PRESS BOX
U.S. BUDGET DEFICIT TO RISE TO $407 BILLION
Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Sept. 16, 2008 - On Sept. 30, the federal government will end its fiscal year with a deficit -- the excess of
spending over revenues -- of a near-record $407 billion. The all-time record was $413 billion in 2004.
This year's deficit is double last year's and the news only gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office
projects the deficit for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 at $438 billion but the head of the CBO says the
deficit will likely be over $500 billion, perhaps as high as $540 billion. It certainly will reach that if
Congress goes ahead with a second stimulus package and its annual pullback of the Alternative Minimum
Tax.
The Congressional Budget Office attributes the growing deficit to "a substantial increase in spending and a
halt in the growth of tax revenues." This year's deficit will be added to the country's total debt, which is
now at $53 trillion and growing.
The worsening deficit is largely due to continuing weakness in the economy, high energy and food prices,
and the slump in the housing and financial markets, the Congressional Budget Office said. And the
economy could still slide into a recession, according to the forecast.
"The economy is likely to experience at least several more months of very slow growth," the new report
said. "Whether this period will ultimately be designated a recession or not is still uncertain, but the increase
in the unemployment rate and the pace of economic growth are similar to conditions during previous
periods of mild recession."
These deficits are financed by borrowing from anybody who will lend us money, including -- maybe even
especially -- foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds.
This issue should be front and center for Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama because
those deficits are the black hole down which their campaign promises could disappear. And those
promises are generous.
McCain proposes broad tax cuts -- making the 2001 tax cuts permanent, abolishing the AMT, cutting
corporate taxes and raising the dependent child deduction. Obama is slightly more selective but he would
keep the tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 and eliminate the income tax for many seniors.
In health care, Obama is the more expansive, promising universal health care coverage and subsidies to
lower out-of-pocket medical costs. McCain would offer a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health
insurance. Both would increase military spending.
On the spending side, McCain would eliminate all earmarks, freeze discretionary spending -- that is,
funding for most of the government -- for a year and end wasteful spending. Obama would save money by
ending the Iraq war and he too would cut earmarks and wasteful spending. It's not enough.
The nonpartisan eyeshades at the Committee for a Responsible Budget totaled up the spending, tax cuts
and savings in the two candidates' platforms and added them to the the Congressional Budget Office's
optimistic projection of a $147 billion deficit in 2013.
Obama would increase that year's deficit by $286 billion to $413 billion and McCain by between $167
billion and $259 billion to a total deficit of between $314 billion and $406 billion.
Maybe the two campaigns could drop for a moment the topic of Sarah Palin to answer a simple question:
How can we afford all this? Who's going to pay for it?
Hint: The central bank of China is the wrong answer.
BLANKET SURVEILLANCE AN EXTREME INTRUSION
Brownsville Herald
Sept 16, 2008 - Even as many members of the public voice valid concerns over federal spying on U.S.
citizens' phone calls, bank transactions and even library book rentals, local governments are opening us up
to scrutiny even more. Many cities, including some in the Rio Grande Valley, already have cameras at
intersections to catch red-light runners and other crimes. Some are going beyond these steps by installing
surveillance cameras in other parts of town. Brownsville already has committed nearly a quarter of a
million dollars to plant 61 surveillance cameras at the new Sports Park, and McAllen is placing 120
cameras throughout the city.
The justification of course is security. And while the Supreme Court has ruled that people can't reasonably
expect privacy in public places or streets, valid concerns have been raised. U.S. District Judge Charles S.
Haight Jr. of New York last year ruled that surveillance video of public gatherings without any prior
indication that a crime might occur was an intrusion on people's First Amendment right to assemble. That
argument could be made at the Brownsville Sports Park.
The 5th Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Texas, ruled in 1987 that constant surveillance has a
"chilling effect" on First Amendment rights. "(T)his type of surveillance provokes an immediate negative
visceral reaction: indiscriminate video surveillance raises the specter of the Orwellian state."
Jim Harper, director of information policy for the libertarian Cato Institute, also questions the effectiveness
of such surveillance. "There would be some benefit in terms of forensics, but there's no good argument
that cameras will stop crime," he said. "It doesn't prevent crime from occurring, it merely shifts crime to
other areas. Bad guys tend to figure out where these cameras are; they quickly learn that they can just go
somewhere else."
He also noted that monitoring video images can raise complacency. We've seen it happen on international
bridges and airports, where after hours of watching people with no incident, inspectors grow less alert.
"Sooner or later the guy watching the monitors is going to end up reading a magazine," Harper said.
Also worth noting is that blanket surveillance provides records people might not consider. For example, a
community leader's discreet visits to a psychiatrist's office would now be recorded on public video
records. The possibility for misuse or abuse is obvious.
It also sends the wrong message, as Harper makes clear. "There are stalking laws; you can't follow
people around," he noted. "What does it say when the very people who enforce those laws are tracking
your movements all over the city?"
These kinds of cameras also tend to be placed more heavily in low-income areas, often euphemistically
called high-crime areas. "Relations between those residents and police are already not good. What kind of
signal does that send?" Harper asked, adding that the best deterrent for crime is good old-fashioned
community involvement, where cops on the beat build relationships and gain the trust of residents, who in
turn are more apt to call if they see any improper or suspicious activity.
Arguments to support blanket surveillance in our communities are obvious, and inviting. We hope officials
recognize that there are many concerns and reasons why they should think twice about turning the spyglass
on their constituents.
Corpus Christi Caller-Times
Sept. 16, 2008 - On Sept. 30, the federal government will end its fiscal year with a deficit -- the excess of
spending over revenues -- of a near-record $407 billion. The all-time record was $413 billion in 2004.
This year's deficit is double last year's and the news only gets worse. The Congressional Budget Office
projects the deficit for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 at $438 billion but the head of the CBO says the
deficit will likely be over $500 billion, perhaps as high as $540 billion. It certainly will reach that if
Congress goes ahead with a second stimulus package and its annual pullback of the Alternative Minimum
Tax.
The Congressional Budget Office attributes the growing deficit to "a substantial increase in spending and a
halt in the growth of tax revenues." This year's deficit will be added to the country's total debt, which is
now at $53 trillion and growing.
The worsening deficit is largely due to continuing weakness in the economy, high energy and food prices,
and the slump in the housing and financial markets, the Congressional Budget Office said. And the
economy could still slide into a recession, according to the forecast.
"The economy is likely to experience at least several more months of very slow growth," the new report
said. "Whether this period will ultimately be designated a recession or not is still uncertain, but the increase
in the unemployment rate and the pace of economic growth are similar to conditions during previous
periods of mild recession."
These deficits are financed by borrowing from anybody who will lend us money, including -- maybe even
especially -- foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds.
This issue should be front and center for Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama because
those deficits are the black hole down which their campaign promises could disappear. And those
promises are generous.
McCain proposes broad tax cuts -- making the 2001 tax cuts permanent, abolishing the AMT, cutting
corporate taxes and raising the dependent child deduction. Obama is slightly more selective but he would
keep the tax cuts for those earning less than $250,000 and eliminate the income tax for many seniors.
In health care, Obama is the more expansive, promising universal health care coverage and subsidies to
lower out-of-pocket medical costs. McCain would offer a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health
insurance. Both would increase military spending.
On the spending side, McCain would eliminate all earmarks, freeze discretionary spending -- that is,
funding for most of the government -- for a year and end wasteful spending. Obama would save money by
ending the Iraq war and he too would cut earmarks and wasteful spending. It's not enough.
The nonpartisan eyeshades at the Committee for a Responsible Budget totaled up the spending, tax cuts
and savings in the two candidates' platforms and added them to the the Congressional Budget Office's
optimistic projection of a $147 billion deficit in 2013.
Obama would increase that year's deficit by $286 billion to $413 billion and McCain by between $167
billion and $259 billion to a total deficit of between $314 billion and $406 billion.
Maybe the two campaigns could drop for a moment the topic of Sarah Palin to answer a simple question:
How can we afford all this? Who's going to pay for it?
Hint: The central bank of China is the wrong answer.
BLANKET SURVEILLANCE AN EXTREME INTRUSION
Brownsville Herald
Sept 16, 2008 - Even as many members of the public voice valid concerns over federal spying on U.S.
citizens' phone calls, bank transactions and even library book rentals, local governments are opening us up
to scrutiny even more. Many cities, including some in the Rio Grande Valley, already have cameras at
intersections to catch red-light runners and other crimes. Some are going beyond these steps by installing
surveillance cameras in other parts of town. Brownsville already has committed nearly a quarter of a
million dollars to plant 61 surveillance cameras at the new Sports Park, and McAllen is placing 120
cameras throughout the city.
The justification of course is security. And while the Supreme Court has ruled that people can't reasonably
expect privacy in public places or streets, valid concerns have been raised. U.S. District Judge Charles S.
Haight Jr. of New York last year ruled that surveillance video of public gatherings without any prior
indication that a crime might occur was an intrusion on people's First Amendment right to assemble. That
argument could be made at the Brownsville Sports Park.
The 5th Circuit Court, which has jurisdiction over Texas, ruled in 1987 that constant surveillance has a
"chilling effect" on First Amendment rights. "(T)his type of surveillance provokes an immediate negative
visceral reaction: indiscriminate video surveillance raises the specter of the Orwellian state."
Jim Harper, director of information policy for the libertarian Cato Institute, also questions the effectiveness
of such surveillance. "There would be some benefit in terms of forensics, but there's no good argument
that cameras will stop crime," he said. "It doesn't prevent crime from occurring, it merely shifts crime to
other areas. Bad guys tend to figure out where these cameras are; they quickly learn that they can just go
somewhere else."
He also noted that monitoring video images can raise complacency. We've seen it happen on international
bridges and airports, where after hours of watching people with no incident, inspectors grow less alert.
"Sooner or later the guy watching the monitors is going to end up reading a magazine," Harper said.
Also worth noting is that blanket surveillance provides records people might not consider. For example, a
community leader's discreet visits to a psychiatrist's office would now be recorded on public video
records. The possibility for misuse or abuse is obvious.
It also sends the wrong message, as Harper makes clear. "There are stalking laws; you can't follow
people around," he noted. "What does it say when the very people who enforce those laws are tracking
your movements all over the city?"
These kinds of cameras also tend to be placed more heavily in low-income areas, often euphemistically
called high-crime areas. "Relations between those residents and police are already not good. What kind of
signal does that send?" Harper asked, adding that the best deterrent for crime is good old-fashioned
community involvement, where cops on the beat build relationships and gain the trust of residents, who in
turn are more apt to call if they see any improper or suspicious activity.
Arguments to support blanket surveillance in our communities are obvious, and inviting. We hope officials
recognize that there are many concerns and reasons why they should think twice about turning the spyglass
on their constituents.