ARCSAVANNAH.ORG A Fabulous Organization Supporting Savannah Artists. Save BIBI Campaign.Radicalization of Democrat Party America's 2017 Fiscal Shortfall.

I know I say this all the time but it is not fake news this time. Am leaving March 16 and returning on April 3, then leave on April 10 and returning on 16th..  Then leave on 27th returning on 30th.  In between we have the Sav. Music Festival and house guests for a few days.

I may find time for a few memos but probably less than one handful.  Out of the country part of the time but will try and stay in touch via e mail but would appreciate if you cut down on the number.

Am sure while I am gone a lot of important news will be breaking and markets will remain volatile.

Stay well .

And:

For those who live in Savannah.  I took a tour Thursday of 4 artists and their studios.  I was amazed at how many artists actually reside in Savannah and are actively working full time.  Go to ARCSAVANNAH.ORG if you want a map and address if you are interested in art and local artists.

I was blown away by the diversity and quality of art being produced here.  Gale Steves, who left New York to come to Savannah to live, is actively involved in supporting Savannah's art scene.  She is not an artist herself.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Save BIBI campaign. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Radicalization of the Democrat Party/. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Long but worth a read.  (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I was out virtually all day Thursday so did not hear about potential meeting with Trump and N Korea's leader.  News is encouraging but I am not getting giddy over the news.  I would rather wait and see and hold my thinking in abeyance until after the meeting, if it actually takes place.  I am pleased that Trump's hard approach toward N Korea will, perhaps, bring about our objective but I remain very skeptical.

The good news is that we have given nothing in advance or made commitments that we will.
At least Trump showed his predecessors failed because they believed the words and ignored the smoke being blown in their faces by N Korea.  Time will tell..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I attended a meeting  with Israeli  Amb. Judith Varnai Shorer, Thursday evening.  She is located in Atlanta and is in charge of the Southeast. She knows of my cousin who is Israel's Amb in Los Angeles and 6 surrounding states plus Hawaii.

She talked abut the northern region in Israel and touched upon Lebanon and Syria mainly.  Israel has a major hospital facility that is treating refugees from Syria who come to the border in hope their medical issues will be taken care of by Israeli doctors. The IDF picks them up and they are treated free of charge and receive excellent care.

She did not go into details but talked about Hezbollah's desire to increase the accuracy of their some 100,000 missiles located in Lebanon and aimed at Israel.

With respect to Iran she discussed the threat to Israel as well as America and emphasized, as Bibi did recently in his meeting with Trump, Israel is prepared to keep Iran in check.  Iran has a growing presence in the region. She also discussed three improvements in the Iran  Deal that must be undertaken to correct the  deal's flaws.  Verification, missile development brought under the deal and lengthening of the time period allowed for Iran to go nuclear.

Personally, I believe Trump will walk away from the deal as he should.

I do not doubt Israel is prepared to confront Iran but will need the help of America if they get into a hot war and I am sure Trump will follow through. Israel is not seeking anything other than arms and political backing which Trump has willingly given through Amb. Haley.

Finally, Trump has dangled the idea that he also may attend our Embassy's opening in Jerusalem when Israel celebrates it's 70th birthday.
++++++
Happy to do but will have no effect because no politician will vote themselves out of office. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)

Operation 'Save Netanyahu'

By Ben Caspit

The ring of criminal investigations is closing in on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, leaving him very little room to maneuver. At this stage, most other people would throw up their hands and find a quick exit, if only to stay out of prison. Netanyahu continues navigating this stormy sea and planning his rescue strategy or, at least, planning some significant delay of the inevitable. As of now, Netanyahu’s strategy consists of three parallel components: questioning the legitimacy of the gatekeepers, particularly the police, the attorney general’s office and the media; tightening coordination with the US administration and creating the impression that when it comes to Israel’s relationship with US President Donald Trump, there is no alternative to Netanyahu; and holding a snap election to increase his strength or, at the very least, signal to the attorney general what the people really want.

Let’s start with the election. Netanyahu does not want to be seen as someone who is dragging Israel into a new round of elections just to save his skin, when he has a year and eight months until the end of his term in November 2019. This is why the serious coalition crisis that erupted this weekend was not only timely — it was exactly what he needed. The crisis revolves around a spat between Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman and the ultra-Orthodox Yahadut HaTorah party, led by Yaakov Litzman, over the enlistment law that is designed to exempt ultra-Orthodox youth from conscription. While the spat is making all the other members of the coalition nervous, Netanyahu has been able to maintain an unusually calm demeanor. According to a political source talking on condition of anonymity, Netanyahu has even informed his coalition partners that “if things don’t work out over the next few days, we will be forced to take it to the voters.”

On March 4, however, HaBayit HeYehudi seniors Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked both announced that this was a “fake crisis.” They claimed that Netanyahu could resolve the crisis with a few phone calls, but that he isn’t interested in doing that. “The right will not get a better government, even after the elections,” Shaked warned.

This made it hard for Netanyahu on March 5 to stick to his plan to “go with and feel without,” namely, to keep a stable coalition while preparing for early elections. The criminal investigations closing in on him actually boosted his standing in the polls, while June seems like the perfect time for an election, since it will precede Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit’s anticipated decision to indict Netanyahu (or not). All of this would seem to be encouraging Netanyahu to let the country get dragged into an election. He will have to make his decision by the end of the week. But Israeli elections are always a dangerous enigma. The candidates may know how they go in, but they have no idea how they will come out, if at all.

At the same time, anonymous sources continue to deliver harsh blows to Israel’s gatekeepers and law enforcement, all in an effort to challenge their legitimacy. With the backing of several Likud Knesset members, along with Culture Minister Miri Regev, Netanyahu is trying to create the impression that these are largely political investigations, conducted under pressure from the media and the left. Despite the fact that the Israel Police chief and the public prosecutor are both Netanyahu appointees and considered close to the prime minister, many Israelis are convinced that the system is persecuting Netanyahu. After weeks in which the Israel Police in general and Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh in particular have come under methodical attack, it is now Mandelblit’s turn. This began with a well-planned series of rumors on WhatsApp and continued with anonymous reports appearing on websites close to the prime minister.

According to these reports, Mandelblit could easily be pressured, or even extorted, over recordings in police possession. These 2010 Harpaz affair recordings could allegedly incriminate Mandelblit. Based on this information (which is apparently completely baseless), Mandelblit is worried about his personal affairs being made public. This refers to the period when he served as chief military advocate general, with the rank of major general. In other words, the motivations for his current actions have nothing to do with the case.

As if by magic, a report published in Israel on March 4, just a few days after this wave of rumors began, claimed the attorney general is considering a “devil’s advocate” staff in his office to lay out the arguments for not indicting Netanyahu in order to counter the arguments for indictment made by his regular, professional staff. As of now, it is unclear whether this decision has anything to do with the latest rumors facing Mandelblit. People close to him have been trying to assuage public fears by saying that he will not be influenced by rumors, gossip or unfounded reports. He continues to oversee the investigation, they say, steering its course with stable hands.

The third part of Netanyahu’s plan is a joint operation involving him and various US administration sources. There are those among the Israeli opposition who call this “Operation Saving Bibi.” It relies on the particularly close relationship between Netanyahu and Trump, as well as Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; vital aid provided by US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman; and the unprecedented influence that Israel’s ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, has on senior administration officials, among them Kushner. This facet of the operation is credited with advancing the US Embassy’s move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, reportedly to May, and the meeting between Netanyahu and Trump on March 5. The underlying principle of this strategy is to convince the Israeli public that the prime minister wields enormous influence over Trump, and that their special, close relationship has been advantageous to Israel in many ways, chief among them the decision to accelerate the embassy’s move to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu is well-aware that moving the US Embassy to West Jerusalem has no real operational importance. It is merely a propaganda event intended to make a statement. Yet this does not prevent him from getting as much leverage as possible from the move and pushing the move date up to Israel’s Independence Day this May. The timing fits perfectly with talk of advancing the election to June, if that actually happens. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, the timing would be ideal. The election would take place right after Independence Day, which will include the traditional series of propaganda events in the national consensus and under the prime minister’s aegis, and also the embassy move. The timing could enable him to win a record number of Knesset seats and to signal to law enforcement that the people are behind him, regardless of any progress in the investigations.

At this stage, it is hard to tell how much of this multistage plan will actually be realized. Netanyahu knows that even if there is an election and he comes out stronger, it will not stop the investigations from proceeding full steam ahead. Furthermore, there is no connection between the number of Knesset seats or popularity in the polls and the police investigations and criminal activities. Case 4000 — which looks at Netanyahu’s relations with communication mogul Shaul Elovitch — should end the police saga and provide Mandelblit with the critical mass needed to indict Netanyahu. The prime minister also knows that even though the law does not address this scenario, there has never been a prime minister who remained in office while being tried for criminal activity in all of Israel’s history.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu keeps fighting. That’s what he is made of. He will never give up. He will never surrender. When it comes to his personal interests, there is no such thing as going too far. His supporters and associates have no qualms about casting aspersions and disparaging Israel’s official institutions, including its entire law enforcement system, just to help the boss escape.

In the meantime, Netanyahu’s former adviser Nir Hefetz signed a state witness agreement against the prime minister March 5. Hefetz was one of the people closest to Netanyahu. His signature of the state witness agreement is tantamount to an earthquake, significantly bringing closer the end of the Netanyahu era.

Ben Caspit is a columnist for Al-Monitor's Israel Pulse. He is also a senior columnist and political analyst for Israeli newspapers and has a daily radio show and regular TV shows on politics and Israel. On Twitter: @BenCaspit

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2) The Quiet Radicalization of  The Democrat Party.

By Noah Rothman

During the primaries, Donald Trump’s appeal could be summed up in two words: “He fights.” The assumption embedded in this assertion was that the rest of the Republican Party did not. Among the right’s most vocal activists, the GOP was thought to have caved to Barack Obama and the Democrats at every available opportunity. Among their liberal counterparts, however, the precise opposite was the prevailing wisdom. On tax cuts, environmental issues, health care, gun restrictions, and more, Barack Obama was perceived to be only too willing to compromise with Republicans. What progressive crusaders saw as contemptible Clintonian triangulation was, more likely, an acknowledgment that governing requires compromise, but intransigence is a virtue when the stakes are low.

From the wilderness, the ideological rigidity of unsavory zealots might look more like commitment than mania. Considering how well the GOP performed in elections during Obama’s tenure in the White House, a little zeal might seem like a desirable trait for Democrats to court. Quite unlike the early Obama years, though, the political press focuses almost exclusively on the governing party and the president; the tactics and positions to which anti-Trump opposition has resorted just don’t rate. As such, the Democratic Party’s descent into radicalism is occurring under the radar.

This week, the U.S. Senate voted 69 to 28 to confirm Marvin Quattlebaum to a U.S. district court in South Carolina over the objections of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Those objections were explicitly racial. On the floor of the Senate, Schumer insisted that his no vote was tied to the fact that Trump has nominated “the lowest share of non-white candidates [to the bench] in three decades.” He later defended his opposition to this candidate by insisting that Republicans blocked two African-American candidates for this role, so “I said now this new fellow is white, and we need the bench to have real diversity.” There’s no ambiguity here; this is the explication of a racial quota system. Rarely, however, is the discriminatory logic for such a scheme elaborated upon with such naked disregard for even the superficial appearance of meritocracy.

Schumer’s logic is self-reinforcing. If almost any measure can be justified if it stimulates the passions of the base voters who will propel Democrats back into power, then there are no bounds on acceptable political conduct. For years, the passions of the Democratic base were stirred by fringe figures like influential Minister Louis Farrakhan, but they were tamped down by sober Democrats with an eye on the broader electorate. As the Democratic Party embraces radicalism, Farrakhan has come along for the ride.

“White folks are going down,” Farrakhan declared at a weekend speech. “And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.” Expanding on these anti-Semitic remarks, Farrakhan contended that the Jews hoped to boil Jesus alive in excrement. To his credit, Rep. Danny Davis—one of many prominent Democrats to have cultivated a relationship with Farrakhan—denounced the comments even absent significant media pressure. Most of those who spent years cultivating a relationship with this noxious figure, though, have been silent.

The deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Rep. Keith Ellison, tried to create some distance from Farrakhan in a Washington Post op-ed last December amid questions about his willingness to entertain radicalism before his rise to national prominence. Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Jeryl Bier found that Ellison’s contrite tone in print was betrayed by his prickliness about the subject on television. The deputy DNC chairman insisted that the kerfuffle over Farrakhan was only a rehash of “something that happened in 1995,” but documents revealed that Ellison and Farrakhan dined together as recently as 2013 at an event attended by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

This flirtation with liabilities shouldn’t surprise anyone. Ellison’s history with Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam is no closely guarded secret. Nor was his habit of making inflammatory statements of his own. Equating 9/11 to the Reichstag fire that brought the Nazis to power and opposing a missile shield for Israel on the grounds that more dead Israelis represented an inducement to a negotiated end to 2014’s hostilities in Gaza are just two of many examples. None of this was an obstacle to Ellison’s ascension to leadership in the Democratic Party.

The radicalization of the Democrats is set to intensify as primary season begins this week. Like the GOP before them, the party out of power appears to have been seduced by the allure of ideological homogeneity.

Last week, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee declined to endorse seven-term Chicago-area Congressman Dan Lipinski for reelection. Lipinski faces a stiff challenge from his left in the coming primaries and has piqued the ire of the Democratic Party’s activist base due to his opposition to abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and immigration reform. Simultaneously,  California’s Democratic Party was withdrawing its support for another lawmaker, the state’s senior U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein. Despite being a reliable Democratic vote in the upper chamber of Congress, Feinstein failed to lean into nouveau liberal causes like government-provided health insurance, a universal $15 minimum wage, or tuition-free college education.

The pressure the activist base has placed on Democrats to endorse progressive policies and identity politics over electability shouldn’t be over-estimated. Centrism, defined as anything to the right of single-payer health care, is the subject of unyielding scorn in liberal opinion venues, and the party is listening. Last April, newly elected DNC Chairman Tom Perez joined Senator Bernie Sanders for what was, ostensibly, a unity tour designed to wash away the residual hostilities lingering from the Democratic Party’s presidential primaries. To the excitement of the party’s populist wing, that unity tour soon took on the feel of a debutante’s ball announcing the arrival of a vaguely familiar Democratic Party marked once again by reactionary views on trade, Wall Street, and taxation.

The conventional wisdom holds that the Democrats’ embrace of maximalist rhetoric and uncompromising leftism is not a cost-free proposition. It will divide the party and reduce its appeal to both influencers and average voters. Moreover, the party will be writing checks that it does not want cashed. The bill for breaking the promises Democrats make today will come due sooner than they think. Those are valid concerns, but they’re for another day.

For now, despite this radicalization, the Democratic Party is poised to benefit from the public’s antipathy toward united one-party government in Washington and Donald Trump’s conduct as president. If progressives successfully engineer a takeover of the Democratic Party in this year’s primaries and are rewarded with electoral victories in November, it may come to be seen as a referendum sanctioning the party’s leftward drift. With the party’s centrists on the ropes, the fight will move on to 2020 and the battle for the Democratic soul.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3)

Federal Government’s 2017 Fiscal Shortfall Is 74% Worse Than Reported Budget Deficit

The federal government reported a budget deficit of $666 billion for its 2017 fiscal year, but a new comprehensive accounting published by the U.S. Treasury shows that federal finances deteriorated by $1,157 billion in 2017—a figure 74% worse than the deficit. This thorough accounting is mandated by a federal law that requires the Treasury and White House to produce an annual report on the “overall financial position” of the federal government.

By James D. Agresti

Data from this report also shows that the federal government has amassed $89.9 trillion in debts, liabilities, and unfunded obligations. This amounts to more than $700,000 for every household in the U.S., or 92% of the nation’s private wealth. This includes the combined value of every American’s assets in real estate, corporate stocks, small businesses, bonds, savings accounts, cash, and personal goods like automobiles and furniture.

This Treasury report contains information that vitally impacts U.S. citizens, but a search of Google News shows that no media outlet has reported on it, even though it was published more than two weeks ago.

“A Complete Picture”

Unlike the federal budget, which primarily uses cash accounting, the Treasury’s Financial Report of the United States Government uses accrual accounting. The Government Accountability Office explains that this accounting method “is intended to provide a complete picture of the federal government’s financial operations and financial position.”

Cash accounting is the simple process of counting money as it flows in or out, while accrual accounting measures financial commitments as they are made. For example, when federal workers earn pension benefits, accrual accounting counts these obligations in the year they are earned. Cash accounting does not count such liabilities until they are paid, which is often years or decades later.

The federal government requires large corporations to use accrual accounting for their pension plans, because this is the “most relevant and reliable” way to measure their financial health. The same applies to other retirement benefits like healthcare. The official statement of this rule explains that “a failure to accrue” implies “that no obligation exists prior to the payment of benefits.” Since an obligation does, in fact, exist, failing to account for it “impairs the usefulness and integrity” of financial statements.

Nevertheless, the federal budget, which is the “government’s primary financial planning and control tool,” is not bound by the rules that government imposes on the private sector. In the words of the U.S. Treasury, the federal budget is prepared “primarily on a ‘cash basis’.”

This has major consequences for future taxpayers, partly because pension and other retirement benefits are a large part of compensation packages for government employees. When these benefits are included, civilian, non-postal federal employees receive an average of 17% more compensation than private-sector workers with comparable education and work experience. Postal workers receive even greater premiums ranging from 25% to 43%.

In 2016, federal, state and local governments spent $1.9 trillion on employee compensation. Paying this takes an average of $15,176 from every household in the United States. (Recall that not quite half of the population pays no taxes!)

The Treasury report reveals that the federal government currently owes $7.7 trillion in pensions and other benefits to federal employees and veterans. To pay the present value of these benefits would require an average of $61,000 from every household in the United States. Yet, the vast majority of these liabilities are not reflected in the national debt.

A similar situation exists with Social Security and Medicare. Contrary to popular belief, these programs don’t save worker’s contributions for their retirement. Instead, they are social programs that provide benefits to the aged and disabled mainly by taxing people who are currently working. Hence, Social Security and Medicare are sometimes called “pay-as-you-go” programs.

In contrast, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis states that “federal law requires that private pension plans operate as funded plans, not as pay-as-you-go plans.” The reasons for this, as explained by the American Academy of Actuaries, are to increase “benefit security” and ensure “intergenerational equity.”

Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, have repeatedly levied increasing tax burdens on succeeding generations of Americans and have accumulated trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations, which are summarized in the Treasury report.

Adjusted for inflation, the maximum Social Security payroll tax per person is now 8.7 times higher than Congress promised at the outset of the program. Likewise, when President Lyndon B. Johnson pitched the Medicare program in 1964, he said that it would cost “no more than $1 a month” in taxes per worker. Adjusted for inflation, $1 in 1964 equals $8 today, but workers earning $50,000/year now pay $121/month for this tax, while those earning $100,000 pay $242/month, and those earning $1 million pay $3,017/month—or 375 times what Johnson claimed. Furthermore, this tax only funds Medicare hospital insurance, which accounts for 37% of Medicare spending. Other Medicare benefits like physician services, lab tests, and prescription drugs are funded by other taxes.

Social Security and Medicare differ from true pensions, because taxpayers don’t have a contractual right to receive these benefits. In the original Social Security Act of 1935, Congress “reserved” the “right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act.” Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in 1960 that Congress can change Social Security benefits at will. Nevertheless, paying these benefits is an implied commitment of the federal government, and federal law requires that these programs be included in the Treasury report.

Federal actuaries measure the unfunded obligations of Social Security and Medicare in several different ways, but only one of them approximates accrual accounting. This is called the “closed-group” unfunded obligation, which is the money needed to cover the shortfalls for all current taxpayers and beneficiaries in these programs. In the words of Harvard Law School professor and federal budget specialist Howell E. Jackson, the closed-group measure “reflects the financial burden or liability being passed on to future generations.” These burdens are $30.8 trillion for Social Security and $34.6 trillion for Medicare. To place these figures in context:

• Social Security’s unfunded obligations amount to an additional $180,000 from every person who currently pays Social Security payroll taxes.
• Medicare’s unfunded obligations amount to an additional $133,000 from every U.S. resident aged 15 or older.

The shortfalls above include the federal government paying back with interest all of the money it has borrowed from Social Security and Medicare. Yet, a scientific poll commissioned by Just Facts in 2017 found that 80% of voters believe “Social Security’s financial problems stem from politicians looting the program.” That notion is the exact opposite of the truth, as hard factsprove that:

• The original Social Security Act of 1935 required the program to loan all of its surpluses to the federal government, and this has never changed.
• The federal government is legally bound to pay back all of this money with interest, and it has repeatedly done so throughout the program’s history.
• Since 2010, Social Security has been using interest received from the federal government to cover the shortfalls between its expenses and non-interest income.
• The Social Security Trustees’ best estimate is that all of the borrowed money and interest will be paid back by 2034, or 16 years from now.
• In 16 years, the Social Security program will become insolvent and unable to pay full benefits unless major changes are made, like raising payroll taxes by 29% or cutting benefits by 22%.

Beyond federal employee retirement benefits and Social Security and Medicare shortfalls, the Treasury details other obligations of the federal government, like environmental liabilities and accounts payable. The report also measures federal assets, such as cash, real estate, and corporate stocks. This excludes federal stewardship land and heritage assets, such as national parks and the original copy of the Declaration of Independence. While these items have tangible value, the report explains that the government “does not expect to use these assets to meet its obligations.”

Tallying the Treasury’s data on government assets, debts, liabilities, and obligations yields a fiscal shortfall of $88.9 trillion. Divided evenly across all U.S. households, this amounts to an average of $704,000 per household.

Government Assumptions

The federal government’s financial condition may be significantly worse than the figures above indicate. This is because the Treasury data is based on federal agency assumptions that are uncertain and optimistic. For example:

• A paper in the journal Demography found that the Social Security Administration is using an antiquated method to project life expectancies, and as a result, the program “may be in a considerably more precarious position than officially thought.”
• When the federal government makes student loans, it projects that it will eventually reap a 9% average profit from interest on the loans. However, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that if the federal government accounted for the market risk of these loans, it would show an average loss of 12% on every dollar it lends.
• The Board of Medicare Trustees has stated that the program’s long-term costs may be “substantially higher” than projected under current law. This is because the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) will cut Medicare prices for “many” healthcare services to “less than half of their level” under prior law. The Trustees explain that this may cause “withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market” and “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.” This would pressure lawmakers to raise prices and thus increase the costs of Medicare.

Harmful Effects

The national debt is currently $20.9 trillion, or 106% of the nation’s gross domestic product. This is very high compared to the rest of U.S. history except for at the height of World War II. The national debt, however, is mainly measured on a cash basis, and as such, it does not include most of the obligations detailed above.

These obligations are looming, and this shows in Congressional Budget Office projections of publicly held debt, which is a partial measure of the national debt often cited by federal agencies and media outlets. In 2014, CBO projected that this debt would grow over the next two decades to unprecedented levels unless the government changes its policies. Nearly four years later, the actual outcomes are slightly worse:

As a portion of the nation’s economy, federal taxes and spending rose steeply between 1930 and World War II. Since then, taxes have risen slightly, but spending has risen more.

The vast bulk of current and impending federal debt is due to increased spending on social programs like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and food stamps. Such programs have grown from 21% of all federal spending in 1960 to 63% in 2016. Under current laws and policies, the Congressional Budget Office projects that almost all future growth in spending will be due to these programs and interest on the national debt.

It is often impossible to objectively isolate the effects of a single factor (like the national debt) on an economy. However, a broad range of evidence indicates that excessive government debt can cause far-reaching negative outcomes, such as lower wages, weak economic growth, increased inflation, higher taxes, reduced government benefits, or combinations of such results.

The Government Accountability Office has warned that “the costs of federal borrowing will be borne by tomorrow’s workers and taxpayers,” which “may reduce or slow the growth of the living standards of future generations.” This may have already begun. The national debt has risen dramatically over the past decade, and with this, the U.S. has experienced historically poor growth in gross domestic product, productivity, and household income.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4)  

TRUMP's Rules: 

President Trump is asking everyone to forward this email to a minimum of 20 people, and to ask each of those to do likewise. In three days, most people in the United States will have the message. This is an idea that should be passed around, regardless of political party.

 

The TRUMP Rule's Congressional Reform Act of 2017

 

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman / Woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. And, no more perks go with them.

2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress must purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen / Women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen / Women. Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

 

Serving in Congress is an honor nota career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work not get all kind of freebies.

 

[NO WONDER THEY'RE FIGHTING EVERYTHING HE TRIES]

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++