Regardless of the level of government in which they’re serving, politicians are contemplating options for raising taxes in every conceivable way. The results of their actions will be a laboriously slow economic recovery because consumers simply won’t have much, if any, discretionary cash for years to come. And those who do have a few extra bucks are saving it rather than spending it things they don’t need or assume will become even less expensive as retailers are forced to continue dropping prices.

2010 is going to be a painful year on all fronts, but it doesn’t end there; that’s just the beginning of the big payback that many economists estimate will last for 10 years, a full decade.

Looking to the future, fiscal 2011 begins next July and the outlook for that timeframe doesn’t get any brighter. Estimates by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities strongly suggest that the fiscal shortfall will be $80 billion. This number was calculated using data from 35 states that have already completed their fiscal estimates. The center also projects that states could reflect a collective budget gap of $120 billion as far out as 2012. To put this in perspective, the maximum annual budget shortfall during the 2002-05 recession years topped out at $80 billion in 2004.

Are there any viable ideas about how these government entities can go about shoring up their shortfalls? The first thing coming to mind is simply by reducing spending. But this quickly becomes a two-edged sword. Significant cost-cutting is truly challenging when you’re already in a financial abyss. Most local governments are now faced with having to make comprehensive cuts to presumed essential services, ones that voters said they opposed. Reducing weekly hours and mandating non-paid holidays are issues voters and even the employees can tolerate. But completely shutting down services such as police stations, firehouses or emergency care facilities and the sign-carrying picketers will emerge overnight.

So, given limited range of choices facing the states, the most likely remaining option is raising taxes, and this can usually be voted on, approved and implemented in a matter of weeks. And the Feds will probably jump onboard as well. A financial think tank focusing on the federal government deficit has made a rough calculation using 3% of the Gross Domestic Product tax increase. It comes to an average tax increase of more than $4,200 per each legal, tax paying person in the country.

At the moment the most perceptible assumption is that each of us is going to pay more tax to every level of government, from state and federal income tax to property and sales tax at grocery and department stores. If we consume it we’re going to pay higher tax on it.

Since Thanksgiving is barely a week away and the Christmas holiday season begins the morning after, it seems that we now have three practicable holiday options: 1) shop like mad this season before the tax man cometh, 2) print and send computer generated holiday greeting cards in lieu of gifts that most intended recipients can live without, or 3) bank the money you would have spent gift shopping because you’re going to need it when tax time rolls around next year. If you’re leaning toward option number three, odds are your friends and relatives are struggling with the same dilemma. Maybe adding one more holiday option is a good idea; just give each of them a call.

The accused mastermind of the September 11 attacks and his four co-conspirators will be sent to New York for trial in a court near the site of the World Trade Center. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

Civil liberties advocates hailed the decision to transfer the men to criminal courts in New York. Gee, what a surprise.

The U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, expressed complete confidence in his decision. And yet another shocking statement.

Is it any wonder that people living in and around New York were angry at the idea of these men being relocated to a city that was traumatized by the terror attack eight years ago? Many in the area voiced their opinions stating that the best place to hold their trial would be in military tribunals because they’re terrorism suspects. The latter seems to be a plausible initiative. Bringing them back onto United States soil could likely be seen as an insult to those who lost relatives and loved ones in the attack. Why would anyone want them housed in a detention facility in close proximity to their home?

Muslim terrorist is initially excused by most in the media

Anyone yelling “Allahu Akbar” (the “God is great” jihadist battle cry) while firing two automatic weapons into a roomful of American soldiers and government civilians must surely be seen as having Islamist motivation. But true to form, the mainstream media initially played down the Fort Hood massacre due to Nidal Hasan’s long-term religious beliefs. Democrat and Republican explanations of the cold-blooded killings at Ft. Hood are fraught with “political correctness” and the stench of their spineless rhetoric is sickening.

And it isn’t a matter of being anti-Muslim; it’s a nationwide epidemic of being afraid do almost anything because of what the government’s increased domination in every aspect of our lives. We don’t know from day-to-day what we can and can’t do and what the penalties may be.

But we have to wonder how the FBI concluded after reading more than 20 e-mails that Hasan sent to an Al Qaeda imam who had advised two of the 9/11 plotters were “consistent with the subject matter of his research” that he wasn’t somewhat suspicious and warranted further examination. It’s just isn’t normal for a military officer to present a PowerPoint presentation to his peers that closed with the jihadist motto “We love death more than you love life.”

The ongoing struggle with “political correctness” has created a huge rift in our society. We need to jettison our preconceived philosophies and biases and get seriously again about securing the country. Otherwise, we’re wide open to further incomprehensible human-caused tragedies.

Creative math used by Feds in job counting process

James C. Sandefer

Every time the general populace wants to believe a report coming out of Washington it seems to become mystically distorted into an exaggeration or outright falsehood. For example, consider the stimulus program intended to create and save jobs. Each month the Feds report numbers that are simply inaccurate, and at this point in the program they know it because every month another state reports that their numbers were inaccurate. Yet the Feds tend to become exuberant in their miscalculations.

The latest erroneous example is Colorado. Using your computer, click on the federal government’s stimulus-spending Web page and you’ll see that it displays 8,094 full-time jobs created or saved in that state. In actuality, the number is inflated by more than 1,000 jobs. According to the state it wasn’t their faulty, but merely the innocent result of incomprehensible reporting requirements required by the government, some unintentional inaccurate reporting, and a bit of fudging at several state-wide reporting agencies. This job creating and saving information was uncovered by a curious reporter with the Denver Post who did a modest amount of research.

Imagine what the numbers might actually be if newspapers nationwide assigned a team of diligent reporters to double-check the job counting numbers for their state?

Nonetheless, I’m sure some Nobel Prize winning mathematicians are stashed in a basement somewhere in Washington figuring out creative ways to continue reporting the success of the stimulus dollars used for manufacturing and saving jobs. Naturally, we trust the stringent criteria applied behind closed doors during the Nobel Prize selection process, so close your eyes and believe the numbers being fabricated by them. What have you got to lose?

Good thing we’re in a recovery

James C. Sandefer

Interesting how the unemployment rate moved into double digits last week and the government continued telling us how we’d turned the corner and were in a recovery period—the worst of it was over. Creative math is a wonderful thing when you can use it to your advantage as the Feds often do so well, but those several million folks without a steady stream of income aren’t buying it. For instance, the Feds counted employees in the “jobs created’ category because they received raises. Add to the list those who were promoted and you get the idea of the way creative job accounting works in Washington. The job counting con is just one example of why I’m not buying into the recovery sales pitch.

Select nearly any area of the economy and you’re likely to see a downturn and cutbacks. One of the most improbable examples is private clubs, the posh, snooty getaways catering to the well-healed and presumed recession proof segment of society. These venues are now feeling the sting of trickle-down budget tightening as former lifetime members, many whose memberships go back several generations, are opting out. Some of the hardest hit clubs are the ones having expensive-to-maintain golf courses in addition to posh clubhouses. As memberships are passed down to younger heirs, these recipients simply don’t have any interest in tying up an absorbitant amount of time going to one venue or doling out money in annual and monthly dues. Their interests and attitudes are quite opposite that of elder family members. The young and financially independent don’t want to tie up a set number of hours on the same time and day of the week on a golf course or sit around sipping overpriced martinis in a stuffy country club bar. They’d rather be actively engaged in something more invigorating such as a demanding hike or traveling to a remote location; they enjoy diversity and spontaneity. These youngsters are bailing out of club memberships in record numbers leaving the owners in a pinch and having to cut back on services while raising prices on those who choose to remain locked into the same old same old. Expensive perks and meal sizes shrink along with revenue and staff members, and this continues adding red ink to the bottom line. By year’s end a number of once-thought perpetual country clubs around the country will have either closed or scaled back to the point of near parity in offerings with public clubs.

Many retirement communities and active adult communities with homeowner associations are also feeling the drag of recession woes. The ones hardest hit are those with cost-heavy amenities and golf courses. Within the past two years mindsets and bank accounts have adjusted dramatically as retirement savings and investments evaporated and reality set it. Scaling back is no longer viewed as an inconvenience; it’s a pragmatic retirement survival methodology. This is especially relevant since Congress voted down 2010 cost of living increases for Social Security benefits and various other government controlled retirements (e.g., military pensions). And for those on Medicare or some other form of government run insurance plan, the news gets worse because those premiums are scheduled to increase next year while a sustained coverage level is on the chopping block with Congress. Of course, the politicians haven’t gotten around to voting down their own automatic annual pay raise that is scheduled to kick in as usual in January. A phrase from the United States Constitution that begins “We the people” appears to have been conveniently shoved aside by many of our elected representatives.

Last and certainly not least, late Saturday night, probably during commercial breaks while watching Saturday Night Live, the House of Representative managed to push through a health care reform bill by a mere five votes. Hardly a bi-partisan accomplishment, and the odds of any of them having read it, never mind comprehending what’s in it, is astronomically slim. By mid week many of them will be complaining of shoulder pain from patting themselves on the back for doing something they wanted to do rather than getting something truly worthwhile done for the people they represent. Pay close attention to their commentary over the next few days and you’ll hear the phrase “we” referring to “them” countless times. We’re going to hear what they’ve done for us, when in fact it may turn out to be what they’ve done to us. Naturally, they are exempt from what they’re hoping to impose.

We, the taxpayers, remain a necessary inconvenience and are only needed during elections. In the meantime we’re simply impediments to progress.

That said, something interesting has occurred lately, the memories of those who vote is getting sharper and tending to recall in between election times and the decisions of their representatives. November 2010 is shaping up to be a watershed moment in American politics, and those in power today may get a break from patting themselves on the back sooner than they’d prefer.

Good morning America, it’s good to see you again.

Still too big to fail?

James C. Sandefer

If you’re on board with the “too big to fail” scam run on the taxpayers, then you’ll go wild over the latest financial reform proposal making the rounds in Congress. It’s another brainchild of none other than Barney Frank, chairman of the House finance committee. As with many of his initiatives, this one also does virtually nothing to change the present arrangement of the financial system.

First of all, don’t worry; the “too big to fail” financial institutions won’t be diddled with. In all probability, they may grow even bigger and less accountable than they are today, which is hard to comprehend. The behemoth firms such as Goldman Sachs won’t notice any tighter oversight and will continue to gamble on loans using money guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The good news for the Feds is that the Federal Reserve Board will be given a more powerful role than what’s in place today. Gosh, that’ll all but guarantee that none of the same dim-witted decisions that got us into the current economic sinkhole are replicated.

Seriously, nobody in their right mind wants the Feds to fail because we, the taxpayers, are always on the hook for the bailout scheme. But the legislation being pushed by Mr. Frank will open the door a bit wider allowing additional government control to come through. If he gets his way, the new and improved Fed will be allowed to decide which financial firms are run through a bankruptcy-like resolution process. And guess who foots the bill for that cumbersome, lawyer-heavy process.

Mr. Frank says his bill proposes shifting the cost of a big bank failure cleanup to other big banks. Not exactly; the way things are laid out in his bill just the opposite would occur. While he talks about having a pool of money set aside in advance that is acquired from the big banks to cover the cost of a bailout, the fact is the bill proposes a form of assessment on big banks after a failure has taken place. There’s no provision for an “ahead of time” emergency fund anywhere in the bill.

Here’s something I don’t understand. If a big bank makes irresponsible decisions regarding loans that eventually lead to its failure, wouldn’t this imply a serious flaw in government regulation and oversight? Additionally, why would the Feds penalize other banks that are performing well and acting responsibly? It seems to me that when the government fails there should be a mechanism that actually penalizes those who blew it rather than constantly dinging the taxpayers. Shifting the burden onto healthy banks simple makes them more susceptible to future financial problems of their own.

As usual, the bottom line in Mr. Frank’s legislation is that it virtually guarantees that taxpayers will be on the hook for all future bailouts, and there will be more of them. Possibly an even greater flaw in this bill is that it doesn’t do a singly thing to fix the ongoing dilemma of having financial institutions that are too big to fail.

There’s a growing consensus among actual voters across the country for breaking up these banks that are too big to fail, and it includes some influential people in the Federal Reserve and FDIC. Those opposing this logical rationale are the ones holding the reins of power and steering the financial process (e.g., Barney Frank and company). He and his cohorts have responsibility for the regulatory and oversight malfunctions that failed to identify and divert the current disaster. There’s no indication that any of them have learned anything from their mistakes, so it’s time for someone else to assume control of the financial reform process. Mr. Frank may believe he’s also too big to fail, but this time he may be wrong.

So many things have become controversial these days that it seemed like a good time to take a short break, disengage our differences, and simply ponder a straightforward question: Where’s the front of a tree?

Another reason I ask is because a neighbor recently queried me about which way he should plant his seedling to ensure the front of it was properly situated. I just looked at him, smiled, shook my head, and said, “You’re gonna have to figure that out on your own.”

So far he’s repositioned it at least three times that I’m aware of, but I doubt the tree is putting down any serious roots at this point…

OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK

First Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants

“In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this country that has given me so much,” she said. “See, that’s why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, ” –Michelle Obama

Michele Obama doesn’t receive a salary to serve as the First Lady and she isn’t required to perform any official duties. But she has an unprecedented number of staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request during a recession.  Mary Lincoln was chastised for purchasing china for the White House during the Civil War, and Mamie Eisenhower had to pay the salary for her personal secretary.

How things have changed. If you’re one of the Americans who’s out of work, had your salary cut, earning less than subsistence wages, or serving up fast food just to earn a few bucks to make ends meet, then you should be outraged at the benefits package for these servants of Ms. Michelle. They receive the same one as members of the National Security and Defense Departments, and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by the taxpayers:

1. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)

2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Asst. to the President & Director of Policy & Projects for the First Lady)

3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)

4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assist. to the President & Director of Communications for the  First Lady)

6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)

8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of  Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)

9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)

10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)

12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator for the First Lady)

13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)

14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)

15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to the First Lady)

16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to the First Lady)

17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)

19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)

20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)

21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)

22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)

There has never been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when Hillary only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one, and prior to Mamie Eisenhower personal assistants came from the President’s own pocket.

Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and “First Hairstylist” or Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to Europe.

At this price, we can’t afford any more “non-paid” public servants.