There’s no other way to put it. Congress is simply addicted to spending Other People’s Money. The latest evidence of their problem was the bill to resolve the fiscal cliff, which was stuffed with slabs of pork. That’s like sneaking drugs into your rehab counseling sessions.
The fiscal cliff was created to help restore fiscal discipline. Instead, President Obama negotiated $41 in tax increases for every dollar of spending cuts. Unable to restrain themselves at the sight of a “must pass” bill, the spending junkies snuck in subsidies for electric motorcycle manufacturers, NASCAR and Puerto Rican rum makers.
They showered $59 million on algae growers and $430 million on Hollywood producers. That last group was particularly deserving because they gave so freely of their time turning out for lavish Obama fundraising bashes.
Just days later, the bill to provide relief for hurricane Sandy victims was also spotted as a “must pass” measure not subject to normal appropriation rules. To the spenders, that means “game on.” So $23 billion of the $60 billion bill went to address the emergency damages sustained from the hurricane. The rest went to non-emergencies like upgrading the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aircraft and grants for water and air pollution to states and tribes.
Federal subsidies for wind power provide a stark example of how difficult it is to terminate worthless spending. These handouts began 20 years ago in an effort to boost a promising energy source. They haven’t worked but the dollars keep rolling along.
In the absence of any technological breakthrough, according to the Department of Energy, average wind-power costs are actually higher in 2009 than in 1994. Moreover, wind-power sources have to be backed up by traditionally fueled plants (the wind doesn’t blow all the time, you know), which must be kept running in order to be available when needed.
Wind power is subsidized $52.48 per million watt-hours, compared to $3.10 for nuclear and $.63 for natural gas. These subsidies are so generous that wind-power producers can actually pay utilities to take their energy and still make a profit.
But in Washington, none of this matters. Each wind project is located in some congressman’s district, which means they have a fearless champion who can team with the financially clueless environmental lobbyists to keep the gravy train going. The extension of the subsidy will add $12 billion annually to the deficit. Meanwhile, Energy Sec. Chu soldiers on with plans to subsidize construction of three more offshore wind projects at $47 million each.
The ethanol mandate may be the most ludicrous federal policy of all. Although the subsidy was terminated a year ago, the mandate wreaks the same economic damage by forcing Americans to burn our food supply. Last year, our cars burned as much corn as was raised in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and India combined.
The inevitable result was rising food costs, an especially serious matter in Third World countries facing chronic shortages. Many international relief organizations have begged the US to suspend the ethanol mandate but to no avail. Central American peasants don’t have Washington lobbyists nor do they vote in the Iowa primary, so they’re out of luck. Meanwhile, we all pay more for food and fuel and our air quality is actually worse.
Now our addicted politicians promise they’ll break that spending habit next time, when the debt ceiling is raised. But why would we believe that? The resolute spender Obama will still be president, the Senate is so incapable of decisive action they haven’t passed a budget in three years and the House may be less conservative than before. Demagogues will be on standby 24/7 to pounce on anyone brave enough to whisper a word about entitlement reform. It doesn’t look good.
This nonsense will stop only when taxpayers put as much heat on their politicians as the moochers do. Algae growers, Hollywood moguls and ethanol producers are the low hanging fruit of federal waste. If we can’t get them off the dole, we have no chance of meeting the major challenges necessary to get us back on track.
East Valley resident Tom Patterson (pattersontomc@cox.net) is a retired physician and former state senator.
timdlittle posted at 8:36 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
typical bs put out by GOP/tea party lackeys. your way of thinking is going away. can't wait for 2014.
samkat posted at 8:58 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
There is enough blame to go around in both parties.
Rich posted at 9:02 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Typical nonsense by the non-productive sector, trying to refute the simple and obvious without a single rational point.
Arizona Willie posted at 10:38 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Patterson: all your articles are just as incorrect as your second sentence.
" Congress is simply addicted to spending Other People’s Money. "
When your patients paid you -- was it still THEIR MONEY?
Did they have a right to say / judge how you spent the money they paid you?
You would laugh in their face.
Once you pay a bill / tax / whatever the money is NO LONGER YOURS.
You have no right to say how it is spent.
However, the government does give us some control because we can elect and, if necessary, recall the officials we put into office.
If you don't like how the government spends the GOVERNMENTS MONEY, then you can besiege your legislators and vote against them or recall them.
Please quit that nonsense of claiming the government is spending your / my money -- it is the governments money to spend as our representatives believe is beneficial.
Mike McClellan posted at 11:21 am on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Well, if anyone doesn't think we need to find cuts in the federal budget, substantial cuts and changes in the two big entitlement programs, they're fooling themselves.
But I guess I wonder when old Tom had his "Come to Jesus" moment. Because I don't remember him complaining about the Bush-era first term spending spree, with a Republican majority (including Paul Ryan, who voted for all the budget-busting expenditures then) paying for two wars without financing them, paying for huge tax cuts with no offsets, and paying for Medicare prescription changes with, again, no offsets. Those are in addition to the regular stuff run up by Congress.
I guess I also wonder when Old Tom will rail against farm subsidies beyond the ethanol one and the corporate welfare Congress is so generous with.
He's certainly selective in his caterwauling.
TempeTownToilet posted at 2:54 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
"Congress is simply addicted to spending Other People’s Money."
Spending other people's money is just a polite way of saying stealing.
Congress is just a bunch of thieves and crooks.
downtownresident posted at 3:56 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Obama didn't get us where we are. Congress, lap dogs of big business, did.
Mike has it right.
Rich posted at 4:05 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
McClellan
You ever think about playing another tune? Or research what you're saying? "Old Tom" has been grousing about spending since 1989. And just because a Republican did something a Democrat does doesn't automatically make it right for the Democrat.
You taught 'critical thinking' to our kids? We deserve a refund.
Willie
Government money is, by definition, our money. Though the term 'Other People's Money' was originally used to define money held in banks by Louis D. Brandeis. Once you pay taxes, at least in theory, it is to be spent for your benefit. Unfortunately, lately it appears to be spent more and more for people who don't pay it rather than for those who do.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:52 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
Well, Rich, anyone who believes -- like you have written -- that the way to control the madmen is to teach them how to use weapons better might want to think twice before lecturing someone else about critical thinking.
Rich posted at 7:38 pm on Sun, Jan 13, 2013.
McClellan
Again, you have a trick of arguing against your fractured understanding of what someone else wrote. I never said any such thing and you know it. Is this what you taught our children, to twist everything into something you can argue against? Hardly 'critical thinking'.
When will you be sending the refund checks?
Mike McClellan posted at 5:32 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
Ah, Rich, Dec. 31, in a post on a letter to the editor, you wrote, "If you want to control guns you start by controlling the nut behind the trigger through education and training."
Yes, well, I guess that "nut" would be receiving the same training everyone else would through your "gun education in schools" proposal.
Kind of like the time you were asked for specifics to an alternative and you said "try something else."
Rich posted at 8:06 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
You just take off don't you? "If you want to control guns you start by controlling the nut behind the trigger through education and training." Then, 'well I guess' ... and you guess wrong and then argue with your own misconception.
When you don't know the answer, but what you are doing isn't working, 'try something else' is the best possible alternative.
As I said, if you taught critical thinking, simple justice demands that we are due a refund.
Rich posted at 8:07 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
You just take off don't you? "If you want to control guns you start by controlling the nut behind the trigger through education and training." Then, 'well I guess' ... and you guess wrong and then argue with your own misconception.
When you don't know the answer, but what you are doing isn't working, 'try something else' is the best possible alternative.
As I said, if you taught critical thinking, simple justice demands that we are due a refund.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:26 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
Ah, now I see your plan more clearly. In school -- where you say this training should take place -- you'll weed out all the future "nutjobs" in the schools, right?
"Hey, all of you pre-schizophrenics who might someday consider mass killings -- you guys over here. We have some nice doilies we'd like you to make."
That's right, my bad, of course in high school we'll be able to screen the future crazies from getting training on how to better use weapons.
Thank you for the lesson on critical thinking. I await the explanation as to how "something else" is a specific explanation of an "alternative," but given your powers of critical thinking, I'm sure you can come up with some twaddle guaranteed to shine.
Cerulean posted at 8:46 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
The United States has subsidized coal since 1847. We need to stop burning coal for the good of the planet. It would be stupid not to subsidize alternative energy.
What we really need to do is stop paying Dr. Patterson $200.00 per visit from a Medicare patient.
Rich posted at 10:43 am on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
McClellan
Childish sarcasm again? Really productive. Great critical thought there guy.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:31 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
How else to address someone who calls into question critical thinking after A. wanting to train students -- except for the potential madmen who you somehow can magically weed out -- to use weapons better as a way to stop madmen and B. saying "something different" is somehow a specific example of an "alternative"?
How can we take someone who makes comments like those seriously, really?
Meantime, still waiting to see Patterson's condemnation of Big Oil's tax breaks, or for that matter, not paying for a $2 trillion tax cut, both of which have done more to drive up the debt than the (relatively) small cost of alt-energy subsidies.
VofReason posted at 1:58 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
"What we really need to do is stop paying Dr. Patterson $200.00 per visit from a Medicare patient. " This is interesting and even more interesting in light of the fact that Medicare, by design, pays less to Doctors than any Commercial (read private) insurances. That is right, our friend the Doctor and all doctors except less from Medicare for the exact same work. Like most Hospitals, they actually keep their doors open becuase they get paid better from Commercial (greedy for profit- if you believe liberals) isurance
VofReason posted at 2:04 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
This is also why, Obamacare runs the risk of limiting Healthcare, at some point, Doctors won't take Medicare and it's ugly cousin Medicaid. I will also question the statement about a $200.00 visit. Most are not reimbursed at that level, but are you questioning whether a person who goes to college for 7 years deserves that kind of money for their services? When the $200.00 also must pay for a place to have the service, administrative people to bill the service, insurance to give the service? Hey, why don't we stop pulling Medicare out of people's checks and have Healthcare in the freemarket. Or do we all agree it would fold as there is very little money saved from what was already taken. All the current withholding pays for the current users- it is a shell game.
Cerulean posted at 4:31 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
How much a doctor charges depends on her/his practice.
I can tell you that if House Republicans push the sequestration issue, and they do not raise the debt ceiling, doctors, nurses and hospitals are going to see $11 billion annual reductions in their pockets.
Rich posted at 7:07 pm on Mon, Jan 14, 2013.
Okay Mike, if you really want to play that dumb:
A) Training people to safely use anything is never a bad idea, especially when that thing was been mythologized to the point of absurdity and every coward in the world tells you it's evil. If you have a problem with anything, the way to handle it is education and understanding. Nothing in this world has ever been successfully banned, it is beyond the power of government to do so. So because people like you are afraid of the mythology of guns, the best answer to is educate everyone to them and their safe operation. You are looking at the alternative. 'Gun free' zones that become killing fields because of the fear of people like you, fear of a mythology, not a reality.
B) You have a problem to which you haven't found a solution. To continue to attempt to solve it using the same methods does not work. Therefore you must try 'something else'. If you knew what else, then you wouldn't need to try 'something else' but when all you know is that the current method doesn't work, trying 'something else' is the only alternative.
I don't know who you think you are impressing by acting like a moron, grow up.
Mike McClellan posted at 9:26 am on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
A. So clearly you believe that it's better to train the potential mass murderer in school, given your commentary above.
B. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning, as your comment in B. above so accurately demonstrates.
C. Most importantly, while Patterson rages against billions Obama has provided for alt-energy (conveniently forgetting that many of those programs began in the Bush Energy Department), he is very, very quiet about oil breaks the feds give, which amount to many billions more each year.
I wonder why he's so quiet about that? Could it be because of who funds the Goldwater Institute? Who knows, because the Institute keeps its donor list private.
His silence about that cost is deafening, as was his silence about the unpaid for massive Bush tax cuts of the early part of this century, cuts that added how many trillions to our debt?
VofReason posted at 12:06 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
"How much a doctor charges depends on her/his practice.", this is true only for people who pay out of their own pocket. That would generally only pertain to the very wealthy as they don't need to "insure" and pay for healthcare as needed. For everyone else, the rate paid depends on Contractual agreements with Commercial (private) insurance and or a specific rate associated with where the service takes place geographically for Medicare. Again, Medicare pays less than Commercial insurance for same services by design. Also, if rates for Medicare reimbursement get cut, you will see even more providers denying Medicare patients. Then no one will be their to give the care. Ignorance makes Obamacare look much better.
Cerulean posted at 12:46 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
Mike's point is perfect.
"Patterson rages against billions Obama has provided for alt-energy (conveniently forgetting that many of those programs began in the Bush Energy Department), he is very, very quiet about oil breaks the feds give, which amount to many billions more each year."
Rich posted at 4:23 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
"A. So clearly you believe that it's better to train the potential mass murderer in school, given your commentary above. " What kind of fractured logic is that and aside from you having to say something because your entire posting on this thread is schoolyard argumentation what possible point are you making? Knowledge and education about guns make such people easier to spot by more people, the training gives you an extra chance to discover them and get them help, and the training gives more people a chance to stop them. If you are going to enter into a dialectic, becoming childish and dogmatic in this manner rather kills any possibility of learning anything from it. By your logic we should stop teaching chemistry to children because it makes them drug producers and bombers.
Rich posted at 4:34 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
"B. Circular reasoning is circular reasoning, as your comment in B. above so accurately demonstrates." It is a paraphrase of Leibnitz, or a loose translation if you prefer. In "Out of My Later Years" Einstein mentions that the willingnewss to do this is an important key to scientific problem solving. If you are going to argue philosophy, take a course in it so you at least have a clue.
Rich posted at 4:46 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
"C. Most importantly, while Patterson rages against billions Obama has provided for alt-energy (conveniently forgetting that many of those programs began in the Bush Energy Department)," To quote from the above article: "These handouts began 20 years ago..." Obama's been President for 20 years? Who was President in 1993? Read with a little comprehension if you are going to comment.
"... he is very, very quiet about oil breaks the feds give, which amount to many billions more each year." How is that relevant? To quote from the above "Federal subsidies for wind power provide a stark example of how difficult it is to terminate worthless spending." It's just an example, and not necessarily anything else, and certainly not wrong because he didn't use your particular unsupported example which is presented with an unsupported innuendo.
Rich posted at 4:58 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
Cerulean, you'd be better off to read the article before presenting a knee jerk reaction to a point that made no sense in the first place. If you are going to posit an example to counter his, you need to show where the 'oil breaks' are or are not "a stark example of how difficult it is to terminate worthless spending." If not, you're just off topic, like Mc Clellan.
This was 'Spam' until I broke it up. Why? Don't know, don't suppose the EVT does either. The program to monitor this board was obviously programmed by a devotee of Salvador Dali.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:02 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
A. What an absurd proposition, that everyone trained to shoot better leads to some being able to pick out the madmen more easily. And you want to talk about critical thinking? Please.
B. Twaddle. You were asked for a specific example of an alternative, and you replied, "something different." Using the definition of a word to expand upon it is something even intermediate school kids learn not to do. "Argument by definition" is something maybe kids in Lincoln/Douglas debates might try . . . if they're desperate.
C. How is it relevant? Patterson's very selective in his outrage . . . silent about uncompensated for tax cuts, silent about the tens of billions in tax breaks/loopholes of big oil, outraged about the relative small amount of alt-energy subsidies. He serves his masters well.
Rich posted at 6:24 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
A. If you paint, don't you recognize who is good at it, bad at it? How they do it? Stop the childish naah, naah, naah responses. Of course if you are educated in something you can pick out such things, if you couldn't the grades you gave as a teacher would be a sham. Stop the half off the subject sarcasm and actually think about your responses.
B. No Mike, unless Leibnitz and Einstein are twaddle. And 'twaddle' isn't a response, just an admission you're wrong, or a complete lack of anything intelligent to answer. First it's circular, then it's 'by definition' do you even have a clue or do you just throw such things around because some of your high school class bought them and the intelligent ones had to keep their mouths shut?
C. "...silent about uncompensated for tax cuts, silent about the tens of billions in tax breaks/loopholes of big oil..." So you contend that big oil is also "...a stark example of how difficult it is to terminate worthless spending." in which case you agree with him. And despite your tone and your unsupported innuendo, you actually want to prove his point?
Mike McClellan posted at 9:39 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
A. If your theorem were true, police could just walk around and spot imminent crime. Maybe they don't have your powers of observation.
B. Arguing by definition is a form of circular reasoning . Invoking Einstein and Leibnitz,I guess, give us a clue to your self-image. The Scientist, the Mathematician/Philosopher and the Book Seller: Great Minds in Action
C. Oh, I agree with his contention; I just pointed out how selective he was in his outrage. He attacks the flea and misses the elephant.
D. And you want to talk abut innuendo? Do you actually read some of your screeds you post here?
Rich posted at 11:11 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
"A. If your theorem were true, police could just walk around and spot imminent crime. Maybe they don't have your powers of observation." It wasn't a theorum, and police do it all the time. you are really reaching, and making less and less sense.
Rich posted at 11:29 pm on Tue, Jan 15, 2013.
B. Arguing by definition is a form of circular reasoning . Invoking Einstein and Leibnitz,I guess, give us a clue to your self-image. The Scientist, the Mathematician/Philosopher and the Book Seller: Great Minds in Action. No, they are not forms of the same reasoning you seem to think reality is your classroom and your delusions are fact. Ad homonym argument and weak as well, try to do better.
Rich posted at 2:53 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
C. Oh, I agree with his contention; I just pointed out how selective he was in his outrage. He attacks the flea and misses the elephant. If both are a problem then you need to be allies not antagonists.
D. And you want to talk abut innuendo? Do you actually read some of your screeds you post here? Off the wall here. Mention a few, C should tell you what dialectic does, if used well.
How any of this is Spam is a bit beyond it. Is EVT protecting you as a columnist or is the system just absurd?
Cerulean posted at 9:13 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
My final comment is to ask, “ Does the oil industry need a government subsidy?” No.
If the United States is going to subsidize energy production (and I believe it should), coal and petroleum should be last on the list as they are the most destructive to humans and the environment.
Before the government regulated lead in gasoline, leaded petroleum may very well have been causing brain damage to lots of young people.
If Tom were a physician worth his weight, he would understand that.
mnjcpa posted at 11:54 am on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Rich - you're wasting your time with people like Mike M. and Cerulean.
Mike flits from topic to topic when he's called to task for his thinking. Cerulean - well, he/she commented to me that a small business owner doesn't deserve to keep more of what they earn just because they've got their own money at risk. You can't debate this kind of vacuous thinking.
We're in an upside down world Rich. Anyone that believes this is a Republican/Democrat issue and taking a side is a fool. People that think we are locked in a titanic budgetary struggle between Democrats and Republicans is an illusion.Wouldn't it be nice if, instead of doing our overlords' bidding by turning against each other, we instead figured out their game and turned against them?
The best tool I've had in the last year is watching Ben Shapiro of Breitbart crush Piers Morgan on debate on guns. Debate the premise of their arguments just like Shapiro did, and you expose their thinking every time.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:23 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Well, mnjcpa, maybe you missed what I initially wrote 4 days ago:
"Well, if anyone doesn't think we need to find cuts in the federal budget, substantial cuts and changes in the two big entitlement programs, they're fooling themselves."
Do you disagree? For example, would you agree to using the chained cpi to decide inflation adjustments to SS payouts? I do. Should we raise premiums/co-pays on those who can afford more in Medicare? I do. Should we look at raising the SS age again? I do. Should we eliminate redundancy in programs? I do. Should we even consider zero-based budgeting of federal agencies? I do.
My problem with Patterson is not that he's arguing that spending needs to be reduced, it's that when he makes those arguments, he tends to avoid the elephants in the room, like he did in this column.
mnjcpa posted at 7:37 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Please Mike. You think I would fall for the same trap that I just advised Rich against?
You make a random comment about spending cuts and you're a fair and balanced thinker? Seriously that's as funny as Obama saying he was going to take a `fair and balanced` approach to the tragedy in Sandy Hook that didn't include one mention of big pharma, Hollywood violence, or video games meanwhile he decimates the second amendment.
I've yet to read any of your comments that acknowledges a libertarian or conservative viewpoint. You're a lockstep liberal out of big government education. That's all I need to know. Find someone else to take down the rabbit hole.
Mike McClellan posted at 7:57 pm on Wed, Jan 16, 2013.
Well, I'm not planning any trap. My point above was that -- unlike what you and Rich apparently missed -- I'm all for serious cuts/changes, including defense spending (we spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined).
The "random" comment four days ago was anything but random. And now I outline what specifically I think we should do and somehow I'm leading you down the rabbit hole?
Please.
pd posted at 3:10 pm on Mon, Feb 18, 2013.
Now that everyone has stopped commenting and moved on to the next controversial article, I want to get my word in (edgewise):
1) Mike is no kneejerk tax and spend liberal or he wouldn't say that he supports entitlement reform. Medicare, medicaid and social security will sink the ship if we don't reform them. The Democrats are pretty much responsible for holding this up for political reasons.
2) I get tired of the "Bush did it too" defense from people like Mike. Who cares? Bad policy is bad policy. Bush was usually trying to "reach out" and give the liberals in congress some of what they wanted (and he was soundly rebuked by his conservative supporters -- Obama's star-struck supporters never dare to criticize their favorite college professor pres).
3) The thought that perhaps we've reached that point in the history of our republic when the citizens have discovered that they can vote themselves benefits from the treasury should indeed frighten us. We all know what happens to a family when they go crazy with the credit cards. A nation is no different.