers.  Those of us truly concerned about government spending cuts, the accounting trick will be transparent but if real cuts are included it won't matter.

It may make negotiating with Democrats more difficult because they will go ballistic on the seemingly even more draconian numbers. On the other hand, it makes it hard for the President to argue against the plan in its entirety because there will be his 'cuts' included in it.  He will be forced to say that some of it makes sense or else be exposed to Republicans countering that many of the cuts seemed fine when he proposed them .  In the end that may make negotiation easier.  In fact, it may lend itself to a more open discussion on entitlement spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Value Added Tax? Maybe, if...

Many countries have a value added tax (VAT).  It's a tax at each stage of the economic cycle which can be fairly easily explained (see below). In considering the option the United States could easily implement a VAT and it would certainly see some strong gains in government revenue.  For many years until the recession Canada had been running budget surpluses and in large part it was attributable to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) which is a VAT.  But is adding an additional tax, especially in a lingering recession, the right way to go?  That's a lot harder to justify.  Still there's ways it could be done, for example replacing some existing taxation rather than simply piling new taxation on.  And there are reasons conservatives could get on board with that part of the idea.

The Obama "Budget" and Tour

I put the word "Budget" in quotations because this President wouldn't understand running a government on a budget if he had to personally pay it out of his wallet. A trillion plus dollars in new debt per year for the next 10 years is causing countless Americans to become apoplectic.

So much so in my case, that I haven't been able to shake off the incredulity enough to analyze it. But the truth is it doesn't deserve analysis it deserves scorn. This is especially true in light of his supposed fiscal sanity State of the Union address, which is also deserving of derision if you look closely at the numbers.

But it clearly is the take-off point for his current ego tour. Make no mistake, the town halls he is attending are political to take his message of jobs and fiscal restraint to America. The Democrats are hoping to try to repeat the lie of their fiscal stewardship often enough to get it to stick in the minds of the public.

But even in that political motif, the One believes that he is the difference between 2010 and the 1994 Republican Revolution. He believes his mere oration will sweep the Democrats back to Congress. I can't decide whether it's because he believes his own fawning press clippings or rather that his ego is just so huge that being the first African American President isn't enough. Not getting health care reform hasn't stopped him from still trying for it. Why? Because it's big. And maybe that still isn't big enough. Maybe he needs to be the biggest budget guy. Or the I-destroyed-America guy.

But his ego, his party's political positioning for the mid-term elections, and even their budgets and inevitably unworkable jobs plan, whatever it turns out to be, all miss the point of the Tea Party angst.

America cannot afford his proposals, just as it cannot afford their intrusiveness into everyday life. America is at a fiscal crossroads. The people see it and want it addressed. The choices will be painful, but the alternative is terminal.

Give up something - America's real choice (Part 1)

[NOTE: This is going to seem like a doomsday post. It's not meant to be - it's meant to be a wake up call.]

America's political landscape is most often divided into two camps - liberal and conservative, with moderates flip-flopping between camps or unable to commit to either one. Liberals of course are interested in social programs, while conservatives tend to favor limited government but a strong military for national defence.

The problem is that in order to please base constituencies, and in order to 'effectively' fight for the middle ground, both Democrats and Republicans tend to favor one area but are generally unwilling to pare back the other area. Fiscal conservatives rightly talk about the Obama deficit levels being unsustainable. But the truth doesn't really end there. America's days as a superpower are in jeopardy because the reality, which is far worse than just Obama's budget, is looming ever closer.

Putting it in context, we'll use President Obama's 2010 fiscal budget as an example. There are two distinct issues to deal with - the deficit and the national debt.

Taming the deficit

As seen in the chart below, the 2010 budget shows just how unsustainable the current situation is. Even President Obama's supposed push towards fiscal responsibility has as a target at 2013 of a budget deficit of over $500 billion. It's probably where he wants to net out with the health care costs tacked on to the current mess. Perhaps the use of this crisis is for the shock value so that the sticker shock for health care and Obama's spending when it falls to $500 billion won't be viewed as being so irresponsible. But it still is.

Nevertheless, this post is not supposed to be about ideology, so I'll stifle it for now. Take a look at the chart and see for yourself how the money the government gets and spends is allocated. Below I'll show you some back of the napkin calculations on the numbers that will hopefully scare the pants off you.

Here's the link.

Some interesting things I noticed;

• All mandatory spending and defense spending combined equal 119.2% of government revenue. In other words, if every other dollar the government were to spend was cancelled, there would still be a deficit of $466.7 billion dollars in 2010. How the President plans to get to a total deficit of $500 billion is not obvious (or it is if you consider much heavier taxation a realistic probability)
• In order to balance the 2010 budget by cutting spending evenly, across the board, INCLUDING MANDATORY EXPENDITURES, every cost to the government would need to be cut by 33% (including social security, medicare and medicaid)
• In order to balance the 2010 budget by raising all taxes equally (including personal, corporate, payroll taxes, duties, etc.), each and every government tax/levy/duty would need to go up by a staggering 49.2%!
• If we were to cut only discretionary spending to meet the budget gap, all discretionary spending items would need to be cut by a whopping 85.6%!
• Alternatively to appeal to the moderate view, the government could raise taxes by 25% and cut all spending (including mandatory items) by 16.3%
• The last option available to the government would be to increase taxes by 14.75% and reduce discretionary spending by 60%

None of those options seem to be the least bit feasible. But what other options are there? Only one other option exists. Lowering taxes, and depend on the validity of the Laffer curve to generate more revenue instead of less revenue.

Depending where you are on the Laffer curve, less tax can definitely increase government revenue. The real question in that regard, is whether there is enough room for it to generate enough additional income to offset those costs. And beyond the 2010 budget, there is a huge storm of additional mandatory spending on social security, medicare and medicaid associated with the aging of the Baby Boomers (see Part 2). So in a static 2010 world, reducing taxes might actually work, depending on how it's done. But in reality, it's not an option either.

So what it comes down to in terms of real choices, is this:

America cannot afford to do everything it wants to do. Some spending items HAVE to be cut or huge tax increases must be made. There is no other way. Since this is not supposed to a specifically partisan post, I'll leave the decision as to what to cut to your own imagination. But clearly the cuts will have to be deep.

Raising taxes, especially by 33% is political suicide. No one will do it. The parties couldn't even do it by mutual agreement. The Tea Parties would be like, well, tea parties, compared to the revolt that would take place on a 33% tax hike across the board. Not to mention the fact that increasing corporate tax rates by that amount would help kill off whatever business still remain based in America after the rest had fled offshore.

Cuts? Cuts do not have to be made across the board. If you aren't worried about China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, terrorism etc., the Department of Defense could conceivably be cut by say $400 billion a year. The consequence - America would not be a military superpower any more. And still, the cuts would not be enough.

Alternately America could cut the biggest mandatory spending items; Privatize Social Security, and Medicare but not Medicaid, perhaps cut it only by 8% or so. That would balance the 2010 budget. But it would mean no health care for the elderly and no social security. At least not as part of the system they paid into. Perhaps instead of packaging and selling off bad debt, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner should be packaging off these items. Granted, it's political suicide to cast off the elderly and to alienate the Baby Boomers who are less than a year away from collecting on the systems they've been paying into for their entire working lives.

But those two items - Social Security and Medicare are the two 800 lb. gorillas in the room. They are ready to explode in costs (see Part 2). They have to be addressed one way or another.

America has some really, really hard choices looming. The government is huge. It's too big. Colin Powell and his 'Americans want more government' comment is either blind to, or deliberately ignoring, the fact that the United States cannot support the government it has now, never mind adding more. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to be blind to the same facts.

The breaking point is coming. And it's coming fast. These choices can really no longer be punted down the road to the next group of politicians. America has been living off the industrial era of the past for far too long now. The US government is going to suffer the same fate as GM, and soon. The irony is that while GM promised too much to employees, punted problems down the road, and let the problems it faced accumulate to the breaking point. While the government is busy wagging a stern finger at GM, it's busy itself promising to much, punting problems down the road and allowing the the problems accumulate to the breaking point.

To paraphrase an old saying, What's bad for GM, is bad for America. Hopefully enough people see the parallel to do something about it.

Next in Part 2: Conquering the Debt

Alternatives to the Democrat stinkulus package

As conservatives, we deserve to be challenged on our distaste for the Democrat stinkulus package. What would we do instead? It's pretty easy to poke holes in a bad idea (I mean a REALLY BAD IDEA), and plenty of people have done so already. But what would Republicans do differently?

Is there anything that we could do, beyond looking at the bill, finding the pork-laden items and try to get them crossed off the list? Yes. That is not to suggest that those pork projects and things not related to economic stimulus should not be singled out, questioned and if required, ridiculed into removal. Those things should be done and in all likelihood will be done in the Senate today to some degree. But there is value in conservatives pointing out what we think would work better - much better - in solving the economic influenza the country is currently suffering.

There are plenty of conservative alternatives to the stinkulus package, including what top Republican Lawmakers have already proposed;

The Republican plan relies on cutting lowest individual tax rates from 15 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to five percent, tax deductions for small businesses, and a ban on tax increases to pay for new spending -- which they say should be paid for by cutting spending in other areas.

It would also make unemployment benefits tax free, and offer a home-buyers credit for those who make a minimum down payment of five percent, according to a statement from the Republican leadership.

"At the end of the day, government can't solve this problem. The American people have to solve it. And the way they can solve it is if we allow them to keep more of the money that they earn," said Boehner.

Republican leaders were expected to meet with Obama next week to discuss the plan, as the House prepares to vote Wednesday on the Democratic plan and any Republican amendments.

But that's not necessarily an exhaustive view of what conservatism offers as alternatives. Tax reduction and tax credits are differing ways of managing the same problem for example. And while Republicans are lampooned as helping greedy corporations for trying to use that method, and Democrats are lauded for their ability to use a "scalpel instead of a hatchet" (of course in ways that suit their socio-political aims, those options should not be off the table either. If the Republicans were to proceed with specific, targeted tax credits, they would need to do so carefully with forethought and abetted by a strong PR campaign that the specifics are not evil-corporation-and-anti-justice manipulations.

Here's a far from comprehensive list of ideas that deserve consideration, thought and development (not 647 pages in 14 or so days, like our liberal counterparts have done);

*Repeal the destabilizing parts of the Community Reinvestment Act. It won't stimulate the economy but it will prevent a re-occurrence of the biggest fundamental cause of the housing bubble

*Zero rate capital gains taxes for 2 years for investment - in American investments only. It will promote investment in the nation. Investment is another key way to help the ailing GDP. While it is true that consumer spending accounts for about 2/3 of the GDP, it also accounts for the bulk of the reason for consumer debt being at such high levels and why the loosening of credit will not necessarily re-establish a spending frenzy. It's an inherently unstable way to grow an economy - there needs to be more balance between consumer spending and corporate research, development and investment. This is also a longer term approach but should be considered as part of a holistic fix rather than the stop-gap approach being thrust upon Americans.

*Reduce income taxes at the higher end of the income scale where the taxes are actually being paid. It's been pointed out numerous times, backed by IRS data, that the top 5% of income earners pay 60% of federal income tax, the top 25% of income earners pay 86%, and the top 50% pay 97% of income taxes. The table below is from the National Taxpayers Union.Clearly, providing tax breaks in the form of rebate checks to the bottom percentages of the grid is not tax relief, but re-distribution of wealth. The merits of that idea are for another debate. What is critical here, is that by reducing the tax burden on those with more considerable income, achieving spending or investment is far more likely than by spreading out to those who will spend it on debt repayment, or food. Nobody wants to see people going hungry, but wouldn't it be better for investors to hire people or avoid layoffs so that people can buy themselves the food they need rather than be dependant on food stamps or a rebate check?

*Provide tax credits for companies for additional Research and Development. This is the same idea as using a scalpel monotoned above. However in this case it could be an effective investment generating tool.

*Provide substantial tax credits for companies who repatriate labor or create new jobs. In a sense it's anti-free trade, but companies who outsource labor offshore are looking to enjoy the benefits of the American market without a commensurate investment into the people of that country. While the rules exist such that it is not required to do so, it doesn't mean the government can't incent companies to help with domestic production.

*Remove or reduce federally imposed restrictions on nuclear power, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, and clean coal development. This will help reduce the dependence on foreign, often politically hostile oil. It will create exploration and development jobs, AND it will generate revenue for states that were looking for federal handouts as part of the stinkulus package. This would reduce the burden of that $888 billion boondoggle substantially.

*Allow banks and automotive companies and any other businesses who have acted recklessly to fail. Cover only FDIC protected deposits, like the rules say. Bad banks/car makers will be replaced by more efficient options. Where there is a void the free market will fill it. Allow companies who would benefit from restructuring to do so under Chapter 11 protection. Thee would be a lot of short term pain, but the reality is that OVER-REGULATION (e.g. CAFE standards, Community Re-investment Act), government intervention, is what has turned the American economy on it's head, not stupid or greedy companies, or stupid or greedy CEOs (although in some cases it's apparently true).

Ronald Reagan's warning about the government being the problem is no less true today than in his time. The government needs to back away from the economy and let the entrepreneurs and those in the know do their thing. Just watch the miracle unfold and reap in the tax dollars it generates.

*Reduce government spending enough to balance the budget. The crisis exists from over-extension of credits, more deficits are not the answer - fiscal sanity is the answer. This is not a fight fire with fire situation. Why such a no-brainer fails consistently to get the attention it deserves is beyond me. Let's just borrow from our grandchildren and the people of America won't care - the impact is too esoteric to understand. If that's true, it's a shame. Government should set an example, clean up it's wastefulness and spend money only where it needs to do so - roads, police, the military, things like that.

The above items are far from a comprehensive list, but they are ideas that certainly make more sense than funding contraception. How does that possibly tie in to economic stimulus? Maybe some other type of stimulus, but it's something the government clearly has no business being involved in.

There are a multitude of conservative ideas, that given the chance I'm sure conservatives would be willing to debate about the specific merits and/or shortcomings. Then again, Obama won. Pelosi won, and Reid won. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but the Democrats would have you believe there is. Another way of looking at it is that you get what you pay for, and if you paid nothing, don't expect a lot of quality in what you receive America.

Conservative ju-jitsu

If we are required to look at the stimulus package as a fait accomplis then what could we do as a political movement to mitigate the dollar allocation? Firstly, there's the question of how would it be possible to make an impact. In short, if you know the money is gone and a filibuster is either not in the cards and/or of no consequence, then jump in with both feet on the details. Agree to the stimulus package and offer bi-partisan support in the spirit of co-operation and new found newness of the new political conviviality. You've played along with the change portion of the program. See, everybody wants change, even Republicans. We aren't obstructionist, now let's get to work, and work hard on the specifics.

That's where, having bought some goodwill we can make some suggestions that are more constructive (literally) than those of say Robert Reich. He doesn't want bailout money going to white male construction workers. As an aside does that mean all the infrastructure money going to roads would result in highway improvements being completed by women and/or ethnic minorities? I'm just asking, Robert.

So the infrastructure that needs to be built, might that not include the uncompleted 700 mile border fence project? It was only in the $10's of billions. Now that we are going to spend like drunken sailors, or rather, concerned paternalistic federal sponsors of America, let's just up the penny ante on that and build a full fledged 2100 mile wall big enough to secure America's southern border. Or don't we care about illegal immigration and the rule of law?

Speaking of law, what about spending some of it on law enforcement? Officers on the streets is jobs right away rather than in 24 months typical of infrastructure. What about spending some of it on the sciences that have supposedly withered under Bush, but in immediate payoff areas relative to jobs - the Center For Disease Control, NASA. Not wind farm subsidies. How about putting a bunch of that infrastructure money into nuclear power? Energy independence is not going to go away as an issue just because the price of oil has retreated. Or how about subsidizing off-shore drilling or ANWAR drilling? That one won't fly because it's ridiculous to Democrats, but it might be fun to throw out there to make a point about how ludicrous some of their ideas seem to be to us. And we might get another sore winner "I won" moment out of someone on the left, and get some good negative exposure of their better-than-you attitude.

Holistically, this would at least help minimize wasted spending in areas counter productive to conservatives and America. These aren't the ideal conservative solutions to the economy and government but they are legitimate alternatives to worse uses of the super-deficit Americans are all about to swallow. Of course of of this depends on Republicans not being shut out completely.

California Progressives Fail Economics 102

Just like Moveon.org, the folks over at the California Progress Report, just don't get it. California is drowning in it's own debt. Rapidly. And it's not pretty. According to MSNBC, the California government could be issuing IOUs instead of tax refunds. We're talking third world levels of mismanagement here.

What do you need to know about it? For starters Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration Wednesday rushed out its latest plan to cut state spending, raise taxes and borrow heavily to stop California's budget deficit from climbing to $41.6 billion by mid-2010.

The new proposal adds on to the already severe plan he proposed in November. On top of a 1 1/2 -cent sales tax increase and new levies on alcoholic drinks and the oil industry, this plan would also reduce to $103 from $309 the dependent credit Californians could claim on their 2009 income taxes.

The cuts in the proposal are deep, including a reduction of billions of dollars in K-12 education spending from current levels and shortening the school year by five days. State university and community college offerings would also be cut back as tuition and fees go up. Health care programs for the poor would be slashed, as would welfare for the elderly and disabled. The fees for affluent people with assets in the state's veterans homes would rise.

The plan also includes reductions in the state workforce, which the governor is already trying to put in place through executive order. Public employee unions have sued to block the order, which would require state workers to take days off without pay, amounting to a pay cut of roughly 10%.

Genest said the state is already so deep in the red that it will not be able to get through this year without purchasing an unconventional $4.7-billion bridge loan that is certain to saddle taxpayers with steep interest charges -- presuming investors can even be found in this tight credit market.

The situation is dire, and Gov. Schwarzenegger has made some tough decisions that include both spending cuts and tax increases, thus pleasing neither Democrats or Republicans. Back in 2005 he suggested an automatic system of across the board spending cuts if there were a budgetary shortfall. It didn't even come up for a vote in the legislature. The basic problem is simple, you cannot continue to spend more than you generate in revenue and not get a snowball effect. The problem is systemic. Projected revenues are used in California to baseline the monetary expenditure available to the state government. Projections are far from a secure methodology and, as it turns out, can be grossly inaccurate.

California is at the point where Draconian measures are a must. And when that happens, out of the woodwork come the "don't cut our social programs" crowd. No word on whether the "don't raise our taxes any more you thieving slime" crowd will mobilize, despite the fact that they should. I have little sympathy for the progressive bastions of San Francisco and Hollywood, so it's hard to muster the effort to suggest that they need a lesson in basic economics. But they so do:

Throw into the mix the a new report, Proposed Budget Cuts Come at a Time of Growing Need, by the California Budget Project which shows that as many low- and middle-income Californians are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet, more are turning to programs such as Healthy Families, Medi-Cal, Food Stamps, CalWORKs, and WIC. Programs facing the greatest cuts are also experiencing great growth in the need for their services.

Arg. How do you deal with this level of myopia? Let's try a logical approach.

1) Government is a weaker source of stimulating the economy than the free market. [Proof]

1a) Every corporate dollar not taxed is a dollar companies can spend on inventory, infrastructure and/or employing labor. That labor can then generate income tax for the state, as distasteful as that may be.

1b) Every individual dollar not taxed is a dollar an individual can spend to pay bills (keeping creditors in business), buy goods and service (keeping companies in business) and keep their homes and put food on their tables (instead of supporting government programs, indirectly including safe havens for illegal immigrants that are certainly a net drainer of economic activity).

2) The first 3 points make the case that increasing taxes is not the best option. Besides, those making the argument for holding the line on spending are suggesting further hurting those who are already paying their taxes. In other words, killing the golden goose that is the taxpayer. So what if it is a death by 1000 cuts, it is still a death.

At some point, taxation becomes unsustainable. It's caused riots and revolutions around the world in the past. It will do so again in the future. California doesn't want to be the host of that type of hysteria.Progressives have long argued that taxes are the solution. But according to this chart, taxes are already pretty high in California.

Even President-elect Obama has said raising taxes in a recession is not a good idea. Not so in California?  So social spending cuts are part of the solution. Sorry. Spend like a drunken sailor and the spending will eventually catch up with you. Fiscal restraint is a reality, not a fairy tale. It's called prioritization, progressives. Read up on it because it's become fiscal reality. Keynes' ideas are as dead as he is.

To make it simple (Rio Linda, you listening?), if I am the head of a household (California) and my income from my work (state taxation) is less than my spending on necessities and luxuries (education, highways, all the way up to funding for obscure special interest groups) then eventually, I will have to start borrowing against my credit card or line of credit (running deficits, and issuing bonds etc.). And eventually, if I continue to do that and not start figuring out where I can trim my expenses, I will reach my credit limit and bankruptcy becomes a real possibility. Now the difference between me and California is that I can't go to my employer and order him to pay me more, while California can do that with the taxpayers. The taxpayers however at some point will have to say 'no'. That point is rapidly approaching.

Guess what liberal organizations and special interest groups, you are going to have to do what individual taxpayers are already doing during the economic downturn - tighten your belts, and figure out the smartest way to spend your funding. Alternately you could try to hit up all those Hollywood liberals to make up the difference and see if they really are all that friendly to the cause after all. I bet you find out they are as phony as the rest of us already realize. You may see it as one way or another having to do actual work, and I know how dreadful that sounds to you. But get your hands 'dirty' by generating the money yourselves through fundraising efforts or entrepreneurial efforts. See what it's like for those who've been carrying your water for the last several decades.

Too harsh? Maybe, but so is reality. Take the cuts and deal.