“It’s been a year since Republicans assumed control in the House in the wake of the 2010 elections, which were powered by Tea Party concerns about massive federal spending and deficits.”

He does this by comparing “the new CBO budget projections to CBO’s January 2011 projections,” as reflected in the following chart.

Here’s Chris’ explanation:

“The chart shows federal spending of $3.6 trillion this year and CBO’s projections for 2021 from last year and this year. Last year, 2021 spending was expected to be $5.726 trillion, but this year 2021 spending is expected to be $5.205 trillion. Thus, Congress will apparently be “saving” $521 billion in 2021 compared to what it had planned to spend, although spending is still expected to rise 45 percent over the next nine years.

“Of the $521 billion in “savings,” about $317 billion stems from the “cuts” under the budget caps put in place last year plus savings from the upcoming sequester. (The planned sequester results from the failure of the supercommittee). The sequester is supposed to trim entitlement spending a tiny amount and move the budget caps down a little lower. But, as we’ve discussed on Downsizing Government many times, budget caps aren’t real cuts; they are only promises that Congress will restrain spending in the future. “Real” cuts are full terminations of programs or permanent reductions in legislated entitlement benefits. So far, we haven’t seen any substantial real cuts. (Emphasis added)

“The other $204 billion of the $521 billion in savings projected for 2021 result from a sharp reduction in CBO’s projection of federal interest costs. Last year, CBO projected that short-term Treasury rates would rise from about zero percent today to 4.4 percent by the end of the decade, while long-term rates would rise to 5.4 percent. CBO’s new projections show short-term rates rising to 3.8 percent and long-term rates to 5.0 percent. Last year, the short-term rate in 2015 was expected to be 3.9 percent, but this year CBO says it will be just 1.3 percent. These changed interest rate assumptions result in more than $1 trillion of new “savings” over the coming decade.”

Edwards ends the blog post by noting:

“The upshot is that Tea Party Republicans and other fiscal conservatives have a long, long way to go to get spending under control. Budget caps and sequesters are a step forward, but it’s time for Republicans to step up their game and start focusing on eliminating programs and agencies.”

Exactly. Thanks, Mr. Edwards! If this concerns you, call your Members of Congress. For Arlington, and other Virginians, here are their phone numbers and links for e-mailing:

• Senator Jim Webb (D) -- write to him or call (202) 224-4024

• Senator Mark Warner (D) -  write to him or call (202) 224-2023

• Representative Jim Moran (D) -- write to him or call (202) 225-4376.

She goes on to quote from the Deseret News:

“Inside the U.N., another group of civil society leaders demanded a basic level of social security as they promoted a “social protection floor” at a preparatory forum for the Commission on Social Development, which began Feb. 1.

“The focus of the forum was “universal access to basic social protection and social services.”

“No one should live below a certain income level,” stated Milos Koterec, President of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. “Everyone should be able to access at least basic health services, primary education, housing, water, sanitation and other essential services.”

“The money to fund these services may come from a new world tax.

“We will need a modest but long-term way to finance this transformation,” stated Jens Wandel, Deputy Director of the United Nations Development Program. “One idea which we could consider is a minimal financial transaction tax (of .005 percent). This will create $40 billion in revenue.”

Korbe concludes by saying:

"Thankfully, the United Nations doesn’t really have the authority to institute this type of tax without the agreement of its member nations, but these sorts of schemes that blatantly favor central planning over grass-roots development initiatives that are more effective anyway make me wonder: What does the United States gain by its membership in the United Nations? Consider: In 2010, the United States gave $7.7 billion to the United Nations system — and for what return? Wouldn’t that money have been better spent on more concentrated international development efforts? The United Nations — an unaccountable bureaucracy — repeatedly proves itself corrupt and inefficient, yet leaders of the most respectable nations in the world continue to pay court to despots and dictators at U.N. headquarters. Why?"

Kudos to Tina Korbe for writing about the efforts of U.N. officials to plunder ever more taxes. We’ve growled about this before, including July 4, 2006, July 6, 2007, December 13, 2009, and August 14, 2010.

UPDATE (2/4/12): Rick Moran takes note of the United Nations' efforts to provide a world tax, commenting at American Thinker today:

"It certainly is a novel approach; condemning capitalism and then taxing it to fund planetary social welfare schemes. It does no good to point out the idiocy of such plans; the UN bureaucrats are oblivious. They are also immune to charges of hypocrisy since they actually believe that money grows on trees and that countries like America are hogging all the wealth.

"All those poor countries in Africa and Asia? Perhaps the UN should talk to them first about cutting their military budgets. They spend far more per capita on defense than we do.

"Then maybe we wouldn't need a "global tax" to transfer wealth to nations that don't need it - or where the cash would only end up in some kleptocrat's Swiss bank account."

“Farmers and congressmen from farm states continue to slam proposed U.S. Department of Labor farm regulations, which would bar farm children under 16 from operating tractors and other machinery and working with livestock.

“This is what happens when big city bureaucrats try to craft policies for rural America,” Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) said of the proposals.

"Rehberg, who has become of the proposal’s most ardent opponents, criticized the Labor Department for drafting regulations that he says are unnecessary.

“(The) most effective way to become a safe and effective operator of farm implements is to learn at a young age under the guidance of a knowledgeable and careful instructor,” he said.

“Farm groups like the South Dakota Farmers Union have also joined in the protest.”

Sheesh! Just what this country needs is more bureaucratic statists? Not!

"The average assessed value of County Board members’ homes rose 2.5 percent from 2011 to 2012, according to new figures.

"The average value of the four members’ homes rose from $811,975 to $832,150, but in each case remained well below the peak assessment set at the end of the real estate boom in the late 2000s.

"Like all residential and commercial parcels in Virginia, assessments of County Board members’ properties are public information.

"The average increase in their assessment was slightly higher than the county average for residential property, which rose 1.8 percent from 2011 to 2012."

McCaffrey continues by reporting the neighborhood and value -- both 2011 and 2012 -- of each Board member's home. Although the information is public, we won't report it, but readers can access the story for the information.

H.R. 3784, the Gas Price Spike Act of 2012, would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a windfall profit tax on oil and natural gas,” which is the profit on sales that “exceeds a reasonable profit” as determined by a three-member independent Reasonable Profits Board. Here’s how CCAGW justified their decision:

“If passed, the bill would create taxes of 50 percent on profits 100 to 102 percent above a “reasonable” amount, taxes of 75 percent for profits between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and a 100 percent tax on anything above 105 percent.  According to Kucinich, the new revenue would be used on “forward-thinking transportation alternatives.”

“This bill represents populist demagoguery in its lowest form,” said CCAGW President Tom Schatz.  “Gas prices, like all others, are determined by supply and demand.  The idea that they can be lowered by imposing exorbitant, arbitrary taxes on the companies that provide consumers with gasoline and natural gas reveals an unflattering degree of economic ignorance among these members.  The predictable result, which has already been observed in states that have experimented with price ceilings on gasoline, will be shortages and a dramatically more inconvenient gas-buying experience.

“It is not the business of government to determine which industries may or may not benefit from increased demand for their products,” added Schatz.  “Nor is it possible to define ‘reasonable’ profits in any objective manner.  The notion that such a threshold should be decided by the political class is frightening, to say the least, and a plan to lower the price of valuable products by reducing firms’ incentives to produce those products is about as likely to be effective as pixie dust or séances.  Consumers decide which firms to patronize, and consumers determine businesses’ fates.  Political meddling with that system leads to disasters like Solyndra.”

Kudos to the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW). By the way, CCAGW is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste.

Express your outrage. Call Rep. Kucinich’s office on Capitol Hill at (202) 225-5871. Other contact information for Rep. Kucinich is available at his website here.

~ Mark R. Levin, page 82, "Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America"

Now comes Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), a tin ear politician. According to Josiah Ryan, writing at Floor Action Blog of the Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill, on Wednesday, January 25, 2012 (but significantly updated on Thursday, January 26, 2012):

“Twenty thousand jobs is really not that many jobs, and investing in green technologies will produce that and more,” she said on Chicago’s WLS Radio Don Wade and Roma Show on Wednesday morning. “But I’ll tell you what, you know it seems to me that the Republicans would rather have an issue than a pipeline.”

“Schakowsky contacted The Hill on Thursday to clarify that she supports job creation but thinks it ought to be done on a larger scale.

"We need to be talking about millions of jobs and that’s what the American Job Act does," she said, speaking of the latest iteration of President Obama's job plan, presented at the State of the Union on Tuesday. "[W]e have to be thinking big."

By the way, Rep. Schakowsky is not some backbench member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Rather, as Joel Pollak points out at Big Government, she “is Chief Deputy Whip of the House Democrats–a core leader of her party in Congress, not just a marginal representative.”

There hasn’t been a great deal of mainstream media news about the comments that Ms. Schakowsky’s made on the Don Wade and Roma WLS radio show, but for Rep. Schakowsky to contact The Hill the following day suggests that her Capitol Hill office received a large number of critical phone calls. Ethel Fenig has more at American Thinker on Thursday.

You can listen to Wade and Roma interviewing Rep. Schakowsky here at WLS 890 radio, here at Moonbattery, or here at Real Clear Politics.

If you wish to comment directly to Rep. Schakowsky’s office, her Capitol Hill phone number is (202) 225-2111. Her district’s constituents can e-mail her using her webform.

TIGTA also analyzed the extent to which tax returns were “self-prepared manually” or used “tax preparation software.”

Here’s why TIGTA performed the analysis, according to the detailed objective, scope and methodology of the report:

“We conducted this analysis in response to House Conference Report 112-331, which accompanied H.R. 2055, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012, to determine the extent that IRS employees hire tax return preparers or use electronic tax preparation software and how their use of these services compared to that of the taxpaying public.”

Need further evidence why the nation should adopt a flat tax or the FairTax?

~ Mark Steyn

Source:His column for Investor's Business Daily

“County economic-development officials appear to have abandoned their effort to win back taxing authority to fund tourism promotion in Arlington.

“No bills have been introduced this legislative session to return to Arlington officials the ability to levy a 0.25-percent surtax on hotel stays, with the funds (about $1 million a year) supporting efforts at targeting both business and leisure travelers.

“Arlington had levied the tax for decades, but the General Assembly last year stripped the taxing authority away, after Republicans and some Democrats were infuriated by the County Board’s lawsuit against state and federal officials over high-occupancy-toll (HOT lanes) on I-395 and I-95.

“County Board members seemed disinterested in pursuing the matter in this year’s General Assembly session, and efforts by county staff to convince the hotel community to financially support a lobbying effort in support of the tax hit a dead end."

Looks like the poohbahs on the County Board will have to decide this year just how much they really need those tourism bureaucrats. Or will the Arlington County Board finally admit they were just throwing away all those millions of dollars for all those years?

Here is how the newspaper reported the latest news:

“County Board Chairman Mary Hynes on Jan. 21 said the county government had made a final offer to the owner of the building, and expected to hear back in the “next few days.” When queried a few days later, both sides declined to shed light on the status of negotiations.

“Brookfield has no comment at this time,” said Andrew Willis, senior vice president of communications and media for Canada-based Brookfield Asset Management, which owns the building at 2020 14th Street North that county officials covet.

“County officials have made a number of offers to the building’s owner, but have so far been rebuffed. Officials have taken the highly unusual step of publicly threatening to use their power of eminent domain to acquire the building, whose value was pegged by an appraiser at $25 million.

“Mary Curtius, a spokesman for the county government, also declined to comment on the status of negotiations.”

The newspaper’s Scott McCaffrey closed by saying:

“County officials may be playing a game of beat the clock, as the General Assembly is likely to send to voters a constitutional amendment that, if approved, would make it more complicated and potentially much more expensive for local governments to use their powers of eminent domain to acquire property. If approved by the legislature, that measure would go to state voters in November.”

What a way to run a local government!

In their press release announcing the February 2012 Porker of the Month, CAGW’s says that “in commemoration/lamentation of the 1,000th day since the United States Senate Budget Committee last performed its most significant task, which is to pass a budget resolution, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) named Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) its January Porker of the Month.” The last time the Senate approved a budget was April 29, 2009. The House has voted in favor of two budget resolutions during the past two years.” CAGW then goes on to explain why they named Senator Conrad its February 2012 Porker of the Month: (emphasis added)

“Today marks an important milestone in fiscal ineptitude and mindless brinksmanship,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.  “When the Senate last passed a budget, the national debt was an already appalling $11.15 trillion. In 2011, House Republicans drafted and passed a budget plan that would dramatically reduce America’s deficit and debt. The only Senate actions on budget resolutions last year were to vote 97-0 against President Obama’s fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget and 40-57 against House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (D-Wis.) Roadmap for America’s Future.

“Since April 2009, the budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion for three straight years, and the national debt has climbed by more than $4 trillion to $15.27 trillion,” added Schatz. “Chairman Conrad’s bewildering reputation as a budget hawk makes his legislative catatonia all the more frustrating.”

“The lack of activity by Chairman Conrad has not gone unnoticed. In June 2011, Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) introduced the “Just Do Your Job” Act, which would prohibit further transfer of funds to the House or Senate Budget Committees and the corresponding Office of the Majority Leader if that body of Congress failed to approve a budget resolution for FY 2012. As Rep. Buerkle pointed out at the time, “Even the Libyan government, in the middle of a civil war, passed a budget on June 15, 2011.”

“However, Chairman Conrad and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have made it clear that their decision to not enact a budget resolution is conscious, unified, and partisan. In a May 23, 2011 article in The Washington Examiner, Majority Leader Reid said, “There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion. It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.” The Examiner article also noted Chairman Conrad’s intent to “defer” work on the fiscal year (FY) 2012 budget indefinitely.

“Consequently, for being the Kim Kardashian of the Senate budget entourage and cashing a hefty paycheck for doing nothing in the last 1,000 days, CAGW names Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad its January 2011 Porker of the Month.”

Express your outrage. Call Senator Conrad on Capitol Hill at (202) 224-2043, or you can send him an e-mail.

“As President Barack Obama prepares for his State of the Union address in Congress, where he will no doubt claim credit for signs of economic recovery, new analyses by economists suggest that growth will slow and unemployment will remain virtually unchanged by year’s end.”

Pollak links to a USA Today story today that says:

“The U.S. economy's growth will slow this year after a blast of stronger growth in late 2011, leaving the 8.5% unemployment rate about where it is now on Election Day, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of economists.

“The economy will grow at an 2.2% annual rate the first half of 2012 after an estimated 3.1% gain in fourth-quarter gross domestic product, according to the median forecast of the 48 economists surveyed. The government reports on fourth-quarter GDP Friday.

“The biggest reason for slower growth is that a late-2011 bounce back from the effects of the Japanese earthquake last March won't last, according to Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial. Slower growth will help keep unemployment at 8.4% or higher through year's end, economists predict.”

The USA Today article cites several good pieces of news, e.g., the decreasing risk of a U.S. recession. On the other hand, USA Today presents such bad news as employment not returning “to what’s considered a healthy level until 2014 or later.” The newspaper added the following piece in their “not-so-good” category:

“Job growth will slow to a monthly pace of 144,000 new jobs early this year, after an estimated rise of 165,000 a month in the fourth quarter, the panel predicted. In fact, the economy produced an average of 137,000 new jobs a month in the fourth quarter, driven by December's better-than-expected gain of 200,000 new jobs.”

Great news considering that taxes are expected to rise in 2012 not to mention the taxes that will be implemented as ObamaCare goes into effect. Not!

Reference. The non-member summary of the National Association for Business Economics survey is here. Only NABE members can read the full survey.

“uncovered an ugly little secret that has always lurked beneath the surface of environmentalism. Its basic appeal is to the affluent. Despite all the professions of being "liberal" and "against big business," environmentalism's main appeal is that it promises to slow the progress of industrial progress. People who are already comfortable with the present state of affairs -- who are established in the environment, so to speak -- are happy to go along with this. It is not that they have any greater insight into the mysteries and workings of nature. They are happier with the way things are. In fact, environmentalism works to their advantage. The main danger to the affluent is not that they will be denied from improving their estate but that too many other people will achieve what they already have. As the Forest Service used to say, the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist. The person who wants to build one this year is a developer.”

Tucker explains further that “(E)nvironmentalism has spent thtree decades trying to hide this simple truth . . .It has spent decades trying to pretend it has common cause with the working people. With the defeat of the Keystone Pipeline, this is no longer possible. Too many blue-collar and middle-class jobs have been sacrificed on the altar of carbon emissions and global warming.”

How did Tucker determine the connection of environmentalism and the leisure class? He explains it this way, and includes a Thorstein Veblen quote:

“What finally focused my attention on the aristocratic roots of environmentalism, however, was a chapter in Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class. Although the book is justly famous for coining "conspicuous consumption" and "conspicuous waste," there is a lesser-known chapter entitled "Industrial Exemption" that perfectly describes the environmental zeitgeist. Veblen posed the question, why is it that people who are the greatest beneficiaries of industrial society are often the most passionate in condemning it? He provided a simple answer. People in the leisure class have become so accustomed affluence as the natural state of things that they no longer feel compelled to embrace any further industrial progress:

“The leisure class is in great measure sheltered from the stress of those economic exigencies which prevail in any modern, highly organized industrial community.… [A]s a consequence of this privileged position we should expect to find it one of the least responsive of the classes of society to the demands which the situation makes for a further growth of institutions and a readjustment to an altered industrial situation. The leisure class is the conservative class.”

Before the enviros run off yelling that your conservative scribe doesn't care a twit about the environment, Tucker makes this important point:

“It is not that the average person is not concerned about the environment. Everyone weighs the balance of economic gain against a respect for nature. It is only the truly affluent, however, who can be concerned about the environment to the exclusion of everything else. Most people see the benefits of pipelines and power plants and admit they have to be built somewhere. Only in the highest echelons do we hear people say, "We don't need to build any pipelines. We've already got enough energy. We can all sit around awaiting the day we live off wind and sunshine."

A great analysis, Mr. Tucker!

UPDATE (1/21/12): John Hinderaker blogs at Power Line takes note of an "open rift that has now developed between the laborers' union and the environmental movement, writes:

"It is hard to understand how any union can explain to its members why it supports Obama’s job-destroying energy policies, but it is has been a long time since many union leaders have taken their members’ interests seriously."

Although the overall single-family assessment was up 1.8%, that number depends on where you live in Arlington County. In the far west corner (area 1 on this map of Arlington County trend areas), assessments were up 3.6%. In the north (area 3, which is east of North Glebe Road and north and west of I-66), the average assessment increased 1.0%. In south Arlington, the average assessment in area 11 (east of I-395 and north of South Glebe Road) dropped 1.0%.

The press release adds that “46% of residential owners will see no change in their assessment; 22% will see declines of varying amounts. Of the 32% with increased values, the amount also will vary.”

You can look-up your property assessment here. Assessments are due to be mailed on January 20, 2012.

The press release provided this additional information about real estate assessments:

“Real estate assessments are appraisals -- the County's opinions of value for each parcel of real property in Arlington. Assessments are made according to accepted methods, techniques, and standards of the real estate appraisal and assessment profession. The 2012 assessment is an estimate of the fair market value as of January 1, 2012.

“Residential assessments were based primarily on neighborhood sales occurring July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. The real estate tax rate determines the amount of tax that is levied on the property. A uniform tax rate for all real property is set by the Arlington County Board; state code requires the County Board to use a uniform tax rate. In addition, Arlington levies additional taxes on commercial and industrial properties dedicated to transportation investments, as well as taxes for business improvement and sanitary sewer needs.

“For more information, visit the County website.”

The Arlington Sun Gazette has stories on the commercial sector fueling assessments and on the mail-out of updated property assessments. The ARLnow.com online news outlet also reports on the updated assessments.

If you disagree with your 2012 property assessment, you may do so between January 20 and March 1, 2012. Procedures are available at the above county website.

Finally, it looks as if the Arlington County Board gets about a 3% windfall profit from the 2012 assessments. How, Assuming inflation is less than or equal to 3%, the Board gets to spend several million dollars (equal to about 3% of total real estate taxes) without having to raise the real estate tax rate. (Paragraph added 1/21/12).