National Debt Report October 2008

Per www.treasurydirect.gov, the newest National Debt statistics are in.

As of November 6, 2008:

Publicly held:
$6,358,998,910,837.97

Intragovernmental holdings:
$4,265,731,316,960.28

Total:
$10,624,730,227,798.25

Interest Payment October 2008:
$18,984,305,636.29

Interest Payments Fiscal Year to Date:
$18,984,305,636.29

Gifts to reduce the public debt September 2008:
$42,512.35

Gifts to reduce the public debt FY 2008:
$2,189,358.89

Gifts to reduce the public debt FY 2007:
$2,624,862.42

Cross posted at http://nationaldebtbusters.blogspot.com

History made Sept. 30 as National Debt hits $10 Trillion

History was made on Tuesday Sept. 30, 2008, the last day of Fiscal Year 2008 for U.S. Government accounting purposes, as the National Debt crept up over $10 Trillion for the first time ever. There was no fanfare, no balloons, no real mention of it in the newspapers. This was an important milestone in American history and it went by as an average day.

On Sept. 30th, the total debt amounted to $10,024,724,896,912.49

A Letter to My Congresswoman

Written on Oct. 2, 2008 at 10:14 p.m.

Dear Congresswoman McCollum:

I find it amazing that you have already voted to increase our National Debt by $700 Billion, and the fact that you are even considering supporting an even bigger bill of $810 Billion is completely unthinkable.

It's bad enough that we pay nearly $500 Billion each year on the interest on our National Debt but you want to raise that to $600 Billion. How much Federal Spending is enough? I highly encourage you to vote NO on the Wall Street bailout package. It's time we have some financial responsibility back in Washington and New York. Main Street American's right here in St. Paul, your home district, cannot afford this.

In addition, I would like to know your reasoning behind the vote, and what you plan on doing to eliminate our national debt. Please put it in writing to me at:

(Edited)

Sincerely,

Jeffrey S. Williams
Constituent

Gingrich: We Need Action Now

Replace Secretary Paulson and Suspend Mark to Market
by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)
Posted 10/01/2008 ET

Following Monday's failure of the Paulson plan in the House, it is imperative that our leaders not hesitate to bring stability to our financial markets.

We need action now.

The Paulson Plan - is dead. The time has come for Congress to turn its attention to a plan that does the right things the right way instead of trying to fix the wrong way of this monstrosity of a Wall Street bailout bill.

As I said to Fox News' Greta Van Susteren Monday night, and spoke about at the National Press Club on Tuesday, there are two steps that could be taken that would send a needed signal to the world financial markets that America has leaders who recognize the gravity of the crisis and are capable of putting aside narrow partisan self-interest for the good of the country.

Step One: Replace Secretary Paulson
A plan that relies on the former chairman of Goldman Sachs presiding over disbursing hundreds of billions of dollars to Wall Street is a terrible concept and inevitably will lead to crony capitalism and the appearance of - if not the actual existence of - corruption.

The American people understand this and they don't trust the Paulson plan. Congress should never have been faced with this as its only option to solve the financial crisis. Congress never should have been confronted with this bill. And one man, above all others, is responsible.

That man is Henry Paulson, who may have been a great deal maker for Goldman Sachs, but has been an utter failure during this economic crisis.

It's time - passed time, in fact - for President Bush to fire Secretary Paulson.

President Bush should replace Paulson immediately with someone more capable of forging a deal that the American people can trust. Secretary Paulson's Deputy at Treasury is Robert Kimmitt. He does not have the Wall Street background that made Secretary Paulson so difficult to trust as a negotiating partner and should be much more open to alternatives because he has less invested in the "Paulson" plan.

Kimmitt need not go through the actual confirmation process to immediately take over negotiating with Congress. The sooner Paulson is replaced as the chief negotiator for the administration, the sooner we will have a deal the American people can support.

Step Two: Suspend the Mark-to-Market Accounting Rule
The second thing our leaders should do immediately is simple and uncontroversial: Suspend the "mark-to-market" accounting rule that is exacerbating this crisis.

Under this artificial rule, the value of assets of banks moves up and down with economic conditions, regardless of their underlying worth. So in a time of economic crisis - such as the current subprime mortgage crisis - the value of bank assets gets caught in a downward spiral, causing investor panic and a drying up of credit.

In 2004, the European Central Bank issued this now eerily prescient opinion of the mark-to-market rule:

"With a real estate crisis or a stock market crash... [a bank] under [mark-to-market] accounting might aggravate the effects of the shock. Banks may be encouraged to react by panic selling and tightening lending standards, thus contributing to a further deepening of the crisis."

A Smart First Step
I've spent the past few days talking with businesspeople across the country - from Oklahoma, Georgia, Nevada and California - and they agree: this artificial accounting rule is needlessly making the financial crisis worse.

On Monday I appeared on Fox News' On the Record with Greta van Susteren and called for mark-to-market to be suspended.

I also wrote this op-ed yesterday for forbes.com urging the same course of action.

I gave a speech at the National Press Club in which I discussed in depth the need to end this problem now. You can read the text and view it here.

Then, later that afternoon, the Securities and Exchange Commission took a smart first step by issuing a "clarification" giving companies more leeway in estimating the value of mortgage related investments. You can read more here. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Chris Cox deserves credit for recognizing how this accounting requirement is needlessly exacerbating our current financial difficulties.

The Bush Administration's Expensive Legacy
Taking these two steps - replacing Secretary Paulson and suspending the mark-to-market rule - are absolutely necessary right now to give Congress the breathing room to develop a plan to replace the Paulson Plan and to re-establish trust with the American people.

The Bush Administration has now provided three case studies that have badly damaged the cause of conservatism.

First there was former FEMA head Michael Brown during Hurricane Katrina, whose incompetence convinced Americans that Republicans can't be trusted with governing.

Then there was Ambassador Jerry Bremer in Baghdad, whose decisions as the head of the American occupation of Iraq convinced Americans that Republicans can't be trusted to manage foreign policy.

And now we have Secretary Paulson at the Treasury, whose intransigence during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has convinced Americans that Republicans can't be trusted with their money.

It's a tragic and very expensive legacy. No conservative and no Republican should doubt how much it has hurt our cause and our party.

Rebuilding Public Trust with a Work Out, Not a Bailout
As I told Greta Van Susteren Monday night on Fox News, the fundamental flaw in the Paulson Plan was that it was seen by the American people as a deal designed by and for Wall Street.

Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and develop, not just a financial markets rescue bill (which should be a work out, not a bailout) but also an economic growth bill.

This economic growth package should do two fundamental things:

First of all, it needs to provide relief for our financial markets that is based on lending troubled institutions the capital to restore our credit markets, rather than buying their bad assets. The taxpayers should be asked to extend these institutions a line of credit until they can get back on their feet, rather than blindly acquire these institutions' toxic paper. This is the essential difference between a workout and a bailout.

Second, the plan should stop the flow of $700 billion each year out of our economy and into the coffers of foreign dictators by achieving energy independence. Not only would our national security be improved, but this much new energy income would cause our economy to boom and government revenues to grow.

A Final Warning: Don't Allow the House Democrats to Move the Plan Left
A lot of people are scratching their heads over what would cause House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to deliver such a bitterly partisan speech minutes before the House voted down the Paulson Plan - a plan she purported to support.

I think it's likely that Speaker Pelosi deliberately delivered her highly partisan speech at the last minute to get precisely the result that she got - the defeat of the Paulson Plan. The danger now is that she and the liberal Democrats in the House will spend the next couple days re-loading the bill with all the leftwing pork projects that Senator McCain and the House Republicans were able to remove from it.

This danger makes it imperative that Republicans unify behind Minority Leader John Boehner in resisting moving any rescue plan to the left. The stakes are too high for the American people to allow liberal Democrats to use the current crisis to line the coffers of their special interest allies.

Bipartisan Coalition Defeats Casino Socialism

The Wall Street Bailout bill failed to pass Congress. And the corporate media, Democrats, and President Bush are "shocked" that it happened. Bush said our economy would collapse within days. Democrats and Bush also wanted to ensure that their corporate donors get more of their money back. The corporate media said it was a "done deal." The American public were told it would pass, so don't bother try to call your Congressperson. The American people didn't capitulate as the so called leaders of our nation did. Now Wall Street is throwing a temper tantrum and dropping the values of stock they thought could be purchased with "free" taxpayer money.

Just a couple months before the election, the economy is looking in worse shape than ever. To buy our confidence, and our votes in November, the government wanted to bail out their long-term corporate donors. It appears that Americans are no longer fooled by such gimmicks. We defeated the biggest corporate handout of taxpayer money in world history! For once, the people of this country actually have had a say. It appears that for once, Americans are actually comfortable with change!

The Federal government has long felt its role was to end or prevent recessions. Unfortunately, by doing this they make future recessions harsher. After every energy spike, the US economy goes into recession. The Feds should have allowed it to run its course, assuming we believe in capitalism. But Democrats continually believe it is the taxpayer's job to "create jobs." And they were literally the party behind the bailout.

There were some leaders against the bailout. On the Republican side, our own Michelle Bachmann stated her opposition early on. The Democrat who best represents my own views is Representative Marcy Kaptur. Someone else the corporate media love to hate also took a stance against the bailout: Dennis Kucinich. Too bad the media determine who wins elections, because Kucinich could easily beat a insanely sad McCain-Palin.

In Minnesota, half of our elected representatives refused to give in to Pelosi's pleas to help out Bush's bailout. There were also many Republicans who enabled the American people to stop this corrupt handout of money that could be better spent elsewhere. In Minnesota, these representatives deserve great praise for their stance against George Bush and Nancy Pelosi:

Michelle Bachmann (R )
Jim Ramstad (R )
Collin Peterson ( DFL )
Tim Walz ( DFL )

This could be the issue that gains the Walz campaign some traction against the GOP. It is a very close race, and if he wanted to win he would vote with his constituents and not against them.

BAILOUT SUPPORTERS

Call these supporters of the Wall Street Bailout today:

Keith Ellison --- 202-225-4755
Betty McCollum --- 202-225-6631
James Oberstar --- 202-225-6211
John Kline --- 202-225-2271

Tell them that the only Americans supportive of the bailout are the corporations that stand to profit and the politicians who stand to get more political contributions. Everyone else stands united against this abhorrent form of government policy that is appearing before us.

These un-leaders deserve to be called out for their pathetic stance in handling our economic situation. None of them have proposed weaning the American public off of oil. Skyrocking energy prices are the primary culprit of our economic doldrums. They refuse to deal with the reality of Peak Oil and global energy demand, but want a "deal" with Wall Street before our government can no longer sell its T-bills to China.

America needs long-term solutions, not short-term election gimmicks. A rescue package for Wall Street is a future tax-bill for the working class. Democrats need to get the message.

Jesse Ventura ( Or None-of-the-above ) for U.S. Senate!

Did I get to meet Jesse Ventura at the Mall of America tonight? You betcha! And of course, got a nifty autograph of his in his new book. I even got to the mall using light-rail that would not exist yet but for Jesse.

He was able to state much of his beliefs on the current state of our political system: it isn't working. The politicians and media are owned by the interests of making money. They are focused on short-term gain rather than long-term sustainment. And if there is one person who can create a truly multipartisan campaign of supporters, it's Jesse Ventura.

He discussed how NOTA (None of the Above) should be on the ballot, and would give voters the right to show their disapproval of those running for office. He discussed how the two-party system supported by an entertainment-based news media feed a corrupt system. Few wish to question how sad a state our nation is in, but a leader is one who asks the hard questions and demands better results from our government.

If he were to run for U.S. Senate, he has one issue that neither major party can dispute: the National Debt. How can they claim they didn't support this? It is holding America back, and the interest alone is just under 20% of our annual taxes! Democrats want to continue spending unchecked without new taxes, and Republicans want to cut the governments income without cutting budgets! Pathetic! Both Norm Coleman and Al Franken are highly supportive of maintaining the status-quo.

What we need in Washington is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget - and no exceptions. If there is a war or economic depression - tough, raise taxes or cut spending. Our national budget has been living in fantasy land and reality will hit us hard when this illusion can no longer be maintained.

One of Jesse's ideas that I disagree with is that we should stop giving aid to poorer nations. I think that it is imperative that the wealthy nations improve the lives of those that are not. It would reduce human populations growth, eradicate malaria, and reduce the future likelihood of terrorism. I also believe it is the right thing to do, and will continue to support a Global Marshall Plan. We can easily do this by ending our imperialism and bringing ALL of our troops home - even Germany and South Korea. The United Nations should be the global peace-keepers - not the USA or China.

One of Jesse's media opponents decided to try to ask a question. But Jesse made clear that he would speak to no Minnesotan media. He was especially angry at one Star Trib columnist known as CJ. It is odd, I read the Star Tribune a few times a week and never really read her columns. I notice those by the awful Katherine Kersten and the decent Doug Grow among others. Who is this CJ? Anyways, she is someone who decided to make up a story about Jesse's son having parties in the Governor's Mansion. It was bogus, but she ran on this sensational story anyways. The rest of the media used her column as a source, and Jesse has hated the Minnesotan media for this very personal attack on his family ever since. Can't say I blame him, but the media don't always get their facts correct. It's amazing how they choose to only show so much of a story, or cut out illuminating context. But sensation sells right?

One issue Jesse doesn't really go into detail in his book or in any public appearance is Peak Oil. This is something that is important, especially if we are at the point. Okay, call it an undulating plateau - but it is still Peak Oil. But fortunately Jesse is paying attention to Global Warming and believes we must act - and he actually means that he would. Does he unplug his "vampire energy" sources? You betcha, and he noticed his energy usage drop immediately. I think it imperative that we elect a leaders who actually would enact a carbon tax and end our hydrocarbon addiction.

I highly recommend anyone interested in populist politics or simply the state of America read Jesse's book - Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! But read it one chapter at a time and stop to reflect a while before beginning a new chapter. I do not think it is meant to be read all at once. As a Minnesotan, I am still proud that he was our Governor. Would Norm Coleman or Skip Humphrey really have helped the future of Minnesota as Jesse did? No, they would not. And reading this new book gives one an even better appreciation of his time in office .

Jackie Speier's Hollow Candidacy

I use Gmail, and frequently see ads for Mike Huckabee, Mike Bloomberg, and Jackie Speier. It appears that they are all working to improve their campaigns, but Ms. Speier is not running a national one. She's running for Congress in California.

Her ads have shown up for 3 months now, and still her issues pages state "coming soon." This is her entire issues summed up: She's against the war. The war is destroying the American economy. Something must be done about health-care. Better access to student loans.

That's it. Oh, and she's a Democrat. She's vague. But she's fund-raising nationwide using the internet. Big on hype, little on substance. That reminds me of the technology hype of Silicon Valley, movie and music hype of Hollywood, political hype of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and housing hype where homes cost over $500,000. Greens there endorsed Ralph Nader by large numbers, while the rest of America's Greens prefer Cynthia McKinney. Sounds like California to me.

It's good to be a little different and stand out. But what do you stand for? And how effective will you be if you have all hype but no substance (Speier) - or too much substance but little support (Nader)?

I have e-mailed her campaign several times, and have received no reply. I have called her campaign's phone number ( (650) 347-4370 ) and left voice mails twice. When I receive a reply, I will post it - because my focus was on issues and not "what will Jackie's hair look like at the rally? I prefer curly hair.." or other such drivel.

Ms. Speier's campaign reflects current American politics - little on substance and a lot of hype. When asked the tough questions, they prefer to be on both sides of the issue - assuming they answer the question. At a time when America needs serious leadership, we get power-hungry phantoms who prefer to look at the latest poll in deciding what to support and how. Put your finger in the wind and seek the direction of least resistance.

What true leader will stand up and say that America's heading for bankruptcy? Where will solutions to Peak Oil and Global Warming come from if no leader states bluntly that we should stop using energy excessively - and put teeth in legislation to make it happen. "America is addicted to oil" as Bush stated back in 2005. Yet he does nothing to ameliorate our situation. People eat unhealthy foods and buy bigger digital TVs, then wonder why their health-care expenses are so high. When will a true leader tell America that on President can't change the world - that we must all do our part to make America better. And when will Americans of all political stripes band together to solve the myriad of problems facing humanity?

I am not involved in the Greens just because their values match mine. Their members actually do what they politically believe in. They are a vast combination of: vegetarians, who buy organic, garden, live carfree, subsidize wind energy, recycle, strive to live nonviolently, are community and social activists, and won't keep quiet in the face of injustice.

When I see someone in a car toss their Starbuck's latte cup on the street, I calmly walk over and pick it up and find the nearest trash receptacle. When I walk home from work, I pick up cans and trash with a plastic bag I keep with me. I invest in my son's future education and for my own retirement. I don't expect government to do everything for me - because that is now why it exists. Our government is a reflection of our society, and our society is greatly ill. I pray that we wake up, hope that better future can be realized.

But campaigns like Jackie Speier undermine grassroots democracy, in support of a powerful elite with no intention of real change in America. I hope the Greens run against her in California. Though he is NOT a Green, Ralph Nader could run against someone like her. He would still garner media attention and might even get more votes!

Regressive Ron - Progressive Greens

If I were a die-hard Republican and against the Iraq war, my only choice for President would be Ron Paul. He is an old school politician known as a Libertarian. To someone of a liberal mind, he doesn't make a lot of sense: let states decide major issues not in the Constitution. And also income tax is "unconstitutional" even if authorized by the 16th amendment.

This is a very defining moment for the Republican party. I believe it marks the take-over of their party by the Neo-Conservatives. 9/11 illuminated this wing, and brought it fully public. The Project for the New American Century had ideas, including the spreading of democracy globally, starting with Iraq. Republicans have embraced these ideals, including many liberals. The anti-tax and fundamentalist wings were disregarded for the most part, as government spending outpaced economic growth. Our national debt is now over $9T, and even Hillary can't remember what Ross Perot was grumbling about.

The major issues that no party wants to discuss are Peak Oil, the National Debt, and the inherent racism in our society. We can pretend these are not issues, as both parties currently are. Oil production most likely peaked in 2006, the National Debt is out of control, and we have not yet dismantled the tools of discrimination. How can we move forward as a nation when these threaten our economic and social security more than terrorism ever will?

Ron Paul does deal with these issues, but not with the intent of a progressive or Green. He envisions an America far different - even if he dismantles our militant empire. I cannot live in an America that varies so drastically from state to state. Paul still thinks we are a nation of nations, but the Civil War ended that utopian vision. We need to be a progressive rather than regressive nation.

There is only one party that vigorously takes on these issue: the Green Party. We already know what the major two parties will do: nothing or exacerbate these problems further. The Libertarians and Constitution Parties would move our nation backward, and allow the magical "free market" solve these problems. Unity08 is still in conceptional stages in creating a new party. The only one left standing and capable of change are the Greens.

Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, and Jared Ball are all running for the Presidency within the Green Party. The average amount each American will donate to a Presidential candidate is less than $3. Small donations by a committed group can sway an election, unlike how the media portray big donors as the primary catalysts for change. Any amount you can assist them with or the Green Party is more than most citizens care to give. You can participate in changing the direction of America, or you can sit on the sidelines and watch others do so.

And sorry Ed Felien, I will not attend a Republican caucus next February. Thanks - but truly no thanks to this particular invite. The Republicans need to find who they are in this century. America needs a party to stand up to them, and we know the Democrats will not cut military obligations or funding so as not to appear "weak." Therefore I support the Greens adamantly. Let's debate the purpose of American militarism and whether it really makes us more secure long-term.

GOP YouTube Debate

The night after the YouTube debate, I decided to log onto YouTube and check it out myself. I was surprised at how lively this debate was, considering how much Republican's were initially reluctant to try the new format out. GOPers do not like to be asked questions by fictitious characters such as snowmen.

The worst candidate was easily Mitt Romney, who waffled more questions than I thought possible. His lack of answers makes me believe he supports torture, will enforce marriages through various schemes, and a police state. This after he states he is "more liberal than Ted Kennedy." Anyone who adamantly supports Romney after this debate, is fooling themselves and supporting an opportunist.

The candidate who held is own was probably Guiliani, though he is despicable on the issues, but actually answers questions the majority of the time. McCain seemed like an angry white male the entire time. Huckabee made a humorous statement: that Jesus would never foolish enough to run for public office. ( which is why Ajahn Brahm has stated numerous times that any President of the United States probably does not have good karma )

Ron Paul was clearly the most divisive of candidates in the GOP currently. He states the obvious and the crowd is shocked. Would America be okay if the Chinese were occupying the United States to free us from a dictator? Even after this dictator were deposed, would we be happy with such an occupation - especially if they were then importing massive amounts of our coal? The crowd remained rather mute, apart from those who agreed with him. The question has yet to be answered by GOP supporters, that is if they didn't ignore it completely.

The fact that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul is not enough for those who control the GOP. They can make the claim that he is hated by the military instead, and because Americans are so disconnected from those in the service, many will believe it. Yet this veteran supports him enthusiastically if he is able to do what he says. And if you pay attention to how the media attacks Paul, it becomes obvious that as one put it "an increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened." As it should, because not all Americans are going to continue being complacent in our current environment.

National Debt Clock

The Republican Party is clearly not going to end its debt spending crusade. The only things they plan to cut are "non-defense related." If you are going to cut government spending, you cut ALL of it. If we are overspending by 10%, then cut all budgets by that amount. If you need more for the military, then negotiate cuts from other places in the budget. The only solution to this is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget, with no provisions for war and no excuses. If America goes to war, then the extra money should come through taxes or other such fund-raising - not through debt. Excessive military spending comprises the entirety of our national debt, and the GOP refuses to acknowledge this fact. Their solutions to our National Debt is currently non-existent.

A Republican president cannot make abortion illegal, make guns available freely, or deport immigrants. The President can easily shape the size of our military overseas. If we bring home the troops from Iraq, Korea, Japan, and even Iceland we can begin to reduce the strain on our troops and Federal budget. Our National Debt could be paid off and Social Security made solvent. By the time the Baby Boomers all retire, we can say we solved the crisis and didn't have to raise taxes. We may even be able to reduce taxes! But our imperialistic empire cannot sustain itself on the backs of the working class, and must be reigned in now or we will all pay the price.

Many take issue with Paul's stance on immigration. He would like America to remain sovereign, and send those outside of our system back. There needs to be a way for temporary workers to come to America. Yet our immigration problem reflects a lack of discipline on the part of other nations to improve the conditions of their people.

A simple issue that reflects a lack of government planning is population growth. Estados Unidos has 14.16 births/1,000 population while in Mexico it is 20.36 ( 2007 CIA estimates). Mexico needs to promote family planning. Only when birthrates drop can jobs growth catch up with population growth - or surpass it as it has in the US. So is enforcing immigration laws and implementing comprehensive solutions can make nations more accountable for such inaction. Liberals tend to forget this frequently, but also believe we should not force other nations to do what we want them to.