Patterico's Pontifications

2/26/2013

L.A. Times Continues Hysteria Over Slight Increases in Federal Spending

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:25 am

The handwringing continues as the L.A. Times tells readers how slight increases in federal spending are going to devastate California due to how slight those increases (which they call “cuts”) will be:

The parade of horribles marches on:

As the state braces for pain from so-called sequestration, there are warnings of long delays at airport security checkpoints, potential slowdowns in cargo movement at harbors and cutbacks to programs, including meals for seniors and projects to combat neighborhood blight.

If we only increase federal spending a little instead of a lot, seniors will starve!

The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a loss of $37 million a year in federal funding. Supt. John Deasy said Monday that he is sending a letter to the California congressional delegation warning about the “potential very grave impact” of the cuts on Los Angeles schools.

Rachelle Pastor Arizmendi, director of early childhood education at the Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment in Los Angeles, said she anticipated that the cuts would cost her agency $980,000 in federal Head Start funding. That would force PACE to eliminate preschool for about 120 children ages 3 to 5.

“It’s not just a number,” she said. “This is closing down classrooms. This is putting our children behind when they’re going to kindergarten.”

As a reminder: the federal government will be spending more money next year than it did last year. It will be spending less than last year as a percentage of the total economy, to be sure, but spending will still increase.

Imagine the hysteria if they were actually cutting the budget.

What to do about all this? A great piece at the American Thinker explains how we can take care of the whole problem by just raising taxes. The writer calmly goes through the numbers, assuming (counterfactually) that a planned raise of $1 in taxes will actually yield the whole dollar, and explains how much we would need to be taxed to eliminate the deficit (not the debt, just the deficit). Assuming we don’t raise taxes on the bottom 47% who aren’t paying income taxes anyway:

If we equally distribute the deficit-busting new taxes among the remaining six brackets, new taxes for a $1 million household would be $1.1 million; $56,000 for a $200,000 household; $14,000 for a $100,000 household; and $7,800 for a $50,000 household. If we let the millionaire households keep a few bucks to live on and only ask them for around $500,000 each in new taxes, burdens for the remaining brackets go up to $65,000; $16,000; and $9,000 respectively.

Easy peasy. We just need to ask those who are already doing very well to do a little more. To pay their fair share.

And then seniors wouldn’t have to starve. You don’t really want seniors to starve, do you? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

45 Responses to “L.A. Times Continues Hysteria Over Slight Increases in Federal Spending”

  1. Why do you hate seniors?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. the vapors from the Left on this are hysterical. At this point, i think they will implement the decreases in the rate of growth in such a fashion to have the most impact on the public, rather than actually looking at how they spend money. This has to come across as bad to the public, or their bleating will be shown to be as douchey as we know it to be. I wish some reporter would go through and add up all the claimed services that they have claimed will be effected. Kind of like how a $2,000,000 cut to a program that no longer exists will cripple the program.

    JD (b63a52)

  3. At this point it has nothing to do with reality, JD,then again what’s new, neither did that brave dissident Dorner, nor those innocent shepherds at Gitmo, who organized the underwear bomber attempt,
    or the situation in Central Florida.

    narciso (3fec35)

  4. What we need is a way to help the American public realize they are being lied to without being made to feel stupid for letting it happen.

    Of course, to come to believe “Everything I’ve been told is a lie” is potentially a life-altering and disturbing event, generally thought of in terms of crazy conspiracists and suspense novels.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. why is the federal government paying for daycare in los angeles?

    los angeles needs to grow up and support itself instead of mooching off others like a useless little parasite I think

    happyfeet (acd614)

  6. Rachelle Pastor Arizmendi, director of early childhood education at the Pacific Asian Consortium for Employment in Los Angeles, said she anticipated that the cuts would cost her agency $980,000 in federal Head Start funding. That would force PACE to eliminate preschool for about 120 children ages 3 to 5.

    Since HHS’s own study has proven Head Start doesn’t help children and in some cases actually harms children, isn’t this a good thing? Why throw away more money on yet another failed government program? Why do we want to give government more and more control over our daily lives when so many of their programs have been failures?

    I know “it’s for the children”, but if it actually harms children, shouldn’t we stop?

    Tanny O'Haley (4c5a96)

  7. Don’t all these end of time cuts prophesied by Obama add up to more than $85 billion or $45 billion for a partial year? Isn’t there a way to call him on his BS?

    Jay Carnie claims the president has a plan, which if you go to the whitehouse.gov consists of his last offer to Boehner which they claim is still on the table. It includes $700 billion of future interest savings on money we won’t have to borrow to spend if we enact the plan, which is the type of phantom steely fiscal discipline is looking for in its leaders. Just think, if interest rates go up, the money we save on money we don’t spend could be even higher!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  8. The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a loss of $37 million a year in federal funding.

    Staff and teachers could take a 2.4% pay cut for a year, until we can jack up spending again. Just a suggestion.

    All those starving seniors help the Obamacare numbers too, so there’s an upside. Got to break a few eggs, as Mao opined.

    Patricia (be0117)

  9. My favorite part of this is how the Obama Administration and their medial allies are now trying to say that the sequestration will lead to huge cutbacks in border security which will once again flood us with illegal immigrants — right at the time that they are trying to push through amnesty for last generation’s illegal immigrants. Are they so secure in their ability to manipulate popular opinion that they don’t see that a flood of illegals might imperil efforts to grant an amnesty? I keep thinking (hoping?) that at some point Obama’s hubris will catch up to him, and I wonder if this isn’t the moment. Opponents of amnesty (by the way, I am not really one of them) should seize upon this and say, “Well, if the Administration can’t prioritize the budget so as to secure the borders, we probably shouldn’t be rushing towards legalizing the current group.”

    JVW (4826a9)

  10. Staff and teachers could take a 2.4% pay cut for a year, until we can jack up spending again. Just a suggestion

    This was an issue with the teachers union and the Walker govt in Wis. Instead of a plan that would have had no teacher layoffs, including the Wisconsin “Teacher of the year”, the union demanded the old practice of last hired, first fired, and the teacher of the year got the pink slip- part of walker’s case that the state employee unions were not looking out for the people of wisconsin or even the typical state employee

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  11. Staff and teachers could take a 2.4% pay cut for a year, until we can jack up spending again. Just a suggestion.

    Or, if we want to be “progressive” about it, anyone making more than $100,000 could take a 4% cut, anyone making between $75-100k could take a 3% cut, anyone making between $50-75k could take a 2% cut, and perhaps anyone making under $50k could be spared.

    But of course progressives are rarely progressive where their own interests are involved.

    JVW (4826a9)

  12. How the heck does he come up with taxing a million dollar household 110% of their income?

    Chris (a9e1ad)

  13. Why not have headlines that say: “Unless major cuts are made soon, Social Security and Medicare will fail. Yet some in Washington even oppose trimming the increases they asked for.”

    If you really want to scare seniors, I mean.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. Comment by Chris (a9e1ad) — 2/26/2013 @ 9:09 am

    I think that is to amplify the point that you can’t solve the problem by simply “making the rich pay their fair share”, that you can take it all and it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  15. The only way CA will be “devastated” will be if the Federal Revenue Sharing/Block Grant checques don’t show up on-time.
    On the other hand, it could just be the kick-in-the-ass that the legislature requires to get their priorities straight.
    In reality, nothing of any consequence will occur, and we will continue our slide into the coming disaster that we in CA have created.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  16. I don’t want seniors to starve, but why do they have a legitimate and prior claim on my wages, as well as the wages of my not-yet-working 15-year-old son?

    When the state, under the guise of caring for people, takes from the people that which they might use to care for themselves, the state has foregone its role of protector of life and property and is instead engaged in plunder.

    Diffus (48ae73)

  17. My seniors won’t starve. I don’t give a shit about yours.

    mojo (8096f2)

  18. Yes, MD, and of course the media is not talking about that. It’s all or nothing, and that’s okay!
    I like the progressive version, too!

    Hey, we need billboards with some of these thoughts on it. How much would it cost to purchase time on one along one of the LA commuter freeways? Captive audience.

    Patricia (be0117)

  19. If LA Unified’s budget was cut in half, they’d end up a better school district.

    SPQR (768505)

  20. SPQR, that is a very low hurdle.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  21. Seniors won’t starve if they are retired government workers.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  22. The Los Angeles Unified School District is bracing for a loss of $37 million a year in federal funding.

    Apparently angelenos think it’s their right to demand that Iowans pay for their damned school districts.

    We are so freaking doomed.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  23. It’s free money!

    Steve57 (60a887)

  24. But all this misses the point.

    How much less will be affordable in future when debt is downgraded and the *real* cuts are made?

    scrubone (e7e0ea)

  25. Apparently angelenos think it’s their right to demand that Iowans pay for their damned school districts.

    Great point. Liberals here in California hold two contradictory beliefs: On the one hand, they are huge believers in an activist federal government who takes money and redistributes it based supposedly upon need, but in practice mostly on political patronage; on the other hand, they consistently whine that California is a net contributor to the feds, receiving less in benefits than we pay in taxes. My response, when this topic comes up with my liberal friends, is always “Well, then I would imagine you will join me in demanding that the federal government start taxing less, offering fewer revenue transfers, and leave it up to the states to pursue individual social welfare policies and raise the money necessary to pay for them.” Somehow, they never quite agree that this is the solution.

    JVW (4826a9)

  26. 194. Comment by happyfeet in the Wapo thread: (4bf7c2) — 2/26/2013 @ 1:56 pm

    stupid snotty vegans and then they wonder why nobody invites them anywhere

    According to the Daily Beast even vegetarians will be hurt by the sequester.

    1. Stock up on meat now – it might not be available for long.

    The Food Safety and Inspection Service says it will be forced to furlough employees if cuts are enacted. Without enough qualified inspectors¡ªthe people paid to make sure your burger is made of beef and not horse production won’t be able to continue at its current rate. This week, the American Meat Institute, a national trade association, warned U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a letter that furloughing food inspectors would have a profound, indeed devastating, effect on meat and poultry companies, and consumers, not to mention the producers who raise the cattle, hogs, lamb, and poultry processed in those facilities.

    Even vegetarians wouldn’t escape unscathed. More than two thousand fewer types of food inspections could occur as a result of sequester cuts, putting eaters of all kinds at risk of exposure to food-borne illnesses.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  27. Page 104 of the iRS Form 1040 instructions has budget pie shaped graphs and statistics.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  28. I am a senior…..don’t worry, I won’t starve

    Angelo (e49fd7)

  29. Here’s a good illustration:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/how-much-would-the-sequester-cut-into-a-big-mac-extra-value-meal.php

    There really, really ought to be a way to put people on trial or impeachment if spending cuts are made to have the worst public impact. Really.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  30. JVW, California hasn’t been a net contributor lately. In 2010, California and its citizens received $1.09 for every federal tax dollar levied. I’d bet that unemployment insurance has tipped us into the “black.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  31. putting eaters of all kinds at risk of exposure to food-borne illnesses

    this is because failmerica and the fascist FDA won’t institute food irradiation

    because of they are losers

    happyfeet (acd614)

  32. JVW, California hasn’t been a net contributor lately. In 2010, California and its citizens received $1.09 for every federal tax dollar levied. I’d bet that unemployment insurance has tipped us into the “black.”

    Thanks Kevin M, but I think that this might be somewhat of an apples-to-oranges comparison. In an era of endless trillion dollar deficits, practically every state is going to end up being a net recipient. When the government is borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar spent, it is pretty easy to make sure most states enjoy a positive difference in the pork versus tax revenue calculation. The graph that I linked to tried to index the receipts to state GDP to provide a more economics-based method of comparison.

    JVW (4826a9)

  33. they turned all the states into beggars

    is what the fascists did

    it’s one of their things

    happyfeet (acd614)

  34. Overall, it’s cuts in growth of spending. But to be fair, within some programs there will be real cuts. I wish their reporting would indicate prior-year funding for each specific program for context.

    CBrown (3016c0)

  35. ICE at the order of Obama has released illegal immigrants from detention because of “budgetary” concerns…
    Just like Hussein and Castro released felons to cause trouble.

    He really, really should be impeached, but as we’ve raised before, just what would he have to do to force Congress’ hand.

    Meanwhile, the DOJ thinks a German family must return to Germany and face fines, possible imprisonment, and possible confiscation of their children because they want to- oh my!! homeschool their children.
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/02/doj-seeks-deportation-of-family-persecuted-in-germany-for-homeschooling/

    Families have no right to educate their own children, but they do need to tolerate “embrace” children of the opposite sex in their bathroom if the child has a transgender identity.

    This is really, really Orwellian, right here in America

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  36. Even Woodward says what Obama is doing is “madness”.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bob-woodward-blasts-obama-madness-88160.html

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  37. Doc, I’ve got all figgered out.

    Only if you’ve got complex about teh size of yer Jonsen do you have problem with whaht the feds are doing.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  38. Apparently angelenos think it’s their right to demand that Iowans pay for their damned school districts.

    Wrong SoCal city….should be Long Beach.
    In growing up post WW2, the Iowa Day Picnic was the biggest social event of the year in Long Beach, though I doubt they’ve held one in years now.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  39. You’re just insecure about your seczualitah if you’re not comfortable wit a omnipotent gub’mint.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  40. Wrong SoCal city….should be Long Beach.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 2/27/2013 @ 11:31 am

    Sorry. It’s hard to keep then straight. If keeping the straight isn’t yet a hate crime.

    Steve57 (60a887)

  41. Comment by Steve57 (60a887) — 2/27/2013 @ 11:36 am

    I was just being slightly facetious, as you are trying to be “straight”.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  42. Fabulous! I look forward to the next margarita when we can toast the newest Kardashian sex video.

    Luvvy!

    Steve57 (60a887)

  43. 42- Now why would you expect the WH to be involved in the actions of ICE?
    Bammy’s time has been completely occupied with setting up his next golf lesson, and arranging the Girls’ next outing – all on our dime natch!

    askeptic (b8ab92)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3207 secs.