Quote of the day
I just came across the free-market quote of the day. It's found on p. 1038 of Murray Rothbard's magnum opus, Man Economy, and State. Enjoy:
...which one of us would earn anything like our present real income were it not for external benefits that we derive from the actions of others? Specifically, the great modern accumulation of capital goods is an inheritance from all the net savings of our ancestors ... We are all, therefore, free riders on the past. We are also free riders on the present, because we benefit from the continuing investment of our fellow men and from their specialized skills on the market.
Read moreState worker unemployment rate hits a staggering .21 percent
After months of liberal talking points like "We've cut to the bone" or "shared sacrifice" - with plenty of hyperbole and loud noises thrown in for effect - the crisis is now at hand. The state worker unemployment rate is now .21 percent.
But in one respect, the new budget's effect is slight. Out of the almost 17,000 state employees, only 37 have received layoff notices effective today, the start of the new fiscal year.Crisis! The world is ending, the sky is falling, government must get bigger! How can any segment of people survive an employment rate of .21 percent? Raise taxes now!
State workers have once again largely escaped this recession's cruelest effect - job loss - with a combination of increased retirements, elimination of vacant positions and cuts to pay and benefits.
I hope my sarcasm, above, is as evident as NSHE's hyperbole was during the session.
What's really pathetic about this story is that some lawmakers are claiming to be shocked, shocked that so few layoffs are occurring.
The number, although still preliminary, surprised Republicans, Democrats and labor leaders, who expected a higher total.Why would this - reality exposing liberal and government employee union talking points to be disconnected from the truth - be a surprise to anyone?
It happens every session. The public employee union machine, enabled by war chests of union dues, liberal lawmakers and some members of the media, proclaims the sky is falling at the first sign of cuts - or even reductions to the amount of desired increases. Using inaccurate sob stories, big-government advocates flood committee rooms, while private employers and employees often don't have time to sit through a four-hour meeting to offer three minutes of testimony.
Physically being in Carson City creates a false sense of reality for many politicians. They're surrounded by lobbyists and union workers who want them - THEM - to solve their problems. It's easy to lose sight of the individuals who are struggling, but aren't looking to the government for help. So easy to satisfy the people who are there - lobbyists and government employees - at the expense of the average citizen who's going to pay those taxes, because a politician can forget him.
As a result, you had the Nevada Legislature and Gov. Brian Sandoval raising taxes on private-sector workers facing a 12-plus percent unemployment rate so government employees could only face a .21 percent unemployment rate.
"Shared sacrifice" indeed. Let's hope lawmakers, like Sen. Ben Kieckhefer, who's quoted in the article showing some critical thinking skills, challenge the lies and hyperbole put forward by public employee unions during the next election and the 2013 session.
Notes: I really need a Grantland-like footnote section, because sometimes important notes don't fit into the flow of a blog post.
1. The fundamental issue is: "What is the role of government and what taxpayer resources are needed to accomplish those goals?" If citizens limited government to its core functions and relied on practices like competitive bidding to obtain those outcomes, there would be many layoffs. This would be great for taxpayers - especially since the quality of government services would improve. The point of this post, though, is to show the disconnect between the truth and the exaggerations you often hear from liberals and government union lobbyists.
2. On a personal level, I am extremely sympathetic to anyone who has lost a job - be it a public- or private-sector employee. It stinks to be without a job. Personal sympathy, whether mine or a lawmaker's, though, doesn't justify taking more money from taxpayers to give a public employee a job. What about the employee in the private sector who doesn't get hired, because taxes increased? If the government picks winners, there are always losers.
NPRI's report card: How did your legislators do?
Most Nevada lawmakers receive low marks for 2011 Legislative Session
Just over one-third of Nevada's lawmakers compiled voting records that were generally friendly to Silver State taxpayers during the 2011 Legislative Session, a new report from the Nevada Policy Research Institute finds.
The report, titled The 2011 Nevada Legislative Session: Review & Report Card, also includes a detailed review of the session, documenting the events that culminated in Gov. Brian Sandoval and four Senate Republicans breaking their no-new-tax pledge and agreeing to extend a number of "sunset" taxes in exchange for minor reforms in education and to the Public Employees' Retirement System.
The report's author, Geoffrey Lawrence, deputy director of policy at NPRI, based his analysis on the ranking system that the National Taxpayers Union uses to rate members of Congress. The rankings are based on a scale of zero through 100, with the high end of the scale indicating a greater commitment to keeping taxes low, limiting the growth of government and implementing sound education reforms. Legislators who score above 50 are generally considered allies of economic liberty.
Only 22 of the 63 members of the Legislature earned scores above 50 percent. Sen. Don Gustavson, a Republican, earned the distinction of "taxpayer's best friend" with a score of 89.1 percent, while Assemblywoman Peggy Pierce, a Democrat, had the lowest score at 26.52 percent.
"While it's unfortunate that many legislators disregarded the interests of taxpayers during the session, it's encouraging that the number of taxpayer-friendly legislators grew from 11 in 2009 to 22 in 2011," said Lawrence. "Given Nevada's economic challenges and the negative impact of the record-breaking tax increases passed in 2009, it was good to see Nevada's lawmakers become more concerned about taxpayers' concerns.
"Improvement is not enough, however. Citizens will still be impacted negatively by the significant tax increase approved by lawmakers this year. Many of the reforms 'traded' for taxes are either minor or written so narrowly, as in the case of collective bargaining reforms, that they apply to almost no one. Some of the best reforms lawmakers approved - removing the cap on empowerment schools and performance-based budgeting, for instance - passed on their own merits.
"The 22 legislators who did earn high scores in this analysis ought to be applauded for their commitment to sound fiscal and education policies," added Lawrence. "Nevadans would benefit if the 2013 Legislature as a whole would follow the lead of these 22 individuals."
The full report is available at http://npri.org/docLib/20110627_2011_NV_Review_and_Report_Card.pdf.
Underlying documentation for the rankings of lawmakers is available at http://npri.org/docLib/20110627_2011_Review_and_Report_bill_tracking.xlsx.
NPRI's 2009 Nevada Legislative Session Review & Report Card is available at http://www.npri.org/docLib/20090924_2009LedgeReportCard-Web.pdf.
Government spending v. economic growth
Cato's Steve Hanke has a great article today detailing the impact of federal spending policies on the nation's economic performance (although Rothbard and I would diverge somewhat from his outlook on monetary policy). Hanke demonstrates how the historical evidence confirms that government spending restraint is directly related to economic growth - to the chagrin of Washington's growing population of Keynesian apologists.
Many WriteOnNevada readers, however, might be most interested in the statistics Hanke provides on different presidential administrations' record on fiscal discipline. Hanke examines federal spending as a percentage of GDP and shows how that percentage has changed under each post-war administration. I've reproduced the results below:
1. Clinton -3.9
2. Eisenhower -1.6
3. Nixon -0.9
4. Reagan -0.4
5. Carter 0.3
6. Kennedy/Johnson 0.6
7. H.W. Bush 0.8
8. Nixon/Ford 1.8
9. Johnson 2.0
10. W. Bush 2.5
11. Obama 3.1
From this table, one might conclude that the Clinton Administration presided over the most fiscally conservative period of the post-war era, while the Bush and Obama Administrations have been the most frivolous. Of course, there are a number external factors that affected each administration. The Clinton Administration, for instance, benefitted from the end of the Cold War and the resulting reduction in military spending facilitated by that event, among other factors.
Not coincident to the spending policies enacted by each administration, however, is the record of economic growth. The economy grew rapidly and living standards skyrocketed during the 1990s whereas the record of economic performance under the administrations that oversaw an increase in federal spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been dismal.
Hayek wins again.
Problems with the Legislature come from politicians with power, not the process
In his Sunday column, leftist pundit Jon Ralston calls for full-time legislators who meet every year, because, he argues, "The Legislative Process" inevitably causes poor decision making.
Welcome to The Legislative Process, banned in 49 states but still the longest-running show in Nevada. (Yes, yes - I know other capitals have their own quirks and even abominations. But there's no place like home.) ...While Ralston assigns the blame for the legislators' poor decisions to the process, the problems really stem either from legislators behaving badly or legislators having their hands in areas they shouldn't.
This is a process designed to produce lawmakers of generally low capacity because nothing much is expected of them. And, with some notable exceptions, they generally deliver on those expectations.
So we have a process that pays lawmakers too little so they can be influenced too much ($10,000 biennially with perks), a process that deliberately constrains deliberation (120 days?) and a process that inevitably will produce unintended consequences (again, too many to list).
Let's consider some examples of poor behavior Ralston cites and consider the cause of that behavior.
- The Legislature exempted itself from the open-meetings law: Clearly, this is an example of legislators behaving badly. Paying legislators more and having them meet every year wouldn't solve this problem, it would exacerbate it.
- Too much lobbyist influence: Now, Ralston argues that this results from lobbyists taking advantage of inexperience legislators, so let's consider whether lobbyists have any influence in full-time legislatures, like the U.S. Congress.
OpenSecrets reports that in 2010, 12,998 lobbyists spent $3.5 billion lobbying Congress and federal agencies. Good thing Congress isn't part time, or those numbers would really be out of control.
Lobbyists exist because the people in the state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have enormous power - the power to tax, regulate and make things legal or illegal. Ideally this power would be used to create a low and uniform tax and regulatory burden that would allow government to fulfill its core functions and citizens to pick the winners and losers in the marketplace. Elected officials have greatly expanded the use of governmental power, and the most effective way to affect legislative decisions is through lobbying and campaign contributions.
If you want to limit the influence of lobbyists, limit the power of government.
Establishing a system where legislators are more dependent on their jobs as legislators would only increase their reliance on the lobbyists who could help them get elected or defeat them. - The push for a government-funded, Las Vegas arena during the last few days of session: There was nothing inherent in "The Legislative Process" that made Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford drop this bill, SB501, during the last few days of the session. As you can tell by the bill number, 500 bills in the Senate were introduced before this one. This was a decision by an individual and hardly something you can blame on the process.
A corollary to this example is the Democrats' tax-hike proposal, which they introduced 90 days into the 120-day session. While Ralston praised this proposal, he did bemoan the Democratic leadership's decision to introduce it with only a month left in the session. (NPRI had a dramatically different take on the merits of that proposal.)
But that's the point - introducing it 90 days into the session was a decision. If Nevada had a 180-day session, they still could have chosen to introduce it on day 150. - Lawmakers took unreported junkets to London and accepted foreign campaign cash: The issue here is the amount of power lawmakers have. If you give lawmakers more power (through longer sessions), lobbyists will have more incentive to get access to them.
Liberals have long clamored for ideas similar to the others Ralston suggests: "Pay legislators more and make them full time" and "[m]eet every year."
These aren't just academic questions, either. In the 2012 general election, voters will have a chance to approve or reject AJR5, which would allow the Legislature to call itself into session without the governor's approval and would be the first step toward the Legislature meeting annually.
As demonstrated above, the poor decisions, processes and outcomes in the Nevada Legislature stem from either individual choices or the overreach of governmental authority.
Giving these same flawed politicians more power by expanding the length of the session and making legislators full time would exacerbate, not improve, these problems.
For more on how government oversteps its bounds, encouraged by both businessmen seeking an unearned advantage and those seeking government wealth redistribution, I encourage you to read The Law by Frederic Bastiat, available online and for free here.
Here's just a taste of Bastiat's brilliance.
[French political philosopher Guillaume] Raynal's instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail."
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves! [Emphasis added]
Speaking truth to leftist deniers: American is broke (with fancy charts from Heritage)
American is broke. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's looked at the national debt clock recently, but the unwillingness of some individuals to admit this or, worse, disparage those who point out this fact is shameful.
Consider what liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in the Washington Post:
Just one problem: We're not broke. Yes, nearly all levels of government face fiscal problems because of the economic downturn. But there is no crisis. There are many different paths open to fixing public budgets. And we will come up with wiser and more sustainable solutions if we approach fiscal problems calmly, realizing that we're still a very rich country and that the wealthiest among us are doing exceptionally well.Two points here. First, the statement "[w]e're not broke" really hinges on the definition of broke. Dionne is right that America has enough money pay its bills today (through unsustainable amounts of borrowing), but he's wrong - and being wrong here has serious long-term consequences - if you define broke as not having money to meet your long-term debt obligations.
On an individual basis, imagine a man with no savings making $40,000 year who has $20,000 in student loans, $25,000 in credit card debt and $15,000 in car debt. Is he broke? Maybe not, he might be able to make minimum payments and scrap by without declaring bankruptcy.
Now imagine that same man is making a $600 a month mortgage payment, but he has a balloon payment of $250,000 due in six months. This would be fine if his home was worth the $300,000 he paid for it, but because of the downturn in the market, his home is only worth $100,000. Is that man broke? Yes, yes and yes. And if he was your friend and family member, I hope you'd have to common decency to tell him so, instead of letting him live in denial for just a little while longer and worsen the inevitable crash.
He can (barely) make his payments today, but in the very near future he won't have the money needed to meet his obligations. He's broke.
That man also represents the United States of America.
Second, Dionne's "there is no crisis" line would be like telling the man in the story above that everything will work out if he makes no or minimal changes to his spending patterns. Sorry, America doesn't have that kind of time.
And here's where the charts from the Heritage Foundation's excellent 2011 Budget Chart Book come in. America's national debt is set to skyrocket.
(Click to enlarge)
And what's the main driver of that skyrocketing debt? Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
(Click to enlarge)
And can we tax the rich to get of this mess? Only if you can magically get "the rich" to pay 223 percent of their income in taxes. Good luck with that.
(Click to enlarge)
So why does this matter? Are you following what's happening in Greece right now? Our debt-to-GDP ratio will approach theirs in less than 15 years.
(Click to enlarge)
So what can we do about this crisis, aside from consistantly standing up to sovereign-debt-crisis deniers like Dionne and Michael Moore? Heritage also has an alternative budget plan.
(Click to enlarge)
Heritage's budget plan, Saving the American Dream, is available here. The only other budget plan I'm aware of that would fix America's debt crisis is the one presented by Rep. Paul Ryan, A Roadmap for America's Future.
These charts and the crisis they depict is staggering. America's so broke, the AARP is now open to cutting Social Security benefits.
It's (way past) time to admit America's broke and take steps to fix the problem.
Step 1: Cut spending.
Are you an unemployed teen? Thank the AFL-CIO
Nevada's teenage (16- to-19-year-old) unemployment rate is a staggering 34.5 percent, the second highest in the nation. And while many factors influence economic decisions and statistics like unemployment, Nevada's inflated minimum wage is a substantial factor in teenage unemployment.
In Nevada, one of about a dozen states with a minimum wage higher than the national rate, minimum pay has jumped 60 percent since 2006, from $5.15 to $8.25 for uninsured hourly workers. (For hourly workers with employer-sponsored health insurance, the state's rate equals the national rate.) The minimum-wage gains far outstrip broader pay trends, which have been flat.Increased unemployment isn't just hitting teenagers, it's impacting all lower-skilled workers. Why?
Employers have responded to higher minimum wages in three ways: They've replaced their lowest-skilled workers with technology - consider self-checkout grocery lines - and they're making higher-paid workers do more, such as restaurants asking waiters to bus their own tables. They've also gravitated toward more experienced workers. All of those approaches displace teens, Saltsman said.
Because if you're a lower-skilled or inexperienced worker, often times you aren't worth $8.25 an hour. But if individuals work hard for a year gaining skills and experience, many will end up earning more than $8.25 an hour. The tragedy is that Nevada government - through a constitutional amendment, no less - prohibits employers from hiring 18- and 19-year-olds (under-18 employees are exempt from the state minimum wage) at what they're actually worth, thereby negatively impacting not just their ability to earn summer spending cash, but also their ability to gain valuable experience.
"A job is more than a paycheck. Some people call it an invisible curriculum," said Michael Saltsman, a research fellow at the Employment Policies Institute, a nonprofit research group in Washington, D.C. "It's what you get from learning to report to a manager, working with customers and assuming the responsibilities that come with that first job. Teens who don't have that are taking a step back, and they'll be at a disadvantage relative to their peers who have experience."And why does Nevada have a job-killing minimum wage enshrined in its constitution? Well, Danny Thompson, executive secretary treasurer of the Nevada State AFL-CIO, brags on his bio that "Danny was also the architect of the successful Constitutional Amendment to raise the minimum wage in Nevada."
While some voters also bear responsibility for approving the minimum-wage constitutional amendment in 2004 and 2006, Thompson and the AFL-CIO were the driving force behind the higher minimum wage and the loudest voice opposing Sen. Joe Hardy's SJR2, which would have removed the minimum wage from the constitution.
So if the inflated minimum wage is so important, surely Thompson applied it to all union workers ... right? Nope, Thompson and the AFL-CIO specifically excluded employees working under a collective bargaining agreement.
All of the provisions of this section, or any part hereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. [Emphasis added]So while AFL-CIO lobbyists argue that repealing the minimum wage will take "income away from individuals struggling to put food on their tables," they're totally fine with taking that income away if those individuals are paying union dues.
Hypocrites.
Are you an unemployed teenager? Thank the AFL-CIO.
Letter from San Diego teacher to teachers' union
Sarah Mathy, a young teacher in the San Diego Unified School District recently sent a letter her union president, criticizing the union for throwing highly-effective, but junior teachers under the bus in order to protect less-effective, but more senior teachers. Here's an interesting excerpt from her letter:
Dear Mr. Freeman - In March I was asking you to negotiate with (the district) so that many (all?) of the layoffs could be avoided. I called for things such as extra furlough days and opening the health benefits package negotiation. I wanted our union to get creative about the endless possibilities for solving this problem so that jobs are saved and kids are served.
But so far, all I have received are layoff notices #1 and #2 from (the district), and emails from (the union) calling me to more action and more rallies.
This is not what I want.
And the unspoken but clear message being sent to me from (the union) is that you are a union that wants to prioritize the interests of the senior, not junior, members. That when (the union) is not "winning" the battles with (the district), it will put the junior members out in the name of protecting the senior.
All along, it has seemed like a very logical fix to me to negotiate with (the district) so that the weight of this budget crisis is distributed on the shoulders of all teachers, not just on a few hundred. That is solidarity. That is "together we are stronger." I feel instead like (the union's) hostage and not (the district's), as you mentioned in a recent email blast.
So the questions become: "WHO is (the union) working for?" and "WHAT is (the union) working for?" Unfortunately for my situation, the WHO seems to be the senior members, and the WHAT is status quo for salary and benefits for those who will remain.
That will not work in this current fiscal crisis. You need to negotiate with (the district) and launch a campaign to convince union members that this is the best option.
I don't think you will have as much opposition to a contract renegotiation as you may think. Many of my colleagues unaffected by layoff notices believe in some form of contract modifications so we all can have our jobs.
We work in a dynamic profession with multi-faceted students, and I want my union to mirror that. With some salary or benefit alteration, we can all keep the jobs we love to do, live comfortably and take care of our families, and make sure students get the most of everything. This has to be an AND situation, not an EITHER/OR.
So I trust that with the same confidence and care with which you engaged my concerns in March, that you move (the union) into a new chapter where we can feel more like brothers and sisters, instead of the haves and have-nots.
Sincerely,
Sarah Mathy
Teacher for 6 years at Central Elementary
Mathy's comments are directed at the San Diego teachers' union, but the same observations could be made of virtually any union in the public or private sectors. The primary objective of a union is to pursue above-market wages and this typically means a crowding out of junior employees or new entrants to an industry as more wages are absorbed by senior workers. Murray Rothbard frequently pointed to the role of unions in exacerbating unemployment problems. Mathy is simply giving an insider's voice to the objection that Rothbard and other notable economists have recognized for decades.
Fortunately for Nevadans, recent legislation passed by the state legislature (AB229) requires Nevada school districts to at least consider criteria additional to seniority when making layoff decisions. According to the bill's language, school boards, when considering workforce reductions, "must not base the decision to lay off a teacher or an administrator solely on the seniority of the teacher or administrator and may consider certain other factors." [Emphasis added.]
Certainly, the language highlighted here is not very strong, but it at least begins to move in the right direction by giving an extremely minimal assurance that Nevada's children will have access to effective teachers and not just those who have gone through the motions for a longer period of time.
Hat tip: Education Action Group Foundation.
Liberal columnist Paslov: Give higher-ed subsidies or civilization will end
I know that headline sounds like a joke, but it's not. That's the theme in Eugene Paslov's latest column, titled "The loss of civilization."
Chris Bayer's letter to the governor (Nevada Appeal on May 28) charged the chief executive, "Please stand up for civilization, including funding for the arts, the schools, the libraries and museums. There is no good future, no economic growth, no advancement by individuals, no shared dreams without these things." Mr. Bayer's voice is one to which we should all pay attention. It is the voice of rationality, of reason, of survival.Apparently, Paslov missed the memo from Nevada System of Higher Education Chancellor Dan Klaich that NSHE is trying to cut down on the hyperbole, because this claim is so laughable, it's embarrassing.
One can imagine there was such a voice among Loren Eiseley's ancient humanoids [referencing an anecdote earlier in the piece] - a voice that spoke out to preserve its teachers and artists. But that voice was silenced by a dull, arching club, destroying forever a piece of civilizations' future.
A discouraging incident occurred recently in Carson City. A 34-year experienced professor, who created and operates one of the most successful musical theater programs in the nation, was told that her contract would end in 2012. Stephanie Arrigotti is an exceptional artist. She is an extraordinary teacher. Her program is an economic driver for the community. Imagine, if you will, the vacant, dull eyes of those who are only concerned about cutting budgets, mindlessly swinging a symbolic club to crush the artistic life out of our community. This decision must be reconsidered. ...
Our future is at risk. Let's not symbolically "club to death" our teachers and artists, our voice for a civilized community.
While the subsidy NSHE gets from the state did get reduced in the recent budget agreement, total spending on NSHE is going back to the level it had in the pre-historic days of ... 2008. Or, if you're just comparing the state subsidy, you end up in the land-before-time days of ... 2003.
I remember those days. We didn't have the iPhone 4, the Cosmopolitan hotel, flying cars or anything.
I can't go back. Please, no ... save civilization. How did we ever have the Declaration of Independence, aqueducts or Shakespeare without Nevada's higher-education subsidizes?
The real sham here is Paslov's form of argumentation. If you don't agree with him on the amount of higher-education subsidies, you aren't a thoughtful person with a respectful disagreement. No, you're a barbaric, club-wielding zombie - with " vacant, dull eyes" - trying to "symbolically 'club to death'" teachers and artists.
You can't debate someone like Paslov, because his argument isn't about debate. It's about demonizing his opponents - fiscal conservatives - with accusations so ridiculous that even intellectually honest leftists should be embarrassed.
Lest you think I'm being too harsh, Paslov isn't just a random citizen. Along with being a regular columnist, he's also a former Nevada state superintendent of schools. Indirectly, this does help explain exactly how Nevada tripled its inflation-adjusted, per-pupil spending over the past 50 years, while still getting the same results.
And if you don't agree with me, you must be a club-wielding barbarian who wants civilization to end.
U.S. is in even worse shape financially than Greece
Headline from CNBC.
When adding in all of the money owed to cover future liabilities in entitlement programs the US is actually in worse financial shape than Greece and other debt-laden European countries, Pimco's Bill Gross told CNBC Monday.Pimco, by the way, runs the world's largest bond fund. As Gross said later in the article, "We've got a problem and we have to get after it quickly."
Much of the public focus is on the nation's public debt, which is $14.3 trillion. But that doesn't include money guaranteed for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, which comes to close to $50 trillion, according to government figures.
The government also is on the hook for other debts such as the programs related to the bailout of the financial system following the crisis of 2008 and 2009, government figures show.
Taken together, Gross puts the total at "nearly $100 trillion," that while perhaps a bit on the high side, places the country in a highly unenviable fiscal position that he said won't find a solution overnight.
The U.S.'s debt, from overspending and future unfunded liabilities in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, is a crisis, and perhaps the biggest crisis is how many in the public aren't unaware that the U.S.'s level of spending isn't sustainable.
If you think you can help the public understand the sovereign debt crisis, check out this contest sponsored by the Powerline blog. The person who can most effectively and creatively dramatize the significance of the federal debt crisis will win $100,000. Full details here.
And hurry, the situation's not getting any better.
