ie8 fix

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

Obama's $3.8 trillion proposed budget: Parsing the tech priorities

By | February 1, 2010, 12:12pm PST

President Obama rolled out his $3.8 trillion proposed fiscal 2011 budget that’s teeming with technology projects throughout the Federal government’s departments and agencies.

I went through the budget with an information technology lens so you don’t have to. Here’s a look at the notable technology projects and investments (blog, tables by agency).

Department of Defense: Better health IT infrastructure

The $548.9 billion proposed Department of Defense budget is 3.4 percent higher than the 2010 enacted level. Aside from the usual - weapons systems, prosecuting two wars and cutting high risk contracts - a lot of the budget is focused on medical care for the troops.

According to the budget overview:

This funding increase allows DOD to address its highest priorities, such as the President’s commitment to reform defense acquisition, develop a ballistic missile defense system that addresses modern threats, and continue to provide high quality healthcare to wounded servicemembers.

That last point is going to require an investment in health IT. The DOD budget includes a proposed $30.9 billion for medical care in fiscal 2011, up 5.8 percent from 2010. While the IT spend isn’t detailed, the funding provides:

Support for DOD’s efforts to update its health information technology infrastructure, while partnering with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the private sector to pursue the Administration’s goal of building a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record to deliver care and benefits to servicemembers and veterans with efficiency and accuracy.

Separately, the Veterans Affairs branch has a proposed $3.3 billion information technology budget, flat with 2010.

Department of Commerce: NIST gets $712 million

In the Department of Commerce budget, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is proposed to get $712 million. The charge:

This funding will support advanced measurement and standards development at NIST that will facilitate the economy-wide development and adoption of a wide variety of new technologies, ranging from nanotechnology and computer security advances to energy conservation systems. The Budget also provides $80 million for the Technology Innovation Program, which invests in high-impact research that will address critical national needs and advance innovation. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership will receive $130 million to enhance the competitiveness of the Nation’s manufacturers by facilitating the adoption of more efficient manufacturing processes.

In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will have full access to its fee collections and will use those dollars to improve the speed and quality of patent exams.

National Intelligence Program: Cyber security a focus

Obama’s budget doesn’t give funding levels for the National Intelligence Program, but does give a nod to cyber security policy. According to the budget:

The 2011 Budget supports actions detailed in the Cyberspace Policy Review and continues activities begun as part of the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative.

National Science Foundation: Pushing green tech

As part of President Obama’s proposed $3.8 trillion budget, the National Science Foundation is getting an 8 percent funding increase with efforts to push along sustainability research and science education.

Overall, the National Science Foundation is projected to have a $7.4 billion budget for fiscal 2011, up 8 percent from 2010. In that sum, there’s $766 million for a “cross-agency sustainability research effort focused on renewable energy technologies and complex environmental- and climate-system processes.

In addition, there’s a 14 percent increase in funding for building out the science and technology workforce. To that end, the National Science Foundation will dedicate at least 5 percent of its undergrad and graduate fellowship, scholarship and training programs to push students to clean energy careers.

Department of Energy: Big bets

The Department of Energy’s proposed $28.4 billion fiscal 2011 budget includes:

  • $300 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy “to accelerate game-changing energy technologies in need of rapid and flexible experimentation or engineering.
  • Support for the modernization of the U.S. electric grid.
  • A 4.6 percent budget increase for the Office of Science to support research on “transformational scientific discoveries.”

Department of Health and Human Services: Healthcare meets IT

The proposed $81.3 billion HHS budget includes $110 million for health IT coordination and research. The funding is designed to “to assist providers with adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records.”

Department of Homeland Security: Advanced screening technology

The Department of Homeland Security got a proposed $44 billion and there’s a $734 million chunk designed to deploy “up to 1,000 new Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) screening machines at airport checkpoints and new explosive detection equipment for baggage screening in 2011.”

Department of Transportation: New air traffic control system needed

According to Obama’s budget, the Department of Transportation is taking the needed for a next-gen air traffic control system more seriously.

From the budget:

The Budget provides $1.14 billion, more than a 30 percent increase from 2010 for the Next Generation Air Transportation System. NextGen is the Federal Aviation Administration’s long-term effort to improve the efficiency, safety, and capacity of the aviation system. The 2011 Budget supports the transformation from a national ground-based radar surveillance system to a more accurate satellite-based surveillance system; the development of more efficient routes through the airspace; and the improvement of aviation weather information.

Department of Treasury: IRS meets customer service

The IRS is getting an $8 billion investment to modernize systems and improve customer service—and oh yeah drive new revenue via better collections. The total Department of Treasury funding for fiscal 2011 is $13.94 billion, up from $13.5 billion in 2010.

First the customer service talk:

The Administration will improve the quality of IRS services to taxpayers, providing for a better tax filing experience. The Budget provides additional resources for high-quality phone service so that taxpayers’ questions are answered quickly and correctly. A top priority of the IRS is to promptly and correctly answer a taxpayer’s question the first time asked, through the most efficient and taxpayer-friendly means.

And then the database improvements:

The Budget supports the IRS’ continued progress in reducing the tax gap through fair, robust, and equal application of the tax laws— including new revenue-generating enforcement initiatives that will increase recovery of tax debts by nearly $2 billion a year once the initiatives are fully mature in 2013. This set of initiatives will be balanced with an increased focus on IRS modernization, for which the Budget makes a significant commitment through nearly $200 million in targeted investments in the IRS’ new core taxpayer database and processing platform. Once complete, this modernized system will improve both the taxpayer experience through, for example, enhanced service capabilities such as more individualized self-service offerings, as well as the IRS’ operational effectiveness.

And then the collection gains:

The Budget will increase collections of delinquent debt owed to the Federal Government, as well as child support payments through States, expand the use of electronic payment and collection transactions, and propose other cross-cutting initiatives that are expected to yield approximately $2 billion in savings over the next 10 years.

NASA: So long Constellation

The biggest news out of NASA is that the Constellation program to get back to the moon was cut. NASA’s budget is going up: $19 billion compared to $18.7 billion in 2010. However, NASA is being refocused. The space operations budget was cut to $4.88 billion proposed for fiscal 2011, down from $6.15 billion in 2010.

Meanwhile, funding for science, exploration and aeronautics and space research technology was bumped higher.

Here’s the rationale for killing Constellation:

NASA’s Constellation program—based largely on existing technologies - was begun to realize a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria, an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its Moon goals had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations.

The realignment of NASA will focus it on R&D for future space missions via a low-cost heavy-lift rocket platform; more robotic missions; help for commercial space transportation; and a phase-out of the Space Shuttle program in an orderly fashion.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

152
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Dead On
Fletchguy 22nd Feb 2010
It' so good to come across people like yourself who have paid attention the last few decades and see the reality of what has and hasnt happened. So many dilusional dems and liberals think if they close thier eyes it will all just get better as Obama spends like a man obsessed with an open check book. What you said is a great summary of what has happened and what is currently happing which will in fact have a giant fall out effect in essence killing the midle class citizen and small busness owners just as Obama is planing leaving our country in a state of socilistic welfare we it doesnt matter how hard you try or dont try you ll get the same as the guy who worked hard made a business went to school and earned what he has . The guy eating cheeseburgers not working with 6 kids will put his hand out and be given the same. Obama and the dems are the scurge of our country and it is as you said about time some have pulled thier heads from thier rectums and begun to see through Obamas cloak and mirro policies to see he is but the anti american in charge.
0 Votes
+ -
Government's burden on economy
LBiege 1st Feb 2010
... is not measured by how much it taxes but how much it spends.

Barrack Chavez Obama is as corrupted as ever like every other socialist in power. It's the private sectors that create jobs not the silly inefficient, agenda-driven big government.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen
dlang100@... 1st Feb 2010
While if you understand that the private sector
drives the economy and not the government, you do
don't need to hear this, AMEN. The only thing the
federal government does well is provide for the
national defense and it seems that this is the
only thing the liberals don't want it to do!
while offshoring and underpaying their own.

What's left to defend while corporations gut this country and getting paid to do it BY the government?

"Tax cuts create jobs"? WHEN? TELL ME WHEN. Because the answer is "never".
0 Votes
+ -
"Underpaying" is a lame excuse
LBiege 1st Feb 2010
Exactly why should business owners keep jobs here while they can find cheap labor elsewhere? If your business is beaten by competition b/c they able to lower the labor cost then what do you do, sitting there taking it or trying to lower it as well?

People demand cheap products all the time, which in turn demands cheaper labor cost. That's how market works. Fighting it w/ regulations, tariffs or tax is futile. You want a job then you have to fight for it, proving that you deserve to be paid at that level.

Tax cuts give business owners more capitals to spend, which doesn't immediately guarantee jobs for everyone. You wanna get hired? Then prove it that you deserve so w/ the right set of skills, and stop whining about underpaying / outsourcing / big corps and all that.
0 Votes
+ -
Exactly why should business owners keep jobs here while they can find cheap labor elsewhere? If your business is beaten by competition b/c they able to lower the labor cost then what do you do, sitting there taking it or trying to lower it as well?

Because here in America is where business owners make their money off the American people. If a company choose to farm out their company job to foreign countries just to keep a fatter pocket for themselves. Then that company should sell their products to the country of the people they have chosen to do their work. Why bring your products back to America to make money off the people here. I'm just as sure we American can get alone without them.
0 Votes
+ -
Fair enough
LBiege 2nd Feb 2010
"Why bring your products back to America to make money off the people here. I'm just as sure we American can get alone without them. "

They bring products back b/c there's a demand here. That simple. Apparently no everyone decides to get alone w/o them. That's how market works.
0 Votes
+ -
The Unfair Part
daengbo 2nd Feb 2010
It's unfair for a business to use cheaper foreign
labor, then sell in the U.S. without import
tariffs.
0 Votes
+ -
There's no way around it. It's like Detroit have to sell their cars at an expensive price b/c they have to price in the high labor cost associated w/ UAW. They then are beaten by foreign auto makers who don't have the burden.

Now what do you do? If you put a tariff on it, you let Detroit and UAW off the hook and then force the consumers to subsidize them. That's not how things work.

Capitalism is basically Darwinism in a social form. It's all about the survival of the fittest. That's how it moves the world forward. You wanna survive, you have to compete and fight for it. Government's role is to enforce some basic rules like fair play, no fraud and that kinda thing. After that it should stay out.
0 Votes
+ -
And just where, pray tell, do you think government GETS the money? They take it from US, the taxpayers, you idiot!

Underpaying their own? Who determines what pay should be? The jobs do not belong to the people, they belong to the companies who reimburse your services for a fee agreed to between you and the company, and this is prior to being hired. Again, it is not YOUR job! It belongs to the company, and you only GET it once the terms are agreed upon between the two entities.

Tax cuts don't create jobs, you moron. Tax cuts to private companies INCENTIVIZE those companies to HIRE more people.

My God, man, it is glaringly obvious you were educated in a government school. Your stupidity knows no bounds.
0 Votes
+ -
LOL - nt
ItsTheBottomLine 2nd Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
The previous government head...
windozefreak 2nd Feb 2010
Gave them 13 trillion dollars in tax cuts his first year in office. Where is all that progress andstimulation fro this good gesture? I'll keep waiting for an answer
0 Votes
+ -
When you're ideologically blinded,
adornoe@... 2nd Feb 2010
you won't notice any good that might have been made by your political enemies.

The Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy. The economy did grow for 6 straight years and at the best pace in many decades after those tax cuts. Only somebody blinded by their politics and their ideology would deny it. The tax cuts were needed to bring back the economy that had gone into recession in the last year of Clinton's administration.

The current problems with the economy mostly stem from the mortgage and financial sector meltdowns. Those problems were building up way before Bush took office and they "bubbled-up" during the Bush years. Sure, Bush and congress did do more spending than traditional republicans of the past, but the current problems are mostly not of his doing.

BTW, did you notice that the economy started taking a turn for the worse after the democrats took control of congress in 2006? And whatever problems Obama "inherited", he and the current congress are making much worse by spending like money was made of a never-ending supply of sand. Government spending should actually be cut back during recessions, and tax cuts should be enacted so that businesses will have more left over for growing their businesses and hiring people. The democrats and Obama are doing the exact opposite of what's needed to help recover the economy. While it's possible to have the GDP show positive gains during a recession, the long-term effect of bigger government and out-of-control spending is that the economy won't regain the losses from the recession and companies will cut back production and will have to lay off employees. Right now, Obama and the democrats are threatening higher taxes which creates a lot of uncertainty in the private sector; nobody is going to grow businesses or hire people if they are going to have to turn over more of their money to the government.

The socialist ways of Obama and the democrats have been repeatedly proven to be wrong medicine for any economy; it just sometimes takes a long time before the fools that want it start to realize how dumb the socialist model really is. Even Europe, which underwent an economic transformation in the last 40 years, is beginning to realize their mistakes. Why should the U.S. have to repeat the same idiotic mistakes when the lessons from the past are out there?

Meanwhile, the people of the U.S. have started to wake up and have realized that Obama was a huge mistake and so were the democrats they voted into office. What about you? When are you going to wake up and start using your head?
0 Votes
+ -
Excellent Points!
Yessongs 2nd Feb 2010
I think that Bush will be judged less harshly by history than by the present.

And remember, Congress spends the money - though the POTUS does approve it.

This shows exactly what you are talking about
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_lost_decade_1.html
0 Votes
+ -
Dead On
Fletchguy 22nd Feb 2010
It' so good to come across people like yourself who have paid attention the last few decades and see the reality of what has and hasnt happened. So many dilusional dems and liberals think if they close thier eyes it will all just get better as Obama spends like a man obsessed with an open check book. What you said is a great summary of what has happened and what is currently happing which will in fact have a giant fall out effect in essence killing the midle class citizen and small busness owners just as Obama is planing leaving our country in a state of socilistic welfare we it doesnt matter how hard you try or dont try you ll get the same as the guy who worked hard made a business went to school and earned what he has . The guy eating cheeseburgers not working with 6 kids will put his hand out and be given the same. Obama and the dems are the scurge of our country and it is as you said about time some have pulled thier heads from thier rectums and begun to see through Obamas cloak and mirro policies to see he is but the anti american in charge.
0 Votes
+ -
Who did he give $13T in tax cuts to?
SAStarling 4th Feb 2010
Before you ask me to reply to your question, you must first back up your assertion of that $13T in tax cuts. THEN I'll be happy to give you an answer.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen
MichaelWells 2nd Feb 2010
This person wants an example of when tax cuts create jobs, this easy. JFK and Reagan. There are several reasons behind unemployment besides a bad product. Higher taxes mean less capital to hire and invest. The out of control minimum wage means less money to hire more people. Minimum wage jobs were never meant to be permanent positions; it is assumed those hired at that wage will work and be productive to make more money. This is basic economics 101. Some one needs to read Dr. Thomas Sowell: http://tsowell.com/
0 Votes
+ -
Corporation collapse the economy?
atari8bit@... 2nd Feb 2010
Drink some more kool-aid and tell me another fairy tale
0 Votes
+ -
Since the free economy has had free range for the last eight years. Yet we got broken economy, almost terminal, and unemployment out the yahoo. Nice going free market!
0 Votes
+ -
Bush years != free economy
LBiege 2nd Feb 2010
Free economy will never lower the interest rate to get everyone drunk over a housing bubble and then bail all loser banks out w/ tax payers' money. Bush and Greenspan only talked about free market but never ran like one.
0 Votes
+ -
To add to LBiege's points,
People 2nd Feb 2010
In a free economy the banks would have never been FORCED to make bad loans in the name of fair housing and equality for all.

Our economy has not been free for many decades, is still not free, and now we are paying the price for it.

Obama's idea of a free economy is - Print more money!

Just wait. That loaf of bread will cost $100 soon.
0 Votes
+ -
To add to your points..
adornoe@... 2nd Feb 2010
that loaf of bread probably won't be able to be produced because the cost of producing it will be prohibitive and the bakeries will either have to close or ship their operations and jobs overseas.

Unanticipated consequences!
0 Votes
+ -
I'm wondering...
rag@... 1st Feb 2010
...if this guy has ever seen a check He didn't want to sign. Who voted for this clown anyway?
0 Votes
+ -
Obama out to rob your 401K
LBiege 1st Feb 2010
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/treasury-soliciting-your-feedback-regarding-proposed-annuitization-401k

Yes, slowly but surely it is happening. In a federal notice filed earlier, the DOL and Treasury are soliciting a response on what has been on many investors' mind, namely the process of converting 401(k)s into annuity-like products. To wit:

The Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury (the "Agencies") are currently reviewing the rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the plan qualification rules under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to determine whether, and, if so, how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement.

The purpose of this request for information is to solicit views, suggestions and comments from plan participants, employers and other plan sponsors, plan service providers, and members of the financial community, as well as the general public, on this important issue.

A cursory read of the document does not seem to ask about a flat out regulatory requirement for annuitization. We point your attention to item 13:

13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship?

For readers who feel compelled to respond to this increasignly socialistic and ludicrous development, we suggest you voice your anger at the following address:

* e-ORI@dol.gov. Include RIN 1210-AB33 in the subject line of the message
After all, since Social Security is such a
financial success, why shouldn't 100% of
everyone's retirement be managed that way?
0 Votes
+ -
Relax, it's just a question
LuckyCharm 2nd Feb 2010
They're soliciting feedback from plan participants. That's all. So tell 'em you don't want it and chill out...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Feedback
branchman67 3rd Feb 2010
Because this government is so keen on listening to feedback. The public hates the healthcare bill they've brought to the table and wants them to back off, yet they keep pushing the bill on us and telling us we love it, when there's no polling evidence to back that up. This administration will do what it wants to do, when it wants to do it until the people stand up and tell them no. Now, thankfully, they don't have total control of both houses of Congress, so they'll hopefully at least have to put the brakes on a little, but I'm doubtful that they'll ever listen to differing opinions (they haven't yet).
0 Votes
+ -
nt
0 Votes
+ -
The majority of the American people are being robbed, cheated and
abused by governments -- federal, state, and local.
0 Votes
+ -
Especially Bush, the one who hid war costs to make things look not-as-bad as they already were.

Ditto for all the times Clinton got railed on over the trade imbalance... the same people were zip-lipped when one of their republicans were in office.

Hypocritical gibber.

What next, walmart is good for the economy?



http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/WalMart_Welfare.html
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/53177/
http://www.progress.org/2005/tcs179.htm
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html

* Walmart gets corporate subsidy from the government. WELFARE. And they needn't a penny.
* They pay so little, their employees have to get welfare. (and when managers tell their workers how great they are for bringing business, don't ask if the workers get a cut of the share of the HARD WORK they put in.)
* walmart comes in with artificial prices (see 'welfare' above for 2 reasons how) and drives out other businesses
* as walmart destroys livelihoods, people can no longer spend so walmart leaves, claiming the area isn't profitable and what's left is tumbleweeds
He should have cleaned up these Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Fannie & Freddie, CIA, FDIC, War on Drugs, IRS, minimum wage, business tax and the other socialist garbage from the Federal government. It's these big government nonsense that drove labor cost up, got in the way of economy growth and caused this perennial unemployment problems.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen
SAStarling 2nd Feb 2010
Well said.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen???
i8thecat 2nd Feb 2010
Reagan was a frickin actor... a puppet...
nothing more...

I lived through it.. I saw him speak in
public... Go back and take another look at the
footage... He didn't have a clue... Do it for
the gipper... Sheesh... He did was he was told
to do, controlled by a few men behind the
curtain... Bush senior and jr were evil,
greedy, dolts...

Go take a good hard look at US history... Pay
attention to the correlation of the US economy
and how it relates to Presidents... When we
have a Republican at the helm, the economy gets
worse, we go deeper in the hole, when a
Democrat is at the helm, the economy recovers
and even thrives and prospers...

Why do you think that is???
0 Votes
+ -
Amen???
drakedavid@... 2nd Feb 2010
LAG
0 Votes
+ -
Beyond hope
Speednet 2nd Feb 2010
It's painful reading something that is the exact opposite of the truth, but I have to keep reminding myself that it is better to reserve the lengthy instructive posts for people who have a hope of seeing beyond the MTV news minute.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Democrats and economic recovery
branchman67 3rd Feb 2010
Right, because Jimmy Carter was such an awesome force for economic recovery. Oh, and let's just ignore that Clinton had a Republican Congress that pulled him back to the center. And it's not like FDR's policies failed and our economy was in the same place in 1938/39 as it was in 1932/33. And of course, Reagan was controlled by these 'mysterious forces' (Illuminati, Lizard Men, something else???). I'm sure Obama's his own man, which is why he's in a position that he's grossly underqualified for. His election would be like the guy who's been working in your mailroom for 2 years being named CEO. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Reagan would have done those things, but he had to cut deals with Tip O'Neil in order to get the most important things he wanted.

Reagan was a great example of a president working with the other wide, while still putting heavy pressure on.

Unlike Obama, who puts the pressure on Republicans, and then ignores everything they say.

Last week when Obama spoke at the Republican convention was a joke. He did it only because Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, and still refused to listen to what the Republicans were earnestly and respectfully explaining.

If you want to know what Obama will do, just listen to what he says. He will do the opposite.
0 Votes
+ -
AAAAAAAMMMMMMMEEEEENNNNN!!!! nt
ItsTheBottomLine 2nd Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
LBiege is the WINNER. (nt)
People 2nd Feb 2010
.
0 Votes
+ -
I was not for the lack of trying.
windozefreak 2nd Feb 2010
He damned near spent social security into the poor house, before they got enough democrats to stop him. The main reason social security is broke now.
0 Votes
+ -
Obviously you weren't born yet
Speednet 2nd Feb 2010
Your two sentences illustrate quite nicely that you either weren't born yet, or were in Kindergarten at the time. No clue. Try turning off the TV and picking up a book.
0 Votes
+ -
Social Security
branchman67 3rd Feb 2010
Social security has NEVER been funded, since its inception. It's just a filing cabinet in DC with a bunch of IOUs in it, just like it has always been. Social Security is, was and always will be a Ponzi scheme. Works great when everyone puts in and only a few people take out, but fails miserably when the bottom of the pyramid starts asking where their money is. Why do you think so many companies did away with pensions and went to 401Ks? Because with a 401K you only get out what you put into it. Companies were going broke because they couldn't pay out benefits indefinitely when employees were living longer. Same with Social Security. Both parties have ignored this issue for years, because senior citizens are one of the most powerful voting blocks and no one wants to be the one to tell them Social Security needs to be changed. There's no lockbox, there never was, there never will be, and even a lockbox wouldn't save Social Security.
0 Votes
+ -
saul alinsky rules for radicals
Kyser Soze 2nd Feb 2010
As yes! the old number nine I believe, combined with number eleven.
1. Blame it on the past leaders: NO ONE said anything about anyone else being better. This problem has been going on since FDR, or even Hoover, in a very limited sense, introduce the concept of government solving your problems. FDR started this whole mess and every president since then has accepted it as the cost of being elected. AND, in case you missed it BARRY asked for the job, campaigned for the job, spent millions for the JOB and cheated to insure winning the JOB. Now he's got it and all he does is whine about how hard it is. Maybe, HE WASN'T READY FOR THE JOB.
2.Make your enemy live up to their ideals 100%. NO ONE ever held Walmart up as the poster child for capitalism, except you.
Now that people have read your handbook, you will need new tricks to disguise your government takeover of our personal lives.These are so transparent they are pathetic.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Telling the Truth
branchman67 3rd Feb 2010
Right because there's nothing Obama or the Democrats could do to stop our current runaway spending. It's not like he was in the Senate from 2004 on, and voted for all the policies he now derides....oh wait. And it's not like the Democrats controlled Congress from 2006 on and voted yes to all of the Bush budgets and spending....oh wait. And it's not like Obama passed a trillion dollar stimulus that didn't do any of what he said it would....oh wait. The economy went in the crapper in the fall of 2008. If Obama didn't want to tackle these problems, then he should've dropped out of the race and said, "I can't do this, I'm not ready for it." But he didn't. Bush inherited a recession and then got 9/11 dropped on his doorstep 8 months later. I never heard him complain about his bad luck. You might not like him, but he never blamed others for his issues, he just tackled them.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, Walmart is good for the economy
Yessongs 2nd Feb 2010
They provide goods and services that are affordable for people. That is a good thing.

As for your Bush bashing take a look at this. How timely as it just came out today:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_lost_decade_1.html

As for corporate welfare. I agree. Get rid of it. All of it, farm subsidies. Gone. Welfare. Gone.

I live in an area with 20% unemployment - an area, by the way, that has been controlled by Democrats for the past 50 years - Walmart is a blessing for their low prices.

I know people who work there and they are happy. They are treated well and paid an acceptable wage for the work they do. They are expected to work however.

I have over 20 years management in food service. My experience with people that have a similar attitude as your post implies, is that these people want something for nothing, are typically not reliable and spend most of their time complaining about how poorly they are treated.

Jobs and economies have constantly changed since the beginning of civilization. Those individuals and businesses that do not adapt to those changes, perish.

As for off-shoring: It can sometimes mean the difference between a business closing it doors - in which case EVERYONE loses their jobs, or frees up capital for the business owners to create other, higher paying jobs, within, while growing the company.

And those jobs overseas raise the level and standard of living in other countries; which is far more humane than sending money to corrupt governments.

Please read Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. These two great minds will help increase your knowledge of economics. Well worth the time.
0 Votes
+ -
to help pay for their employees health insurance???
0 Votes
+ -
No Subsidies. Period
Yessongs 2nd Feb 2010
On its face this seems cruel.
Let's look at the insurance you bring up. Government meddling led to insurance being a "benefit" for employees. The government put a freeze on wages. So in order to attract and retain good employees, business adapted to the "freeze" rule by offering insurance, since they could not offer higher wages.

But let's back up a minute first. Let's be clear on what insurance-all insurance- is for. And that is to protect in a catastrophe; your car is totaled, the house burns down, etc. Insurance was NEVER intended to pay for day to day stuff.

These insurance plans were typical 80/20 plans with deductibles. People had out of pocket expenses until the deductible was met. This was a good thing. You see, the person receiving the service, typically paid for the service, therefore they had incentive to save money and get the best deal they could for themselves. Also, at the time, many still did not have insurance and paid for care themselves. Again, this made for competition and market based cost controls. Remember we even had doctors who made house calls back then.

Inflation for health care during this time period and up until the late 1960s, ran about the same as overall inflation.

In the mid to late 1960s, our government, with good intentions, got into the health care biz with medicaide and medicare. We now had huge segments of society who no longer paid out of pocket for their health care service; effectively squashing much of the invisible hand of the open and free market.

Once government got involved and separated the consumer from paying for the service, inflation in health care started ratchet upwards much more quickly then the rest of the economy.

Not until the consumer is responsible for and directly involved in paying for their service, will the costs go down.

And that can only happen by severing the idea of the insurance/employer relationship.

Unleash 250 million - or whatever the number of workers is - individuals on the insurance industry, let companies sell across state lines, drop mandates - why should someone who does not drink alcohol have to pay for alcoholic recovery service? - and let people piece together plans that fit the individuals and their lifestyles and you will see insurance prices come down and doctors services and fees come down.

Back to subsidies. None. Period. The government should not pick winners and losers of any type of business. Period. They should not pick a favorite industry and/or favorites withing the industries they select. It is not their job. It simply opens the door for corruption, favoritism, etc.

This is one reason why you see some insurance companies cozy up to the ideas of single payer blah, blah, blah. They get in good with the government, who makes it difficult if not impossible b/c of their rules and regulations, for new and competing businesses to come in, effectively giving market share to a few.

If I made popcorn and could get the government to make people buy popcorn, that would certainly put me in a great position. Pity the poor pretzel maker. He wasn't lucky enough to get guaranteed business handed to him from the government. Neither was clothes make or the cobbler.
0 Votes
+ -
Hidden?
pwn0tr0n 2nd Feb 2010
The funding for the war was all over the news. Nobody complained about it while it was happening, including democrats. The whole process was 100% transparent and passed the senate and house with unanimous vote. I remember hearing about the president asking congress for more money on the radio driving to work. Congress authorized it, publicly.

The democrats are writing bills behind closed doors in closed session that only democrats are allowed to attend. That's not transparent and transparency is something the anointed one promised us when he was competing in the Big Popularity Contest along with promising to not hire lobbyists in his cabinet. He's hired 12 of them.

Now the democrats are complaining about Bush war funding, and LYING about it being secret, as a half baked smokescreen in a diversion tactic to attempt to hide a quadrupling of the fiscal deficit.

Get your calculator out. Oh that's right the calculator is a republican thing. Ok so we spent money on the war. Now we are quadrupling the budget and the democrats are re-spending stimulus money that democrats say Bush should have never spent. Two wrongs don't make a right. Put down the koolaid and stop pretending they do.

Obama is a fraud and a phony. That's one thing you can't call Bush. At least Bush did what he said he would. Bush also got elected for a second term.

Obama won't.

Google "bush war funding". It was all over CNN and MSNBC, nothing hidden about it.

Now try to google the contents of the last healthcare bill that the democrats tried to ramrod down everyone's throat. Not the Clinton News Network's spin on it, the actual bill, and not HR 3962, but the last one they wrote in January that got shot down by Scott Brown, the republican, getting elected by Americans, who are Massachusetts democrats, tired of democrat BS. They shelved it and gave up on it.

You won't find it anywhere because it's a steaming mess of pork and an embarrassment. If they released it, people would see what a bunch of bacon eaters the democrats are. They're already going to get forcefully thrown out of congress during the next election. Public disclosure of this bill would be the icing on the cake.

Your own party members are tired of your party's lies and corruption and voting republicans into office. That should tell you something about the koolaid you are drinking.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix