Obama Oversight or Lie?

This one does not look good for Team Obama and ACA cost control story.
NBC Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance

So is this a Conservative witch hunt or do you think Obama misled the American people.  Thoughts?

How to Buy American? Why?

I think one of Laurie's last comments deserves some further discussion.

"I think buy American is not easy except for a few large products such as cars and motorcycles. Are there American made TVs for instance? Or where would one find American made clothing to purchase?

In the last 5 years all of the increase in income has gone to the 1% and this is not because Americans had better shopping habits 10 or 20 years ago." Laurie

I agree that in this globally competitive world it is very difficult to buy pure "American Made" products.  However I prefer at least to err on the side of buying from American firms.  As I have mentioned before, the actual production costs are often not even half the cost of the product.

Meaning that if you pay $1,500 for a refrigerator, it is likely >$750 goes to pay for development, testing, accounting, marketing, logistics, management, etc.  Now do you want to buy that Samsung/LG unit or the GE unit?  Or that Samsung/LG phone vs the Apple/Motorola phone?  Etc.

And if you are concerned that the management of GE, Apple, Motorola, etc are paid to much...  Just remember that they likely live in the USA and they will be paying ~30% of it back to the USA.  Whereas the management of Samsung/LG will be paying ~0% back to the USA...
ABC Made In America
CNN Made In America

As for funding the Wealth Gap, the big "Buy Foreign" swing started in the late 1970s when Honda and Toyota started to be perceived as high quality low cost cars rather than cheap cars.  And the American consumers started to see the USA cars as expensive low quality gas guzzlers.  By the way, they were correct.  The Big Three and their Unions had been taking advantage of their near monopoly market power to collect their money while providing questionable product.  Of course now things have changed, and yet the customers have new brand loyalties...

So the consumers went to "Buy Foreign" to get low cost and better quality, which forced concessions by American companies and their Unions. (ie margins and compensation fell while R&D/Quality expenses increased)  Now why the Wealth Gap creation, the global competition lowered or slowed the growth rate of employee compensation in America.  Whereas the financial capital simply flowed to where ever the profits were being made. (ie people bought shares of Toyota, Honda, Subaru, etc)

Thoughts?

USA Wealth Distribution Views

Food for Thought from the Right and Left.

MinnPost Distribution of wealth in the US: what's the problem?

MinnPost Does it Matter How Rich the Rach are?

Thoughts?

The Female Brain

As Laurie noted, we have been too intensely focused on one topic for too long.  Especially since it is a topic on which we have very different views regarding how "fair" is defined.

The questions for today are:

• Are Men and Women different due to the huge variation in our chemical make up?
• If so, does it matter and why?

Dog Gone and I had many arguments regarding this topic. (ah, the good old days...)  She was adamant that the hormonal and other chemical differences make NO difference.  Whereas being a husband, father of 3 teenage daughters, reader of many books and co-worker to many peers of both sexes, I of course whole heartedly disagreed.
MPP Babies, Brains & Testerone
MPP Why Those That Get to the Top Generally Fail

Being the nerd, my current book on CD is 50 Psychology Classics.  A very interesting read/listen if you like this stuff.  One chapter is regarding the American neuropsychiatrist Louann Brizendine and her cutting edge work in the area of how the human brain is impacted by hormones and other chemicals.

Wiki The Female Brain
NYT The Female Brain

Other books on the topic are written by Michael Gurian.  I read "The Wonder of Girls" and it has helped me to survive in my current environment.  Even though I am still just a guy "who just doesn't understand" to the women of my household...

Thoughts?

PS. One more really good book is "You Just Don't Understand" by Deborah Tannen.

One Advantage of Blogging

Please humor me while I finish some thoughts that I started on these posts.  My replies have not appeared so I am placing them here...

MinnPost Crazies
RB,
It seems that both parties are very interested in "social issues".  Be it pro-life vs pro-abortion, traditional marriage vs free marriage, property rights vs wealth transfer, etc.  I really don't think one could say that one is worse than the other in this arena.

Chris,
Good idea, however I think the troops in Germany and Japan are there for our benefit, not theirs.  Meaning that those sites give us forward staging bases.
Now South Korea is a place where I think we could pull troops from without impacting global operations.  Thoughts?

Todd,
It seems to me that folks are much divided on ACA/Obamacare than you reported. Please provide your source.

Annie,
Your link does not work.

Pat,
You are assuming I was incorrect.  Maybe you also should stop assuming...

Jonathan,
Do you happily encourage folks to budge in line...  Even if it means you don't get to attend that very very important event...

And yes I do agree that the GOP alienates people just like the DFL does.  I mean how many fundamentalist Christians do you think the DFL has alienated with their views. In essence saying that their beliefs are meaningless or worse.

If you believed that stopping the beating of a human heart was murder.  What would you do to prevent it from happening? 


MinnPost Sad/Happy Day
RB,
With defense contracting, privatized prisons, and other expenditures the government gives the money to a business or other group to purchase a service or product. 

In the case of ACA, the money is being taken from one person via taxes, and given to another person via taxes.  The government is not buying a service or product, they are just picking one pocket and slipping it into someone else's. Definitely pure wealth transfer / socialistic behavior.


As always, thoughts encouraged on any of the above topics...

Government Spending: Up is Up

So I asked Laurie to help me.

"How do you rationalize that "government" cost 10 % of GDP in 1900 and now costs 38 % of GDP is not an increase? That does puzzle me to this day..." G2A

"I don't think most people compare govt today with govt 100 years ago. Thirty years seems like a more reasonable time frame. Some liberals (me) see charts that show spending is not increasing. MJ Federal spending as % of GDP" Laurie

Now to me it looked like the MJ graph was cherry picking. (ie time span, fed only, etc)  However since I am willing to try Laurie's ideas I redrew my lines on the US Spending data to be ~1970 through today...  And yes I understand that these are free handed in and could vary somewhat if I created them in excel.  The reality though is that the slope will be very similar, and that is heading up...  Especially the Total graph. (ie ~30% to 38+% in ~40 yrs)

For perspective, please review the G2A Continuum. 

For argument let's say that Grp1 and Grp2 are happily negotiating a service fee.  Both sides continue to be agreeable and willing to compromise within the range of say 25% to 30% for many years.  Meaning that both sides can see value trade offs in this range.  However Grp2 keeps pushing for a higher and higher percentage, and demanding that they provide services that Grp1 does not think add enough value, or services that may actually damage a good deal. 

Who is really changing and who is staying the same?

When the Grp1 is finally pushed above 35%, 5% over where they are comfortable, and they start to balk and demand change.  Who is at fault for the break down in negotiations?

Should Grp1 continue to "compromise" with Grp2, even though Grp2 never seems to be satisfied?  I mean Grp1 agreed to go from 10% to 20%, and Grp 2 asked for more.  Then Grp 1 "compromised" and costs went from 20% to 30%, and still Grp 2 said that it was not enough . Then Grp1 "compromised" and costs increased to ~35%, and still Grp2 villifies Grp1 as not negotiating and being unreasonable. 

Finally Grp1 says enough is enough and refuses accept anymore cost increases. And Grp2 cries that Grp1 has changed terribly and is unwilling to compromise...

How does Grp2 and its supporters rationalize their cries?  Thoughts?

American Healthcare: 1% Spend 20%

The MinnPost article linked below pointed to the AHRQ Brief linked below.  Then I threw in some additional links. 

"In 2010, the top 1 percent ranked by their health care expenses accounted for 21.4 percent of total health care expenditures with an annual mean expenditure of $87,570. Overall, the top 50 percent of the population ranked by their expenditures accounted for 97.2 percent of overall health care expenditures while the lower 50 percent accounted for only 2.8 percent of the total." From the AHRQ Brief

Maybe that 80/20 rule applies to this also...  Thoughts?

AHRQ Expenditure Brief
MinnPost Costliest1% of Patients Spend 21%
EOI US Healthcare Costs
Common Wealth Explaining High American Costs
G2A American Healthcare Drivers

Shutdown: No One Won?

The Republican's say they didn't win and the President says no one won.

MSN New Panel
CNN Shutdown
CNN Obama 16Oct13 Speech
CNN Obama 17Oct13 Speech (partial)

I guess I disagree, I think the President won the battle and Republicans gained a chance to win the war.  I mean repeatedly the President went on record saying he would negotiate on anything after the government was running again.  Well now it is running again for awhile....

Let's see how true his word the President will be...  Thoughts?

I mean Bush and Obama jacked up spending significantly due to 2 wars and a recession.  And one can not forget the SS/Medicare benefits that are exceeding the premiums being collected, or the extra expense of the ACA program.

G2A Spending Trends
Forbes It is a Spending Problem
G2A Political Continuum

Stop the Politician Wars

CNN Arm Wrestling Update
FOX News Thumb Wresting Update

Any thoughts or venting you would like to share?

Stop the Teacher Wars

Here is a post and related comments that are right down our alley..  Thoughts?
MinnPost Stop the Teacher Wars

Socialism vs Capitalism vs Mixed

Another sub-discussion within the MinnPost Warren piece

"Economic model. Well, we've never been either capitalistic nor socialistic. The issue is really just the dividing line between the two. How much capitalism or how much socialism do you put into the mix? Personally, I feel that sometimes you need more of one and sometimes you need more of the other. It all depends on what problem you're facing at the moment and which model provides the better solution. In a lot of cases, it's a combination of both and not one or the other."

The whole "capitalism is better than socialism" is a non-starter in my book, much like the people who go on about Microsoft vs Apple and vice versa. You should look for the best solution full stop, not the best solution within your ideology." Todd Hintz

"Large and diverse. Please tell me about a successful large and diverse socialistic country." G2A

"According to you, the United States. One might add the EU, though they're going through a rough spot right now, which may have started with their investment links to our housing bubble." Paul Brandon

"Economies. John, you appear to have missed the point entirely. Did you read and comprehend my post? The main thrust was to point out that you shouldn't be wedded to one ideology or another, no matter what it is. As a counter argument, can you name one successful large and diverse capitalist country?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem wedded to the concept that capitalism is good and socialism is bad, full stop. If my perception is not correct, can you give me the pros and cons of the two economic models? I'm trying to get some sense as to whether or not you understand the implications of adopting one ideology over another and limitations of taking such a myopic point of view." Todd Hintz

G2A Continuum
G2A Spending Trends

I guess my answers are:

• Though always somewhat of a Mixed economy, the continuum and trends indicate the USA was a very strong leaning Capitalistic country in the early 1900's. Then we started the shift leftward on the continuum.  Now we are headed towards what we defined together as a Social Democracy. (ie France, N. Europe, etc) At least it seems that is where the Liberals would like to take us? I guess my view is that the USA was doing much better when it was more Capitalistic.  I even defended my Moderate status by saying that if a 25% total spend (1950) was too low and ~38% (2013) too high, then let's strive to get back to the average of 31.5%.
• The reality is that Socialism has been tested in 2 large diverse countries and it was proven as a HUGE FAILURE. (ie USSR and China)  Trust me, China may be a "Communist" country...  However there is almost nothing socialistic about it anymore.  On my visit, I asked about things like healthcare and was told that they have to pay for insurance, and Lord knows I have never seen so many high end cars. (ie Rolls, BMWs, Mercedes, Range Rovers, Audis, etc.)
• In summary, I think a Mixed Economy that errs to the side of Capitalism is better than one that errs towards Socialism.

Thoughts?

Punishing the Unsuccessful / Unlucky?

I am going to break out a couple of interesting conversations from the MinnPost Warren piece.

"Quick question. Why is the 50% figure the danger line?" RB Holbrook

"I don't know. It depends on what type of government you want. Slowly we are moving from capitalistic towards socialistic. Personally I think Capitalism is better. (ie Atlas Shrugged fan) G2A Continuum" G2A

"So nothing. You just don't like government. The "fifty percent!!!" alarm has no particular significance." RB Holbrook

I love government. I dislike arbitrary wealth transfer from the lucky/successful to the unlucky/unsuccessful... It tends to reward the questionable behaviors of the unlucky/unsuccessful and punish the positive behaviors of the lucky/successful. Definitely no way to promote good choices, continuous learning, hard work, saving/investment, etc."

"First of all, it is silly to consider taxation of income as "punishment." That is the attitude of a four-year old who is being denied a cookie, because his parents are so mean. Is anyone out here not getting rich because of income taxes (why does the chairman of Ikea keep at it, living as he does in Sweden?). I also don't see what's so arbitrary about it. Capitalist icon Adam Smith regarded a progressive income tax as a no-brainer. If one of the purposes of a civil society is to protect individual wealth and property, why should the financial burden of that protection not fall heavier on those who have more to protect?

Second, why do we want to reward the questionable behaviors of the lucky/successful? Definitely no way to promote ethical behavior. Letting the architects of the great recession walk sends the message that ethics and the rule of law don't matter if you're rich enough. That hack b-movie screenwriter you profess to admire would disagree, but basing a society on greed is a terrible idea.

Third, the idea that people are unlucky/unsuccessful by some economic metric solely due to questionable behaviors is completely divorced from reality. There are millions of people who work hard yet who don't get rich or even middle class. You give this away when you talk about "lucky." Why should we trivialize or punish the unlucky?" RB Holbrook

 I did reply to this, however it disappeared into the ether...  It went something like this.

1. Even with a flat tax situation, the high income folks carry much more of the financial burden than most.  I would say that most high income folks would see progressive policies that cause ~30% effective tax rates as a punishment which  forces them to bear more than their fair share of the burden.
2. I believe that bankers, investors, government, regulators, mortgagees and others caused the great recession. The "greedy" bankers could not have done this on their own. Crisis of Credit
3. How exactly are we punishing the unsuccessful/unlucky?  If they file their Fed Income taxes, they will likely receive a credit that offsets many of their local taxes.  Or at least they will pay no Federal income tax.  Then many will receive free stuff from charities, local, state and/or federal organizations. (reminder: free to them, paid for by successful/lucky) On top of this in many situations reverse discrimination policies give them funding and benefits that are not available to others.  Now they be unsuccessful/unlucky, but where again is the "punishment" you are referring to? Wiki Effective Rates 2011

The most interesting thing about the effective tax rate chart is that we should be subtracting ~7% off of everyone for up to their first ~$105K. I mean if they are entitled to benefits, these FICA payments are actually just mandatory premiums. (ie not real taxes)  This would show the Top 1% are actually paying the highest rate, and it would show the true effective tax rate for the lowest 20% would only be 10%.

Then we should probably add back any cash benefits that each class is getting from government in order to determine a real net effective rate.  I am guessing that would put the lowest 40% into a 0% or negative rate. (ie making money each year)

Now where again is that punishment of the unsuccessful/unlucky?  Thoughts?

Investors and CEO Compensation

The downside of the family "real estate assets"...  I am spending all weekend maintaining them, so I have just forwarded Annie's question to the top of the list.

"Annie: I think we all agree that CEO comp and the focus on short term profits are a problem in some cases. How would you advise fixing it?"

I wish I knew. Those who have acquired the money and power won't give it up gladly. I don't solely blame CEOs--they're the beneficiaries but not the only culprits.

I'd love to know how to culturally help businesses refocus so there are more balanced, healthy priorities on profits AND employees AND social responsibility. Some companies do it--Costco comes to mind, seems like some of the silicon valley tech giants do a good job.

Any ideas?

--Annie


A story from my previous employer was that in the mid-1980's they were losing $1 million dollars a day and the market was not happy but the it tolerated it.  In the 1990's the market pummelled them for only breaking even.  And now the market will pummel them if they don't consistently meet the forecasts.  This change does make it hard for companies to act in "long term" ways.  With this in mind they just had another layoff in the endless effort to deliver to plan...

The Investors demand immediate profits, so the Boards set compensation policy in alignment with this, so the CEO's struggle to deliver, the Markets go up and down and the Employees hold onto the whipping tail and pray...

Thoughts?

Elizabeth Warren: Not Anarchists

Look I found some more new friends !!!  And some of them sound like the MPP folks.

MinnPost Warren Not Anarchists

Thoughts regarding Liz's speech?

USA Wealth Distribution

Well as I commented earlier, Annie asked some very valid questions.

"Let me take a step back for a sec and consider this--in 2011, the top 20% of Americans owned 93% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 7%. So in light of those numbers let's re-examine this statement:

"They say that the rich aren't paying their fair share, even though that minority is paying the majority of this country's bills. And instead of being thankful, they would incite people to hate them and demand even more."

Exactly how much more do you think the bottom 80% can generate?
Who, in this scenario, is the looter who thinks they're entitled to the value of others' work?

Imagine you read this figure in a financial news report for another nation. I don't know--maybe Cambodia or Bolivia or Algeria or Belarus or Finland. As an outsider, would you look at this and think the 80% would be "thankful" for their most basic needs being met, given the overall inequality? Would you think the nation's citizens should have great sympathy for those wealthy golden geese? Or would they be justified in wanting to see the nation's wealth shared among more of its citizens.

Would you look at that number and thin--yes, that's a great nation; others should emulate them. That country is doing good things, it has a strong future, their citizens are in fine shape?

Is this how a nation becomes or remains economically strong and socially secure? " Annie"

To which replied with a few questions of my own.

"Hi Annie,
You posed this so well that I think your comments will be my next post.

Food for thought though for now. Is wealth distribution important? As long as they use it to keep funding our American businesses that provide our American jobs?

If you turned all that "wealth" into "cash" and spent it, would that be better or worse for us?

I have accumulated significant wealth and enjoy the fact that my investments are working just as hard as I am to earn me additional wealth and cash. They do this by funding companies and enabling them to hire and pay people.

If the government were to seize and redistribute half my "wealth" would that help or hurt America businesses and employment. Would that encourage or discourage me from saving and investing in American companies and jobs?" G2A

Thoughts? 

Gallup: Redistribution
Big Picture: Distribution
Perception vs Reality
UCSC Wealth
Klein: Distributions
Klein: Revenue

What is Fair?

So in the comments of G2A Hold Fast or Compromise, Laurie told me what she thinks of my ideology.

"In my church we talk about the dignity and worth of each person, whereas you seem to want to include a dose of shame about receiving any form of financial assistance."

 

"What makes SS security a great program is the benefits are paid in a way that allows each person the dignity of feeling they are entitled to what they receive. It seems like you would like to change the program to include a dose of humiliation if possible. What's wrong with asking those who can afford it to pay a bit more. You could go on feeling superior to everybody and you could even blog about it."

Of course I disagreed.

"And Liberals would blatantly lie to them just as the Democrats do today?

 

They say that the rich aren't paying their fair share, even though that minority is paying the majority of this country's bills. And instead of being thankful, they would incite people to hate them and demand even more.

 

I wouldn't try to speak from the moral high ground here. It seems that the whole Liberal argument is about trying shame the successful into submission. I mean check out Grace's latest attacks...

 

You really need to read Atlas Shrugged. There is a point when Hank Rearden finally gets it. He finally understands that he is allowing his mooching lazy family to use his own morality against him. This frees him to walk away from their attempts to shame, guilt and coerce him into giving them something for nothing. 

  

I am a huge fan of showing people respect. To do this you need to be open and honest with them. You need to empathize with them and truly care about them.

 

One only lies blatantly when they are out to manipulate another person. Telling people that they earned social security and medicare once the trust funds are gone is like saying "you can't handle the truth!!!"

 

Now that would seem "superior and condescending" to me." 

Now we discussed this before and I am interested to see if anything has changed.  G2A What is Fair?

• What do you think is fair with regard to taxation and redistribution?
• When someone or a family succeeds through luck and/or hard work should society squeeze that golden goose for all the eggs they can get?
• What happens to our society as the Producers get squeezed and the Looters benefit?

Thoughts?

World Around Us: Looter or Producer?
Daily Caller: Moocher or Maker?
Daily KOS: Humanism vs Objectivism
Forbes: It is Time to Give Back

Gridlock: Hold Fast or Compromise

According to this Gallup report, the majority of Americans want their politicians to compromise.

Where as Laurie seems to be pretty sure that this gridlock is wholly the fault of the GOP and the House.  And it is proof to her that our government is currently ineffective due to those minority Conservatives. 

I personally see it as a 60% GOP to 40% DFL problem, where either of them could improve the situation very quickly if they chose.  And I see the gridlock as a symptom that shows the system is working as intended.  I personally don't want the Left or Right having their way with our country.  Now of course I wish they could collaborate more effectively, however if neither is participating then gridlock is the best of very poor options. 

The last time the Left had it's way we ended up with Obamacare and look at the fights that is now causing.  One of the talking heads this morning said that the DFL passing a huge social change like Obamacare along party lines and with little Republican input was bound to cause problems.

So what do you think, should they hold to their beliefs/ideology or get the government going again?  Or stick to their ideology and core beliefs?   Rationale?

Also, what if anything can change these spending trends?  Or is it a good thing that at some point 50% of our GDP will go to or through the government?  Rationale?

More Survey Results
CNN Congress/President
NYT Healthcare
NYT Disillusioned Americans
UPI Congress/President
HP Who is to Blame

Congressional Paychecks: Give or Take

Interesting links

CNN Paychecks Senate
CNN Paychecks House
CBS MN Specific Info

Rep Ellison is one of the few MN's keeping the check and his rationale is interesting.

"Rep. Keith Ellison (D – 5th District) said he will keep pay. In a statement, he wrote: “If handing back pay would help furloughed workers I would find a way to survive without pay, but of course it won’t. Only allowing a vote on a clean continuing resolution will do that. The focus on Congressional pay is an attempt to draw attention away from the issue.” "

Of course this implies their is nothing the Democrats could offer those "anarchists"...

Anyone know what Obama and Biden will do with their checks?

Capitol Police and Unions

So my friend Dog is attacking the GOP and defending Unions. MPP Short Shot  And there is nothing terribly wrong or surprising about this. The GOP is half the reason that government is shutdown, which is apparently disrupting the distribution of paychecks.  Of course I am not sure how many "essential personnel" paychecks were scheduled to go out within ~4 days of the start of the shutdown.  Though it does seem to make a good though illogical sound bite for the Liberal rock throwers.

As for the Unions, here is Dog's perspective.  "The reality is that there is no significant difference between the public sector and the private sector, for employment, there is no valid factual basis for asserting that public sector employees are ‘bloated tics on our backs’."

Now I guess I never have thought of them as "bloated tics".  However I guess I would disagree that there is no significant difference between the Public and Private sector...  Here is an interesting quote from the following article.

"According to the U.S. Capitol Police recruitment page, a starting salary for an officer is $55,653, which comes with 13 days of annual leave, an additional 13 days of sick leave and 10 paid holidays.
Daily News US Capitol Shooting

Now I am not sure how many personal leave and sick days you got upon starting in your Private sector jobs, however this looks a bit atypical to me. And pretty darn good...

Besides if there is no difference, why would Unions be growing in the Public sector and declining in the Private sector?

Finally, why are the Liberals so dedicated to protecting the Public employees and their affiliated unions?  I mean according to Dog there is "no significant difference between the public sector and the private sector".

Thoughts?

Ps. Hi Dog, If you want to play, it will have to be here.  Your Daddy said I was not allowed to play at your house any more.  I hope you decide to join us, however remember the G2A Rules.  They are posted on the right side of the page.

Obama: My Way or Else !!!

It seems long ago, but I think it was just last December.  Obama was holding the Congress hostage to force them to let the taxes increase on the "rich", or he would not allow the other "Bush Tax Cuts" to continue.  Finally for the good of the working American's they caved and let the tax increase occur.

How is this similar and different to what the Congress is doing?
What else could these folks do to resolve this problem?
Are the President's "Congress Bashing" and disaster threats healthy for the country?
Is the shutdown affecting you personally?  How?
Thoughts?

CNN: Only One Way Out of Shutdown
CNBC Obama: Wall St should Worry
HP: View from Congress
FOX News Can we do without it?
FOX News Obama Forced to the Table
FOX News What Shutdown: Huge or Hype?
Daily KOS Only Reason Govt is Shutdown
Daily KOS 3 Minute Solution

HP Obama's Fiscal Cliff Tax Threats

Mn Progressive Project Boots Give2Attain

According to Dan's comment I am apparently no longer welcome at MPP.
MPP Fight Within the DFL
The link is regarding Educational Reform.  My guess is that Lynnell will be next...  I am thinking their blog is going to get real quiet real quick...  Since discussion / debate is what drives my hits up.  However , maybe they just like to hear their own voices...  Don't worry we can evaluate their content from here.

Thoughts on DFL Educational Reformers?  As I said before I was gagged at MPP, I like Terri Bonoff in this area!!!

US Government Spending Trend

 

Well the government shutdown is on. The MPP folks and me are disagreeing again. Go figure...

They seem to want to deny that government spending is growing at a rate that can not be sustained.  In fact they seem to want to convince me that it is relatively flat or decreasing.  So I took the US Spending graphs and drew some lines on them.  Amazingly the federal line is the flattest...  Still increasing steadily...

Thoughts on the spending increase rate or the shut down?

G2A Political Continuum
MPP The Right? Their Wrong
MPP Democrats Pay, Republicans Don't
MPP No Pay Act
CNN Latest House Bid Fails
FOX News House Fails to Pass 3 Emergency Bills
US Spending Data