February 24, 2004

What sort of planning is it where Congress and the administration sit down and decide on a budget of $2.2 trillion and a deficit of $307 billion, then tell us that the deficit is really going to be $521 billion instead? What sort of financial wizards plan this when receipts last year were only $1.782 trillion and that was $71 billion below the previous year's federal income?

Federal revenue has been in a downward spiral since Bush took office, but that doesn't stop them from planning bigger and bigger budgets.

Individual income tax receipts for this year are even worse than they were last year and can all be laid at the feet of job losses. The U.S. Treasury Monthly Report for January, four months into the current fiscal year, reports receipts of $298 billion so far when at the same time last year they were $306 billion.

But corporate taxes are up. Corporate taxes produced $47.6 billion by the end of January while they were only $34.2 billion at the same time last year. Too bad corporate taxes only account for a little more than seven percent of total federal income.

If your family were making less every year, would you be planning to spend more? Only if you could constantly borrow and go further and further in debt.

Last year, fiscal 2003, the national debt increased $555 billion which is the real deficit because it includes the $82 billion stolen from Social Security overtaxes and much more that came in from other entitlements plus increased indebtedness in interest paid by simply handing bogus trust funds more bogus bonds with no real money involved until it becomes time for you or your children to pay off this pile-on debt.

This year, fiscal 2004, the national debt is going to increase by about $700 billion. By the end of January, 2004, four months into the new fiscal year, the debt has already increased $226 billion. By the 17th of February it has gone up another $48 billion.

Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the President are calling for another trillion dollar increase to their self-imposed national debt limit. The same limit that they just increased by a trillion dollars last May, nine months ago.

What's the purpose of this national debt limit when it's going to be increased anyway? What was the purpose of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that, after years of debate, finally picked 2003 as the date when the federal government would be able to balance its budget, spend no more than it takes in?

We all know the answer to that one, don't we? We hear it every time the President makes one of his scripted one-way speeches and every time any politician wants to justify wild spending.

Even before the horrific events of 9/11, you could have set any small group of American citizens around a table and asked them why we really need a federal government of any sort. After a lot of haggling back and forth over other issues, they would all agree that the primary purpose of such a government is to protect the people—to provide defense.

Defense has been the justification for all sorts of deeds, some good, others not so good, and some downright evil. Arguments for and against each of these acts from the invention of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, to their use, proliferation, a cold war, police actions, and so forth, can go on forever. They all have one thing in common, the protection and preservation of the American way of life and at least the majority of American people.

Currently, 9/11 is the justification for unlimited spending and the pre-emptive invasion of other nations. Most of our leaders don't miss a chance to drive home the idea that we are engaged in a war against terrorism and that we are all in danger of another terrorist attack. Some even claim it's inevitable and most are quick to point out that we should spare no expense to be protected.

They make it sound like this is only a temporary condition. Once terrorism is defeated, all will be well once again.

There are several questionable things about this way of thinking.

1. Terrorism is a strategy, a method of attacking a stronger enemy, an approach that has existed since David picked up his slingshot, a technique that our forefathers used against the British, a tactic, a skill that depends on surprise, a scheme that has gone by other names like "freedom fighting" or "underground." It is not a noun or an object. Declaring war against terrorism is like declaring war against thinking—which is not too far from the idea of taking pre-emptive action against anyone who might have evil intentions like the mad rabbit that attacked President Carter.

2. If we are going to declare war against someone that has hurt us, we better be damned sure we've identified the culprit. The invasion of Afghanistan may have been appropriate on the basis that the Taliban supported and protected terrorists training in their land. But there was no such justification for the invasion of Iraq.

3. Without a constitutional amendment, Congress cannot abdicate its duty as the only body with the power to declare war against another nation. No resolution or other act replaces the sworn duty to uphold the Constitution and the attempt to turn authority over to the President at best amounts to a violation of every Congress critter's sworn oath and at worst approaches treason.

4. Frightening the American people with color codes, the idea that terrorists might attack crowds at major sport events, blow up the Golden Gate Bridge, or other acts against the American populace assumes that the terrorists do not know who the enemy is. There is more evidence to suggest that the events of September 11, 2001, were a surgical strike against the government, the military, and the New World Order in which international banking plays a key role. In other words, the terrorists may know exactly who causes the trouble in their countries and it's our government.

This last point brings up the question of whether the enormous expense of defense, illegal invasions, increases in war machinery or our own weapons of mass destruction, plus the loss of many freedoms Americans have fought and died for, are really worth it.

Tantamount to all of this is the fact that many states and cities have voted against the Patriot Act and are not willing to support it. Most recently, the City Council of New York City, ground zero in the horrendous attacks of 9/11, formally voted to reject the Patriot Act. If New York City is against the loss of their personal freedoms, why should there be any holdouts in the rest of the country?

Even in my own home town, a factory town with unemployment of eleven percent, I recently listened to at least two of our fourteen member city council people argue for borrowing and a deficit of $3.2 million on the basis that we dare not let down our guard against another 9/11.

While the government and the propaganda media pump up the fear factor, their own behavior seems to belie the stories. Our President bounces all over the country giving speeches and raising money and he cuts budgets that were supposed to go to first responders like police and fire. Most cities can't afford to abide by the terms of the Patriot Act.

Most importantly, in the pit of our stomachs we all know what would put an end to terrorist attacks—get the hell out of every country where we haven't been called in. Bring our troops home and if we can't find them jobs put them on our borders. Even if we did this immediately, it would take time for those who have reason to hate us to calm down. We should have been asking what our "national interests" were a long time ago and before our tentacles spread into more than 130 nations of the world.

Visit Ed Henry's own web site!

Archives

Credibility Gap -- Bush Vs. Reality

Prescription Drugs, The Scam Continues

Up $86 Billion In ONE DAY!

Fraud From Uncle Sam

To The Moon On A Magic Carpet

Propaganda And Secrets

U.S. Treasury Cheats With Phony Trust Funds

Democrat Amnesty Plan Tops Crazy Bush Plan

Poor George - Systemic Intelligence Failure

Social Security & Debt, The Battle Of Trust Begins

What's The Rush? Count Votes By Hand

Complete Archives for Ed Henry