Open Thread, 1 April 2011 Ken Houghton | April 1, 2011 5:08 pm No Foolin’ Comments (54) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
No austerity in the pentagon. The pentagon has spent more in real dollars the past 6 years than during the height of Vietnam. There is no end in sight. A lot of it at high risk to waste, fraud and abuse, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11394t.pdf GAO High Risk Series 17 Feb 2011.
The other day, GAO 11-233sp; Special Report on Major Weapons Acquisitions, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11233sp.pdf Introduction:
The number of major programs grew through cost growth of some and expiration of others “from 96 to 98 programs, and its investment in those programs has grown to $1.68 trillion. The total acquisition cost of the programs in DOD’s 2010 portfolio has increased by $135 billion over the” past two years.
“Further, 80 percent of programs have experienced an increase in unit costs from initial estimates; thereby reducing DOD’s buying power on these programs.”
That buying power is several times what the rest of the world buys! Most of it is not needed by inflated operating scenarios, not defined properly inept engineering specifications, and not tested to see if the contracted specifications are delivered. You would need to read the whole report and study the past 20 years.
The $1.68T is about 25% of the total the pentagon “buys” and the rest is far worse!
Waste, that no one from congress through CBO sees changing.
No need austerity in the “unwarranted influence” economy.
Hey, ilsm. Yea, verily. The guys in the DOD must never suffer neither want nor need. SS beneficiaries–that’s a whole different deal.
But, since you are here nice and early and I am too, I thought I would start off the evening with a video celebrating the Vampire Squid Corporation concept. See below. Just click and enjoy! Ta Ta! NancyO
The Federal government’s fiscal emergency is likely to begin in earnest this summer.
The trigger will not be entitlement spending. Rather, the driver of the fiscal crisis will be an uncontrolled $800 billion explosion in annual interest payments on the federal debt to potentially $1 trillion per year over the next five years…..
Today, the interest expense on the federal debt is being held artificially low by the Federal Reserve’s so-called “QE2″ policy and the global flight to quality triggered by the financial crisis of the past two years.
“QE2″ ends in June. Given the recent jump in producer and consumer prices, another round of quantitative easing is unlikely. Beginning in July, the Fed’s purchases of Treasury securities in the open market are likely to all but dry up. And, as rising inflation takes hold, it will be forced to raise short-term interest rates…..
Today, the public debt is nearly $11 trillion. Nearly a third of the debt held by private investors matures within a year. If Treasury yields on maturities of less than one-year rise to 4.5%, where they were in 2007, federal expenditures will increase by nearly $150 billion in Fiscal 2012…..
Sustained inflation of 5% would imply interest rates of 7%. At those rates, federal net interest payments would exceed $1 trillion a year.
That’s more than the federal government will this year spend on Defense ($768 billion), Medicare ($494 billion), Social Security ($748 billion) or all other non-defense, non entitlement programs combined….
Sammy, remember it’s just those extreme tea partiers who think it’s a problem paying ~27% of the annual budget as interest on the debt. ;-))
That is a very good article.
Here is the fiscal picture without a ramp up in interest rates, and it is not encouraging:
U.S. Government Debt Held by the Public is projected to jump from $9.02 trillion in 2010 to $19.56 trillion in 2020 based on CBO’s recent analysis of the FY2012 Federal Budget proposal. It more than doubles.
Debt Held by the Public as a percentage of GDP jumps from 62.1% in 2010 to 85.7% in 2020.
CBO projects that the U.S. Government will pay $5.5 trillion in Net Interest payments on the Debt Held by the Public from 2010 to 2020. Net Interest payments ramp up from $196 billion in 2010 to $886 billion in 2020. Comparison of fiscal year Net Interest obligations for 2010 and 2020 represents a 441.84% increase without any consideration of a surge in interest rates.
While the U.S. Government Debt Held by the Public doubles, Net Interest payments jump more than fourfold from 2010 to 2020. This is likely to happen again in the next decade, at a minimum, if major changes in Federal revenues and expenditures do not occur.
U.S. Government Debt Held by the Public is projected to increase $1.37 trillion in 2011; $1.27 trillion, 2012, $1.08 trillion, 2013; $856 billon, 2014; $843 billion, 2015; $933 billion, 2016; $962 billion, 2017; $996 billion, 2018; $1.14 trillion, 2019; and $1.19 trillion, 2020. These additional debt obligations are based on an optimistic Federal Budget revenues and expenditures proposal. Hence, the problem may be larger.
U.S. Government Intragovernmental Holdings increase from $4.51 trillion in 2010 to $6.58 trillion in 2020. That’s an increase of over $2 trillion in additional debt.
Gross Federal Debt, a combination of both debt sources, is projected to increase from $13.53 trillion in 2010 to $26.14 trillion in 2020. It almost doubles.
What happens if interest rates rise significantly? The Federal Budget and General Fund will take major hits and a financial crisis may unfold.
The article that you cited describes a moderate scenario under which interest rate increases create the first round of problems.
The article explains, “Unless the monetary system is stabilized in a manner that insures low and stable interest rates, the deficit will explode within the next five years, well before either of the entitlement programs hit critical mass.” It might unfold that way.
That’s the bottom line.
I loved this bit: “a financial crisis may unfold” Well I guess it’s a good thing we got over that last one so fast!
Gotta have lots and lots of big guns to keep those zombies down.
The allegory of all this zombie stuff is intriguing.
Otherwise, there is soylent green.
Ahh, I see we have the Queen Elizabeth gambit again. How long will the denial last?
Cut the pentagon, transportation, FAA, NASA and energy technical programs that do not have passed design tests and there is plenty of money for entitlements. It is the waste in discretionary, not feeding poor kids that is bankrupting the place.
Cutting off poor kids and old people is just putting off the end.
Pay for interest instead of wars of choice.
At trillion a year is available to cut now from discretionary.
Stabilize the monetary system, it already holds $2.3T ($1 T from the banks on the FR balance sheet) from the excesses of the Bush bubble.
There are other systems need changed. The old folks and poor do not have to pay the bills.
A trillion bucks a year is what is going down the pentagon drain. Pay for interest instead of wars of choice.
Easy, pay interest instead of wars of choice.
ILSM, do you realize how foolish your comment is? You just said: well if we cut an even larger part of the already unfunded discretionary part of the budget, that will provide even more funded spending for the mandatory part of the budget.
Worth a SHEESH!
Yet the Libs on this blog will still defend PBS, exorbinant compensation for government employees, and sending SS checks to Bill Gates….just on principle.
They say “What me worry? We have a fiat currency” They don’t want to comprehend that printing money = inflation = interest rates rising = deficit exploding = more printing money = more inflation…..
Meanwhile the Dems are itching to force a government shutdown over a mere $60B in spending cuts that the Repubs are trying to pass.
ilsm – “A trillion a year is available to cut now from discretionary.”
OK. Show your discretionary budget cuts below, line by line.
The President’s FY2012 Federal Budget proposal provides for $1.34 trillion in total discretionary spending. You’re indicating that 75% of total discretionary spending for FY2012 can be elminated.
Back it up.
FY2012 Federal Budget Summary Tables
Table S–11. Funding Levels for Appropriated (“Discretionary”) Programs by Agency
Base Discretionary Funding by Agency, FY2012
(Budget authority in billions of dollars)
Defense ……………………………………….. 553.0
Energy – National Nuclear Security
Administration ………………………………… 11.7
Homeland Security …………………………… 43.2
Veterans Affairs ………………………………. 58.8
State and Other International Programs … 52.7
Subtotal, Security Agencies ………………. 719.4
Agriculture …………………………………….. 22.0
Commerce ……………………………………… 8.8
Census Bureau ………………………………… 1.0
Education ……………………………………… 77.4
Energy (excluding National Nuclear
Security Administration) ……………………. 17.8
Health and Human Services ……………….. 82.2
Housing and Urban Development ………… 41.7
Interior ………………………………………… 12.1
Justice …………………………………………. 20.9
Labor ………………………………………….. 12.8
State and Other International Programs … 0.1
Transportation ………………………………. 13.4
Treasury ……………………………………… 14.0
Corps of Engineers ………………………….. 4.6
Environmental Protection Agency ………… 9.0
General Services Administration …………. 0.6
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration ………………………………. 18.7
National Science Foundation ………………. 7.8
Small Business Administration ……………. 1.0
Social Security Administration …………… 10.2
Corporation for National and Community
Service ………………………………………… 1.3
Other Agencies …………………………….. 20.3
Subtotal, Non-Security Discretionary
Budget Authority …………………………. 396.8
Other Discretionary Funding:
Overseas Contingency Operations:
Defense ……………………………………. 117.6
Homeland Security …………………………. 0.3
State and Other International Programs . 8.7
Subtotal, Overseas Contingency
Operations ………………………………… 126.5
Total, Discretionary Budget Authority 1,242.7
Additional Discretionary Budget
Authority not indicated above ………….. 97.3
Grand Total, Discretionary Budget
Authority ……………………………….. 1,340.0
True. On all points. There is a considerable absence of reality on fiscal budget and deficit matters. It is rather astonishing, frankly.
You must justify the war spending.
That is how it is done in business.
Start with justifying floating only 9 super carriers, most awesomest navy things in the world, in 2021.
Then maybe go to 11-233sp and justify spending the money on all those failed acquisitions.
And there is a bit of an issue with adding two US Army brigades to German occupations, justify the continued occuopations of Germany, Japan and Korea. Seems to include a large bill for Army health care over there while US cuts it for poor kids here.
The things I want cut are the things I could not sell to Aunt Agnes since it could reduce her SS and medicare.
Before the military industrial complex owned the US we had to sell this stuff to Aunt Agnes.
Now you all want to impoverish Aunt Agnes.
A little quote for the day:
“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Hamlet, Act II, Scene ii.
Best award I have received today.
You mean money is not fungible?
“Nothing destroys irony like having to explain it”.
ILSM, two words start with I, Irony (as you claim) and Ignorance (as your comment appears.)
LOL! David Evans is an electrical engineer. Why should we believe his assertions about CO and global warming over the conclusions of hundreds of climate scientists? His track record of being wrong on this topic is sufficient to warrent skepticism both of his pronouncements and of those who link approvingly to him.
Your selective reading of the literature on this topic is funny, CoRev. In a sad sort of way.
Sorry, but you’ve been had.
How’Ya doin this AM Joel? I see you still can not argue the points and must attack the messenger.
BTW, judge his credentials for yourself, here’s the entire description for David Evans in the referenced article:
“Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.”
Oh, and do the math.
The scam was obvious from the beginning. All you had to do is look at one graph:
Man produces 3.2% of atmospheric CO2. I
f you investigated further you would find this:
CO2 is 2% of the atmosphere.
So you are telling me that a 3.2% change in something that is 2% of the atmosphere is going to change the temperature? When there is a huge burning ball of gas 20 million miles away? When the oceans store 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere?
Well, looks like a pretty complicated problem to me. So, Hon. CoRev. I, former humble public servant ask you, former exalted public servant, what’s climate change to you, or you to climate change that it should occupy you attention so? Dr. Evans is apparently an engineer. What is your area of expertise? Because, there’s no point in trying to argue those who disagree with you down. And, we can’t convince you. So, we end up in stalemate every time.
Otherwise, I can bring up bird migration patterns and species territorial expansion, if you like. NancyO.
Speaking of bird migration patterns, here’s an example of what I mean. Human causes for climate change, I say. You say, Pooh, when penguins fly!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4 Heh. Gotcha, CR! NancyO
Bad science that begets bad policy, and vicee versee! Bad policy begets poor economic performance which begets even more bad policy with economic impacts.
Why do believers of AGW who propose ACO2 mitigation schemes always seem to take the side of nature over mankind? When they do resulting policies can kill millions of humans. DDT, emphasis on expensive intermittent sources of electricity, and even pro-abortion (not an issue for me) policies can be shown to have cost millions of lives.
So my issue with AGW is to try to prevent another slide into bad policy.
After all the evidence presented, what is your foundational evidence that makes you a believer?
You apparently have NOT rejected the null hypothesis, which hypothesis says greenhouse gases are NOT causing an environmental disaster, that puts you into Type II error range, that is your accepted Null hypothesis is not the answer.
A decision made into a type II error is like not seeing the wolf at the door. “………………..skeptic.”
A “skeptical optimist” is a person who espouses Type II errors, that is ignore large chunks of the data.
So, what is the probability of you making a type II error? Do you have that figured out?
The impacts of the deniers’ type II error are no problem, the risk of the environment falling apart is not enough to cut the carbon cabal’s profits.
With American exceptionalism, marketed by multi national corporations there is always soylent green.
Consuming tobacco does not cause health problems, either.
What matters is how close to “control” is the environment, and what a .0001 change might efffect.
See my comments below, what is your beta?
NanO, you’ve shown your lighter side the past few days. At least it made me smile. How about answering my question?
ILSM says: “You apparently have NOT rejected the null hypothesis, which hypothesis says greenhouse gases are NOT causing an environmental disaster,…” You’re kidding? What do you think I’ve been saying for these many months?
Your on the edge of sheesh-land again this thread.
AGW is extremely implausible. Furthermore there is no data or evidence to support it. So the probability of a Type II error is very small.
Even if I am wrong, a warmer global climate is preferable to a colder global climate. So it is a win-win scenario.
What happens when you should have rejected the null hypothese and you should have done something about it?
In that case climate change bites the human race, people starve etc etc.
What is an acceptable beta?
Get Soylent Green out of the DVD library.
ILSM, since your into discussing type two errors, what would you call dropping inconvenient data? Remember the ole hockey stick graph? Check the lavender line in the graphic below.
If you know anything about the “hide the decline” trick, that is represented on the right side of the lavender line. The left part of the lavender line represent the latest find on how the hockey stick data has been cooked.
Remember, it is the hockey stick that made it possible to describe recent temperature increases as exceptional. Now it looks like the recent, 1k years, is not even temperature, just random selections of coincidentally correlated data.
Sammy, what they seem to fail to understand is the beneficial effects of warming, and the negative effects of cooling. They prefer to think in terms of man’s negative impacts on the natural world, while forgetting man is just as natural as the Polar Bears, or next species they will use to protect Gaia, the god of nature.
Sad really, their self hatred, but it shows up in so many of their issues.
Almost forgot. The reference and source for the above graph is here: http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/provenance-of-the-briffa-file-in-the-jones-1998-archive/
Self hatred? I don’t think so.
Libs think they are blessed with only good intentions and posess bound volumes of the truth. Any opposing views are not only wrong, but they are evil or stupid. It is acceptable, therefore, to express rage and fling insults at anyone, who disagrees with them. The end, to dramatically transform the US according to their left wing ideologies, justifies the means.
So AGW was just a proxy skirmish between “those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.“
Ok, I think people have an effect on the climate (at a minimum local climate) based on what they put in the atmosphere and how they use land.
Why? 1) Because of the London “pea soup” fog phenomon which was caused by the exclusive use of coal for not only heat but also all steam produced for locomotion and manufacturing. Disappeared within a few years in the 40’s when the use of coal for domestic heat was outlawed. 2) The English pine moth during the 17th century was studied and classified as a light-colored moth with irregular dark patches for camouphlage. See link. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
3).Finally, the desertification of the formerly fertile crescent from about BCE 1500 to about CE 1500 togeher with the expansion of Sahara Desert during the 19th-20th centuries, the Dust Bowl, and the recent advances in the extent of the Sahara Desert during the 20th century CE. Et al. That’s why. Counter arguments notwithstanding, I see a correlation between human activity and environmental conditions in these cases. The changes in the environments of these three widely separated geographic areas followed intensive cultivation with soil disrupting mechanical instruments and overgrazing of remaining plant populations. NancyO
Beneficial effects of warming. Been to Nevada in the summer? NancyO
NanO, yup man definitely can influence environments. As can plants, animals, fungi, birds, fish, and surprisingly algae. But, how does that effect ACO2 driven temps? Remember, the argument and expensive policies are all about ACO2. It’s supposed to override nearly all other natural influences, including man’s.
And it’s the area where most AGW skeptics diverge with the science. So from your stated position we are in violent agreement.
Yup! So have millions of snowbirds, northerners, escaping the cold.
You are wrong about the control thing. That is an ad hominem I will let go.
I see the risk of doing nothing or beta as approaching 10% and if nothing is done unacceptable probability of the calamity of mass starvation and soylent green being a dietary staple.
I am quite consciously that I am prone to a type I error on global warming which is to treat it, even when the hypothesis maybe be true. In some circles they would call me a “cynic”.
If treating GHG emissions actually were unnecessary the only thing hurt is the carbon cabal and costs of changing to green energy.
In decisions it is actually a matter of which risks you prefer.
So, we can agree to disagree and I won’t spend any time defending one science against another.
It all boils down to what you can see as alpha and beta risks. Or the power and significance of the tests of the competing hypotheses.
In war games these things are applied using much more emphasis on outcomes and how you deal with them losses or gains.
I first played with type I and II errors about 40 years ago, but had not delved into it until this conversation started a few weeks ago.
Thanks for helping me exercise my logical mind. Keeps one young.
Who will control the supply of soylent green?
Who will control the supply of soylent green?
CoRev–Not in the summer! Not in the summer which will literally fry your fingers if you park in the sun and forget to cover your steering wheel. Key word here is Summer in Nevada. Summer being anything after April. Sigh. Oh well. Ta Ta. NancyO
NanO, what’s your point? Deserts get warm during the day, and especially so in the summer. NV has still been one of the fastest growing states until the housing bust.
You made a claim and then punted on the opportunity to identify your $1 trillion in discretionary cuts. I don’t see any reason why others should take you seriously.
I don’t understand your emhasis on a desert clime. Yup it’s warm in NV, AZ.
I am reminded of Malthus.
Serious, is justifying your requirements.
Unwarranted influence needs serious justifying.
And, I am reminded of the Little Ice Age. Well, it gave us the European migration to North America and the genocide of American Indians. If you follow history far enough, you see that what goes around comes around. NancyO
sammy: “The Federal government’s fiscal emergency is likely to begin in earnest this summer.
“The trigger will not be entitlement spending.”
No, it will be the reduction in aggregate demand brought on by the layoffs of workers by state and local gov’ts.
Apparently you didn’t read the article. Further layoffs of state and local government workrers would not create the situation described in the article. Not even close…
Next week Republican fiscal leadership will again be on display when their 2012 federal budget proposal is released. The last time it happened resulted in several years of balanced budgets, for which Democrats take credit because they were in the Whitehouse.
Expect rough seas as demagoguery becomes the normal political mode. More to come on Tuesday.
The Clash – ‘Know Your Rights’
Fearmongers are sapping our national will.