"The government has decided that less intervention on its part will be better for economic growth. Is this a new initiative coming out of Washington? No. This is the thinking in Beijing.

"Under the headline "China Cuts Red Tape As Premier Li Shows Stimulus Reluctance," Bloomberg reported last week that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, who "pledged to reduce the government's role in the world's second biggest economy after a new leadership took over in March," wants to cut red tape and regulation.

"Bloomberg went on to report that Chinese government "authorities" are "reluctant to use stimulus to counter a slowdown, saying China must rely on market mechanisms to aid growth."

"Sounds like the opposite of the Barack Obama government, which is obsessed with stimulus spending and is a regulation-writing machine."

The IBD editorial later points out:

"Washington is not only a font of useless spending, it's also a red-tape factory.

"The annual federal regulatory burden is at an all-time high of $1.8 trillion, says the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has just released "Ten Thousand Commandments," its annual report on the regulatory excesses of Washington.

"That figure is a milestone; it's the first time, says CEI, that the estimated cost of regulation has exceeded half the cost of the federal government."

The rather lengthy editorial ends by saying, "Consequently, this puts Obama and the Democrats who support his liberal policies to the left of China. It's the wrong side of politics and the wrong side of history."

But perhaps we should take a longer view as Glenn Harlan Reynolds does in an op-ed today in USA Today. He sets-up the following comment by citing the trio of scandals currently facing the administration, and then says:

"But serious as these problems are, they're all short-term things. So while at the moment a lot of our political leaders may be wearing sunglasses so as not to be recognized, there's a pretty good argument that, over the longer time, our future's so bright that we have to wear shades.

"That's the thesis of a new book, America 3.0: Rebooting American Prosperity In The 21st Century. The book's authors, James Bennett and Michael Lotus, argue that things seem rough because we're in a period of transition, like those after the Civil War and during the New Deal era. Such transitions are necessarily bumpy, but once they're navigated the country comes back stronger than ever."

Maybe hope does spring eternal. Let's certainly hope so!

~ Ronald Reagan

HT John Hawkins's "40 Best Quotes from Ronald Reagan" at Townhall.com

The following section of the IBD editorial gets to the heart of the problem:

“And the price tag will be a lot higher than it looks. Nearly 79% of all the spending planned over the next decade will go to food stamps, nearly $80 billion a year.

“So let's see if we have this straight: We give taxpayer subsidies to farmers to boost our food prices, then hit up taxpayers for more money for food stamps so the poor can afford the higher prices government created. (emphasis added)

“If that sounds insane, it is — no less than Soviet-style thinking.

“What's worse, our farm programs are designed today to enrich a handful of rich, very large agribusinesses. And despite the financial meltdown, big farms are booming.”

Here’s Rick Moran’s advice at American Thinker:

“They're going to mark up the farm bill this week and if I were you, I'd follow the advice of Heritage Action:

"Hold On To Your Wallets: Farm Bill Incoming!"

“Nothing says big government quite like a trillion dollar farm and food stamp bill. And agri-lobbyists went to town in fashioning as many special interest goodies as the could stuff into a single bill.”

The Heritage Foundation published a Backgrounder (No, 2797, May 14, 2013) as well, listing “10 things you should know about the farm bill.” Here are the five “key points,” according to the document:

1. The "farm bill" is a misleading title for this recurring legislation. About 80 percent of spending in the 2008 bill is dedicated to food stamps and other nutrition programs.
2. There is a wide range of market-distorting subsidies affecting farm policy that include income support, price controls, operating and land ownership loans, insurance, and disaster relief.
3. This is a particularly vital time for reform. Federal spending must be reined in, and the condition of agriculture is extremely strong. Net farm income (what farmers earn after expenses) is at its highest levels in 40 years.
4. Meaningful reform includes considering food stamps and agriculture programs in separate bills, creating much stricter eligibility requirements for subsidies, and imposing caps on crop insurance premiums.
5. Congress should eliminate flawed programs such as direct payments. However, it should not then replace those programs with something as bad or worse. Congress should consider the farm bill in terms of net reform.

Last Friday, Daren Bakst wrote at the Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, that when it comes to food stamps and farm programs, “some things just don’t go together.” He explains why the food stamps and the farm programs should be separated this way:

“Sometimes things go better together than you’d think, such as bacon and chocolate, or Hall and Oates, however, not all combinations work. For years, some Members of Congress have thought that food stamps and farm programs—while very distinct from each other—are a great political fit. As Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), ranking member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee recently explained, food stamps should continue to be included in the farm bill “purely from a political perspective. It helps get the farm bill passed.” (emphasis added)

“For taxpayers and voters though, this unholy alliance has been more like oil and water than peanut butter and jelly. The “farm bill,” which is recurring legislation that packages food stamps with farm programs every five years or so, has become a $1 trillion bill of subsidies and welfare programs that ignores sound policy and open and accountable government.”

Rick Moran's advice in his American Thinker piece seems to be real good advice. And while you're holding on to your wallet, hold your elected representatives accountable. Arlington County taxpayers should call or write their representatives on Capitol Hill. Here's the contact information:

• Senator Mark Warner (D) -  write to him or call (202) 224-2023
  

• Senator Tim Kaine (D) -- write to him or call (202) 224-4024
  

• Representative Jim Moran (D) -- write to him or call (202) 225-4376
  

"Conservatives often have a difficult time explaining why we support a smaller, more limited federal government. These scandals make that job a little easier. It’s not that we don’t like government, but we don’t like government intimidating and harassing media outlets, businesses, citizen organizations, or anyone else in the manner these scandals have brought to light.

"And we understand that because this kind of corruption and incompetence is inherent in any massive, unaccountable organization, simply passing a new law will not solve the problem. To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power."

~ Mike Lee, U.S. Senator, Utah

HT His National Review Online Op-Ed, May 16, 2013

"The president and numerous politicians claim that the United States does not have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. The president has gone so far as to say, "In fact, for the next 10 years, it's gonna be in a sustainable place."

"The recent release of budget plans for fiscal year 2014 makes a proper perspective of projections of public debt even more important. This week’s chart shows the debt held by the public as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) under various budget proposals."

She uses the following chart to help readers better understand the various proposals:

She concludes by saying:

"It’s hard to see how any of these budget plans represent a serious attempt to cut the debt, as most of the plans only leave us where we are today, if not worse off. Even the Ryan plan, which promises a 55 percent debt-to-GDP level by 2023, rests on optimistic GDP growth and revenue projections while failing to fully address the unsustainability of the current entitlement programs. The Ryan plan repeals Obama's health care law, but it pushes off urgent Medicare reforms until 2024 and leaves Social Security untouched.

"These plans prove that Washington lacks the commitment necessary to address the true drivers of the debt: spending for entitlement programs and interest costs on the debt itself.

Want to better understand America's public debt? Spend a few minutes studying this paper.

Starr points out that bringing down health care cost is HHS's "top priority."

But here's the kicker in Starr's report:

"But Richard Gilfillan, director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who took questions from reporters on the conference call, could not tell reporters how much the $900 million awards given out last year has saved taxpayers in health care costs.

"A reporter asked Gilfillan about the $1.9 billion savings over three years that HHS officials had predicted from the first round of awards and whether he could report any savings over the first year.

"All of our round-one proposals, our applicants, have put in operating plans,” Gilfillan said. “They’ve begun operations, but we do not have any estimates to share with you at this time.”

Amazing the things government bureaucrats will do when it's not their money they are spending. Absolutely amazing.

"In a statement today, National Taxpayers Union (NTU) Executive Vice President Pete Sepp responded to the situation stemming from the I.R.S.’s admitted misconduct in targeting conservative-leaning organizations for increased scrutiny on non-profit status applications:

“If the power to tax is the power to destroy, so is the IRS's power to deny, delay, and demand endless documentation. In typical Washington, DC fashion, the extent of the damage surrounding the IRS's investigative excesses of conservative organizations is still unfolding. The sooner public officials stop downplaying and start leveling with the American people about how far this abuse of power has gone, the better.

“But whether the immediate issue is nonprofit status for conservative groups, or ill-targeted audits, the underlying concern for taxpayers is the same: Congress must be ever-vigilant in ensuring the IRS exercises its powers prudently and that the tax collection system's abuses are quickly corrected.  In our system of government, compliance with our tax laws should depend more on public trust than secret coercion.

“Instead of the usual displays of righteous indignation and promises to 'get to the bottom' of this unfolding scandal; it's time for a righteous commitment to administrative reform, from the bottom up. At the very least that means additional safeguards such as those found in the Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights introduced by Senator John Cornyn. Other recommendations that NTU made in the late 1990s while its Executive Vice President served on the National Commission on Restructuring the IRS merit consideration today. This includes the concept of a citizen review board for IRS actions.

“Make no mistake -- this is not the first time Americans have been treated to the sorry spectacle of a tax agency accused of political bias, nor will it be the last. Unless, of course, politicians are willing to stop posturing and get serious about protecting taxpayers. Whatever type of tax system we may have in the future, it will require constant oversight as well as checks and balances against political manipulation.”

If you haven't been following the story, here are a few stories that provide the background, as well as the Treasury IG's report:

• Washington Free Beacon provides a timeline showing "systematic targeting of conservative groups."

• Washington Free Beacon also reports, "A long-awaited report by the Treasury Department inspector general confirmed Tuesday that Internal Revenue Service agents targeted Tea Party groups because of their political beliefs. The report said ineffective management allowed IRS agents to single out Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status with inappropriate questions and requests."

• Washington Free Beacon reports that White House Press Secretary Jay "Carney can’t explain why no pne in WH knew about IRS scandal," and embeds a 2-minute video.

• At the Wall Street Journal, James Bovard provides "a brief history of IRS political targeting."

• Wall Street Journal reports the "FBI launches probe of IRS" that will eye treatment of Tea Party groups.

• Wall Street Journal reports that "wider problems found at IRS."

• The editors at National Review Online write, "But the agency’s actions do not appear to be mere mistakes; they give every indication of being misconduct with malice aforethought, a campaign of intimidation conducted by political partisans misusing government power and government resources. If so, those actions are not only unethical but criminal."

• Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Zachary Goldfarb write this afternoon, "The report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration described in detail the use of “inappropriate criteria” to screen political advocacy groups. An IRS unit created a “lookout” list for organizations with keywords such as “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. Organizations faced months of delays in getting their applications approved."

• Washington Times reporter Sean Lengell writes today, "The report, released Tuesday (i.e., today), suggested lax management resulted in long delays in processing certain applications and allowed “unnecessary information requests to be issued.” The inspector general recommended several interim reforms, including better documenting the reasons why IRS agents believe certain groups are chosen for review."

• ProPublica reported yesterday that "IRS office that targeted Tea Party also disclosed confidential docs from conservative groups."

• At American Spectator yesterday, Ross Kaminsky provides a comprehensive look at the scandal, at least through yesterday morning, writing, "Apologists suggest that the IRS’s “shortcuts” were an effort to prevent tax-exempt status for “sham” groups which either wanted to misuse the tax code or keep their donor lists secret. Hogwash. This is the United States of Alinsky in its full glory. The IRS’s actions are something one would expect in Venezuela or Cuba, where the central government considers it a proper function to kneecap any opposition."
  

• Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) audit reports webpage where you can find the full 54-page report (here in Adobe format) or just the report highlights. The entire report is also available at Scribd (HT Mark Levin Show)

• Finally, last Friday's "daily recap" page of the Mark Levin Show provides a link to a March 23, 2012 Landmark Legal Foundation letter that "demanded investigation into IRS intimidation of tea party groups."

Stay tuned! We look forward to the continuing saga of not just this scandal, but to the others that have been, and are, brewing, e.g., Benghazi or the DoJ collection of journalists phone records.

"After years of pay freezes and unpaid furloughs, physical education teacher Steven Lightman received a roughly $8,000 annual salary bump this school year.

"But it wasn’t because Lightman’s school system decided to give the veteran teacher a raise. He made it happen himself by switching Washington area school districts.

"Lightman, a Prince George’s County teacher for 11 years, started working in Montgomery County last fall. He is one of many teachers reaping the benefits of living in a region where a dramatic boost in pay can be just a county away."

The Washington Post article was accompanied by the following table (online version) listing the average FY 2013 pay at public schools in the District and the region:

The data in the chart above comes from the Washington Area Boards of Education (WABE) and National Education Association/DC Public Schools. We've growled most recently on November 19, 2012 and April 2, 2013 using the FY 2013 report. The last eight WABE "guides" are available at the Arlington Public Schools' website.

Readers are urged to review the actual WABE report since it contains a great deal more information than the average teacher salaries in the above table. For example, on page 38, the WABE report includes beginning salary (step 1, bachelor's degree); maximum salaries; step 1, master's degree; and, step 9, master's  degree.

In addition, on page 42 of the FY 2013 WABE report or "guide," there's a teacher cost comparison, which includes salary and benefits for both a hypothetical salary of $65,000 and for an average teacher salary. When the hypothetical $65,000 salary is compared, the Arlington Public Schools (APS) rank 2nd. When the comparison involves average teacher salary, APS ranks 3rd. It's also worth noting there is very little spread in the range of beginning salaries while the spread increases to almost $25,000 when comparing the employer cost for average teacher salary.

“Too few State Department employees at high-risk overseas missions speak the local language, while the department spends thousands of tax dollars each year on training for officials who don’t need foreign language skills, the inspector general for the State Department said in a recent report.

“The report backs up the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which said in a December 2012 report that the lack of Arabic speakers among the personnel assigned to Benghazi was a barrier to communication and situational awareness at the mission.

“The State Department spent about $195 million on language training in 2012. Much of that was spent on training officials in positions that don’t require language skills, while shorting missions that do require language proficiency.” (emphasis added)

Congers reports the importance of language oversight this way:

“The lack of oversight means skill doesn’t always match needs at embassies. Missions at three European countries where English is common had nine language-designated positions, while Haiti, Thailand and Indonesia had none, and Egypt had only one.

“In some cases, the lack of officials that speak the language can be detrimental, as the IG said it was in Benghazi.” (emphasis added)

And speaking of management at the embassies, Conger reports:

“Because embassies bear little of the costs for language training, they don’t consider cost when they request their language designated positions, the State IG said.” (emphasis added)

Although Conger failed to provide a link to the State IG report, two reports were posted May 8, 2013 on the “latest published reports” page:

• 04/30/13   Review of the Process for Establishing Language Designated Positions (ISP-I-13-24)

• 03/31/13   Inspection of the Foreign Service Institute (ISP-I-13-22)

In providing context for its "establishing language positions" report, the IG says:

“Proficiency in foreign languages is essential to perform certain functions overseas. For other functions, language skills are helpful. Language skills enhance the Department’s ability to engage with foreign audiences, report on events, and oversee mission operations.

< . . . >

“Numerous Government Accountability Office reports over the past 10 years have highlighted Department challenges in meeting its foreign language needs Most reports address shortfalls in the number of language-qualified officers serving in the Near East and South Central Asia and the number of officers with supercritical language skills such as Arabic and Chinese.”

Rather than prepare an executive digest, the State IG’s office lists “key judgements,” in this case five of them. If you prefer what the report says rather than what the Examiner has to say, here are the five “key judgements:"

“The Department of State (Department) spent about $195 million providing language training to its employees in FY 2012. Given the strategic importance of language training, and its cost, the Department needs to give greater attention to how it determines language requirements.

“This review and other inspections conducted by OIG found that some positions identified as language designated do not in fact require foreign language skills. Other positions are not language designated but should be, as suggested by the Benghazi Accountability Review Board, which called for providing staff at high-threat posts with more language training.

“Oversight of language designated positions (LDP) is insufficient to identify when the Department is over- or underdesignating language requirements. Most decisions are made at the embassy level. The Department does not review language requirements across embassies and regional bureaus to facilitate consistent application of language designation criteria and appropriate distribution given U.S. policy priorities.

“Stronger oversight would result in better use of Department resources. Establishing language requirements at the professional level at an embassy can trigger language training lasting from 6 months to 2 years, for which the OIG team estimates a cost of between $105,000 and $480,000 per student. Eliminating language requirements for positions that do not require language skills would free up language training funds for positions where language skills are most needed.

“The Language Incentive Pay (LIP) program, designed to encourage officers to gain and maintain language skills in certain hard and super hard languages, has, until recently, suffered from lack of oversight. The Department is now closely reviewing the program, whose costs totaled $11.4 million in 2012.”

If there is a 10-year history of GAO reports detailing the “challenges in meeting its foreign language needs,” shouldn’t some “heads” be rolling at the State Department? And just what did Secretary Clinton do about it during her four years, and what will Secretary John Kerry do about this during the next three and one-half years? Inquiring minds want to know! After all, they are spending taxpayer dollars!

~ James Madison, Debates in the House of Representatives on the First Report on Public Credit, 1790

HT Patriot Post's Quote Database

~ Will Rogers

HT Brainy Quotes

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced Thursday that HHS will spend $150 million to teach people how to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges, after a Democratic senator scolded her for running a poor “public information campaign.”

Gehrke added:

"The health centers funding complements the navigators program, HHS noted. The Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard reported that tens of thousands of people would be paid between $20 and $48 an hour to serve as “navigators” to help others enroll for the law’s benefits.

"Today’s funding announcement is part of the administration’s larger effort to make applying for health insurance as easy as possible,” HHS said. “For example, last week, we released a single, streamlined application that was shortened from 21 to 3 pages. We are committed to providing the type of assistance that Americans need to ensure that they have access to affordable health care.”

"Retiring Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., one of the key authors of Obamacare, scolded Sebelius for her implementation of the law.

“I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” he told her during a recent Senate hearing. “The administration’s public information campaign on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act deserves a failing grade.”

Gehrke includes a 3-minute video produced by CBS News about "health care act concerns." In addition, he provides a link to a related story, says the President "orders top aides to praise Obamacare during commencement speeches."

Another $150 million of taxpayer dollars down the proverbial rathole? Time will tell!

These include a $121 million "investment" to literally wrap the main federal building in Cleveland, Ohio in a layer of certified 'green' glass, an "investment" that "would pay for itself by the year 2183, 170 years from now." The second "investment" of tax dollars involved "a 5-year, $4 million grant by the National Science Foundation 'to 'promote sustainable energy' through the New Mexico Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research program.'"

Today, Wynton Hall of Breitbart News reports on a new analysis by the Institute of Energy Research (IER), which "finds that since 2009, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) $26 billion loan program created just 2,298 permanent jobs, at a cost of $11.45 million per job created." In his reporting, Hall adds:

"The losers are the American workers who would otherwise be gainfully employed but for the tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars on the administration’s obsession with ‘green energy,’” said IER Policy Associate Alex Fitzsimmons. “As the economy continues to suffer and dollars for federal programs get harder to come by, it is getting increasingly difficult to defend a program that costs so much and produces so little.”

"In his New York Times bestselling book Throw Them All Out, Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer revealed that 80% of Department of Energy loans went to companies owned by or connected to President Barack Obama’s top campaign fundraisers."

You can see the list, which is included in Hall's report. It is sourced to the U.S. Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office.

Never the less, the White House has cancelled White House tours and ordered the furloughing of air traffic controllers. Talk about prioritization of government spending!

In my contribution, I presented a series of statistics using data from the statistical section of the FY 2012 Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) [available at the DM&F webpage], which concludes that fiscal year’s budget cycle. The CAFR’s statistical section provides information about financial trends, revenue capacity, debt capacity, demographic and economic information and operating information. I also provided comparisons of Arlington County to other Northern Virginia jurisdictions using data from the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts’ Comparative Report of Revenues and Expenditures.

First, however, I noted the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) over the 10-year period that began with FY 2003 and ended with FY 2012 was 27.4%.

The first chart in my 5-page handout provided an overview of general government expenditures (table D-1 in the CAFR’s statistical section), which increased by 53.7% over the 10-year period 2003 through 2012. Here are the changes for each of the “general government” major functions over the ten years:

• General Government -- 25.1%
• Public Safety -- 68.7%
• Public Works/Environmental Services -- 118.4%
• Health & Welfare -- 34.7%
• Culture/Recreation -- 36.8%
• Education -- 51.1%
• Non-Departmental -- 78.3%
• Debt Service -- 70.0%
• Contributions to Transit -- 114.9%
• Contributions to Regional Agencies -- 36.5%
• TOTAL -- 53.7%

The second chart provided an overview of general government revenues (table D-2 in the CAFR’s statistical section), increasing 59.6% from 2003 through 2012. Taxes increased 89.1% while other revenue sources increased less so.

I then discussed how I adjusted the expenditures for inflation and population after noting that for the past 12 years, the Virginia General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) has been reporting on state spending, and their reports include adjustments for inflation and population (study #432 at the JLARC website). Here is the essence of the methodology:

• The county’s population increased from 196,925 to 216,004, according to Table I-1 of the CAFR.
• In Fiscal Year 2003, total general government expenditures were $713,586,394, or $3,623.64 per capita. Adjusting for population and using the U.S. Department of Labor’s Inflation Calculator results in total general government expenditures would be $976.7 million in Fiscal Year 2012
• However, total general government expenditures in Fiscal Year 2012 were in fact $1,096.8 million, according to the CAFR, meaning that total expenditures were $120.1 million above the amount, adjusted for inflation and population.
  

Similar to adjusting county expenditures, I also walked through the trend in debt per capita, adjusting “primary government debt” for inflation and population. Again, here’s the methodology:

• In Fiscal Year 2003, total primary government debt was $477.8 million, or $3,426 per capita. Adjusting for inflation, using the U.S. Department of Labor’s Inflation Calculator, and adjusting for population would result in total primary government debt of $653.9 million.
• However, the CAFR shows that in FY 2012, there was $845.8 million in total primary government debt, or $3,915 per capita. The difference of $191.9 million means that debt grew faster than the combination of inflation and population.
  

I’ll provide the remainder of my Civic Federation presentation, which includes some demographic statistics, changes in the largest principal employers, changes in management efficiency, and the comparisons with other Northern Virginia jurisdictions, later this week.

All of the individual presentations by Revenues & Expenditures Committee members are not yet properly posted at the Civic Federation website. When they are, I will so note in this footnote.

Readers wishing a copy of my 5-page presentation can write to El Growler Grande at timwise @ verizon.net.

Penny Starr, who reported the grant for CNS News, explained:

"The grant abstract said it “addresses one overarching question that has great potential to transform research in NM and to promote sustainable energy development: How can NM realize its energy development potential in a sustainable manner?”

"The “two-fold” vision for the project, the abstract states, is to “harness” the state’s “abundant renewable energy resources” without harming the environment.

"The project will also improve the flow of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and green energy research and development “thus creating new businesses and industry that build upon the state’s human and geographic diversity and intellectual capitol,” the abstract states."

But it's ok to cancel White House tours or air traffic controllers, as Charles Krauthammer commented on in his latest column, posted here today at the Rapid City Journal:

"Things began with the near-comical cancellation of White House tours and ended with not-so-comical airline delays. Obama thought furious passengers would blame the GOP. But isn't the executive branch in charge of these agencies? Who thinks that a government spending $3.6 trillion a year can't cut 2 percent without furloughing air traffic controllers?"

Hold your elected leaders accountable! Contact information for Arlington County taxpayers is available in our Growls post on Saturday.