FEDERAL SPENDING

	FEDERAL SPENDING	FY 1961	FY 2001	FY 2008	FY 2009	FY 2010
		In Billions	In Billions	In Billions	In Billions	In Billions
	Department				Budget	Obama 's 1st
1	Pensions	$ 12.8	$ 481	$ 668	$ 767.9	$ -
						$ -
3	Health care	$ 2.0	$ 390	$ 681	$ 712.7	$ -
4	Education	$ 1.7	$ 63	$ 105	$ 99.9	$ -
5	Defense	$ 57.0	$ 366	$ 729	$ 805.0	$ -
6	Welfare	$ 3.2	$ 183	$ 271	$ 283.1	$ -
7	Protection	$ 4.0	$ 30	$ 46	$ 51.1	$ -
8	Transportation	$ 4.4	$ 54	$ 80	$ 83.9	$ -
9	General govt.	$ 0.8	$ 14	$ 20	$ 21.5	$ -
10	Other	$ 8.4	$ 74	$ 90	$ 22.4	$ -
11	Interest	$ 7.5	$ 206	$ 244	$ 260.2	$ -
12	Balance	$ 3.0			$ (0.5)	$ -
13	Stimulus	$ -			$ -	$ -
14	All other	$ -
15	TOTAL	$ 104.8	$ 1,861	$ 2,934	$ 3,107	$ -

I posted this chart in anticipation of the big budget/ economics speech tonight. It will be interesting to see how high spending will go under Barack.

I would bet it will reach $4.5 Trillion per year by FY2013 [before adding stimulus spending]. That is a 75% increase over Bush's last budget of FY 2009 [which was before the economic panic that led to the bank & AIG & Fannie & Freddie bailouts].

Source of data: www.usgovernmentspending.com

Uncle Sam Saves Fast Eddie Rendell's Butt

Governor Ed Rendell fattened Pennsylvania state spending by 42% since he became governor. Inflation was only 18% during this same time. He has also increased the state's long-term debt by a few billion or so.

Yet he is considered a good governor by the MSM. They regularly kiss his butt by "cutting & pasting" the governor's press releases into "news items". Due to the state's big spending, when the national economy collapsed, the state was also in big trouble because of Fast Eddie's big spending.

But amazingly, now the federal govt and Uncle Sam rides to the rescue and will give all the states bailout billions. That includes profligate states like Pennsylvania which will get $8 Billion or more.

So it is fair to say Uncle Sam is pulling Governor Fast Eddie's ample butt out of the fiscal fire.

Bush Was Called A Chimp Once or Twice

Hattip to Chip Ahoy, a commenter on Althouse. Someday, I will learn how to rotate the picture so it is upright. For now, I believe you can click on the picture then rotate it to it is upright.

Bite Me Mr. President I am Exhausted Too....

.....cause I just shoveled the longest driveway in my life. I need my stimulus. Heh.

Good Arguments Against National Health Insurance

I saw this on the New Republic blog. It was a comment by someone named "Sven" rebutting liberal wheenie Jonathan Cohn's article calling for single-payer health insurance here in the USA. IMO, Sven made some great points:

Sven's comment follows:

"You have it dead wrong. My high school debate team covered the topic: the US should adopt the French health care model.

First, the polls, an overwhelming majority of Americans want universal coverage.

Second, a similar majority wants the government out.

First, costs: here are the major items explaining the difference in French and US costs: (a) doctor and nurse salaries-30%; (b) drugs-10% (France negotiates lower prices); and (c) torts-25% (malpractice premiums and defensive medicine).

Second, the US could match EU prices on drugs-they all negotiate lower prices, but, first, all drug maker profits and RD expenditures would be wiped out and EU countries delay use of emerging, important and life saving drugs.

Third, most of the developed countries who have "national" health care absolutely ration care.

Fourth, the 45 million uninsured is a canard:
1/3 of them qualify for Medicaid and simply don't appy,
1/3 make $50,000 a year, with employers paying 75% of the premiums and simply don't secure coverage (10% of the Japanese-which has non-profit insurance companies-don't secure coverage either) and
1/3 are immigrants (which many countries don't cover anyway).

Fifth, EU countries impose an employer tax of 13% to cover the population-do that here and unemployment will skyrocket.

Sixth, the EU model of tax and spend is horrible-their economic growth is lower than the US and their unemployment rates are higher than the US. OECD studies confirm that progressive income taxes (the more progressive the worse results) significantly depress growth and jobs. It's harder than you think.

The GOP aren't slaves to big business-they just see what happens when you advance the nanny state.

Study what happened in India when they moved to a free market economy. There was and is a reason Americans don't buy your nationalized health care model-it doesn't work and it's not good for them."