Who’s a federal budget hawk? Would you guess President Barack Obama?

Wasn’t it on Dragnet, that character Sergeant Joe Friday made famous this line: “Just the facts, Ma’am.”

And then, there’s Reagan, who TRIPLED our national debt, and Bush II whose Iraq War, Wall Street deregulation gave us TARP, and more…
—

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?

5/24/2012 @ 6:33PM |22,212 views

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

Presidential Spending Reagan-Obama

So, how have the Republicans managed to pursuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in

Q: Where in America can you retire at age 23? A: Bain Capital

“…distributions may be made to a participant who has not separated from service, provided the participant has attained age 23 years old…”

The bigger question is this: Can or will Mitt Romney give all Americans the same opportunity? Can or will his ideas and policy make everyone as rich as Croesus?

Forget “rich.”

Let’s settle for “eliminate poverty.”

I think we know the answer to that one.

—

Bain’s Unusually Young Retirement Rollover Age: 23

April 2, 2012, 2:19 PM ET

By Mark Maremont

Bain Capital, the private-equity firm that Mitt Romney used to run, appears to have an unusual early-retirement age: 23.

That’s the age at which, according to a federal filing (PDF, page 25), Bain employees are allowed to roll over their retirement funds from a Bain profit-sharing plan into their own individual retirement accounts, or simply withdraw the money.

Federal law allows employees in such profit-sharing plans to roll over their funds into an IRA only under certain circumstances, such as when they leave their jobs, when they’ve been in the job a certain number of years, or when they reach a specified age, pension lawyers said. Normally, that age is something close to retirement, such as 50 or 55 years old.

“I’ve never seen or drafted a plan permitting a distribution as early as 23,” said Charles M. Lax, a pension attorney at Maddin Hauser in Southfield, Mich. He said the Bain arrangement

Report: Illegal immigration now zero sum game

The original title was “Illegal immigration ceases.”

To which I began this entry with “Okay, maybe not.”

But, according to the findings made in this independent report, it’s pretty near zero, if not already in the negative numbers.

And, for the fascist, racist right-wing legislators in the states of Alabama & Arizona, that’s good news!

Why?

That means they can stop collaborating with Kris Kobach to write racist legislation, and start working on genuinely serious problems!

Of course, this de-escalation from a “crisis” may actually show them up for what they are: Clueless Incompetent Boobs.

BTW… this was also reported on the NPR afternoon news program “All Things Considered.”

—

Released: April 23, 2012

Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero—and Perhaps Less

by Jeffrey Passel, D’Vera Cohn and Ana Gonzalez-Barrera

The largest wave of immigration in history from a single country to the United States has come to a standstill. After four decades that brought 12 million current immigrants—more than half of whom came illegally—the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped—and may have reversed, according to a new analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center of multiple government data sets from both countries.

The standstill appears to be the result of many factors, including the weakened U.S. job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations, the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings, the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates and changing economic conditions in Mexico.

The report is based on the Center’s analysis of data from five different Mexican government sources and four U.S. government sources.

Thomas Jefferson on “the Buffett Rule”

How much is enough?

How many houses does a man need to live in?

How many cars does a man need?

In response to the question “Can you ever have enough money?,” billionaire entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson replied, “You only need one breakfast, one lunch, one dinner, and therefore the money aspect is not actually that important.”

—

by Alan Grayson on Friday, April 20, 2012 at 1:44pm ·

I don’t know what Founding Father and President Thomas Jefferson would have thought about TV, cars, spaceships, cellphones, skyscrapers, computers or nuclear weapons. But I do know what Jefferson would have thought about the Buffett Rule. He would have liked it.

The Buffett Rule is the Obama Administration’s proposal to adopt a 30% minimum tax rate on personal income above $1 million a year. It would promote one of the central tenets of progressivism: that the burden of taxes should fall on the rich, not the poor.

In 1811, two years after Jefferson left the Presidency, Jefferson wrote a letter to General Thaddeus Kosciuszko, a hero of the American Revolution. Jefferson said that he supported taxes (then tariffs, since there was no income tax yet) falling entirely on the wealthy. As Jefferson explained: “The farmer will see

Congressional Budget Office: Food Assistance Rate to Grow

While not totally bright, the CBO report is not totally grim, either.

Here’s why.

The method by which unemployment figures are calculated does NOT take into account people whom have STOPPED looking for work. Many – if not most – of those people would accept work, were suitable work offered to them. They have stopped looking for work for many reasons, not the least of which is that they have become despondent from their unfruitful job search.

Now, when the unemployment rate begins to rise again, we will actually see an INCREASE in the rate.

Why?

Because many of the people whom had previously stopped looking for work, will again resume their job search. Thus, they will be counted among the unemployed, whereas previously, they were not counted among the unemployed.

How does the methodology of counting the unemployed relate to this report about rising participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program?

In many cases, the rates of unemployment, in conjunction with the expiration of unemployment compensation benefits, correlates strongly with want and poverty.

Thus, if the CBO says the rates will grow, we can make a reasonable estimate that the strength of economic recovery will have taken hold, and be in full swing.

As an observation aside, examine the larger infographic, and look at the states with the highest rates of SNAP utilization. Most of them are in the Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia. Those states were formerly Democratic strongholds, and have now swung strongly toward Republican politics. Three other states – Maine, Michigan, and Oregon – also have SNAP utilization rates above 18% of their population.

What would happen politically if Republicans were allowed to eliminate the SNAP program?

—

Food Stamp Rolls to Grow Through 2014, CBO Says

• April 19, 2012, 1:58 PM ET

The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It  said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Click for larger CBO infographic.

SNAP infographic - Click for much LARGER image.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to

News: Mitt Romney to attempt to buy November General Election

Among political observers of all stripe, there is broad consensus that the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, will continue to negatively affect the political process.

Some years ago I held that the only way to completely eliminate the corrupting influence of money in our political process was to allow donations – even in unlimited amounts as Super PACs do – and to place all funds in one pool, and divide the funds equally among all candidates. By so doing, candidates and incumbents would not have to be concerned with raising money for election campaigns. In essence, what we have now is a perpetual campaigning process in which elected officials continuously attend functions where money is raised, and in some cases transferred personally. Many of them have publicly expressed great distress at the time it takes away from their ability to govern and to perform the duties and responsibilities for which they were elected.

In essence, what we would have is a public/private partnership pool, which could have the best of both worlds.

Candidates could

What does Mitt Romney have to hide?

Mitt Romney provided 23 years of tax returns to the John McCain camp when the Arizona senator was considering potential running mates for the 2008 Presidential election.

Now, he’s balking at providing those same documents to Americans whom he is asking to support him.

Why?

Mitt Romney, Mr. 1% - Cartoon (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Romney using ethics exception to limit disclosure of Bain holdings

By Tom Hamburger, Thursday, April 5, 1:10 PM

Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, whose wealth has become a central issue in the 2012 campaign, has taken advantage of an obscure exception in federal ethics laws to avoid disclosing the nature and extent of his holdings.

By offering a limited description of his assets, Romney has made it difficult to know precisely where his money is invested, whether it is offshore or in controversial companies, or whether those holdings could affect his policies or present any conflicts of interest.

In 48 accounts from Bain Capital, the private equity firm he founded in Boston, Romney declined on his financial disclosure forms to identify the underlying assets, including his holdings in a company that moved U.S. jobs to China and a California firm once owned by Bain that filed for bankruptcy years ago and laid off more than 1,000 workers.

Those are known only because Bain publicly disclosed them in government filings and on the Internet. But most of the underlying assets — the specific investments of Bain funds— are not known because Romney is covered by a confidentiality agreement with the company.

Several of Romney’s assets — including a large family trust valued at roughly $100 million, nine overseas holdings and 12 partnership interests— were not named initially on his disclosure forms, emerging months later when he agreed to release his tax returns.

There is no indication that Romney is violating any rules, and his advisers note that his reports have been certified by the Office of Government Ethics, which reviews the disclosures required of presidential candidates.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said

Social Darwinism, “Starving the Monster,” and the Myth of Smaller Government

For years, I have called them “Governmental Deconstructionists,” and I stand by my words.

I refer to Radical Republicans, whom may also be known as TEA Party members.

I have said that they are so far to the Right, they’re bumping on the Left side of the Left.

They’re extremists, and they don’t give a damn about you, nor – dare I say – about this nation.

Consider that they say ludicrous things such as they want to “make government smaller,” and have “less regulation.”

Such remarks are blatantly stupid on their face.

Here’s why.

There was only ONE TIME in our nation’s history when we had fewer laws and regulation, and when the government was much, much smaller.

That was when it was founded, back in the late 1700′s.

Since then, we’ve only grown larger in land size, have become more populous, have increased technology, have become the world’s largest economy and a driving force in the global economy, and show little signs of decline. We remain, without a doubt, the most powerful nation in the world – bar none.

Though we have weathered a Civil War, Great Depression and are emerging from a

Paul Ryan calls Pentagon Generals liars

Wow.

Just, wow.

Ryan apologizes to nation’s top general for questioning Pentagon‘s truthfulness

By Alexander Bolton – 04/01/12 10:33 AM ET

House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said Sunday he has apologized to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey for claiming military leaders had not honestly stated their budget requirements.

Speaking at a recent policy forum, Ryan suggested the nation’s top generals had downplayed their funding needs to accommodate President Obama’s goal of reducing defense spending.

“We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice. We don’t think generals believe that their budget is really the right budget,” Ryan said at the event last week.Dempsey swiftly pushed back against Ryan’s comment.

“There’s a difference between having someone say they don’t believe what you said versus … calling us, collectively, liars,” Dempsey said. ”My response is I stand by my testimony. This was very much a strategy-driven process to which we mapped the budget.”

Ryan backpedalled

Things Alabama ain’t got… Mega Millions Lottery

Some folks would say “common sense,” and to some extent, that’s probably true.

Well… better make that “to a great extent.”

But, a state lottery is another thing Alabama ain’t got.

And, the Republicans in the legislature in the past administration and the present administration seem to have absolutely no inclination to allow the people the opportunity to vote on it… whether to have state sponsored gammlin’, that is.

Folks’ve tried to get one for education but have failed. And, in a move called “proration,” the governor this year cut all state budgets across the board by 10.6%, excluding education, because Alabama’s state constitution, for better or for worse, forbids going into debt and requires a balanced budget. Bonds are a different matter.

But, one other thing the state’s legislature doesn’t do