Average spending for the federal budget as a percent of GDP from Eisenhower through Bush was 20.0%.  In its first year, the Obama administration blew out the budget to 25% of GDP.  That was when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.  In order to lock in the 2009 level of spending, which included the allegedly temporary stimulus, the Senate has not passed a budget since April 2009, even though the Budget Act of 1974 requires it to do so every year (making Harry Reid a scofflaw). 

The whole article is worth a gander.

The state budget is about $4.7 billion. If you just look just at state money, state spending is down about 3.5 percent from last year. But with federal funds, overall spending for the state budget is actually up.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=14314336

This article only skims the surface over how the two (three, really) sides are positioning themselves in the budget debate. The Progressives want to raise income taxes (on the “wealthy”, for now), the Republicans want to leave taxes alone and focus on finding a balanced budget through spending cuts, and the Democrats want a mixture of taxes and spending cuts. On the surface it seems like the Democrats are taking the middle road. But that is hardly the case when you consider the above paragraph. Their position is that they don’t really need to balance the budget because we’ll just get more from Washington D.C.

Here is a key statement:

But Democrats have the votes to pass whatever plan they want.

So, what will the Democrats do with this power? We’ll find out soon, I imagine.

Posted from WordPress for Android

All of the states except Vermont are constitutionally required to balance their budgets and their tax revenue is being crowded out by a grasping federal government.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/how_do_we_check_runaway_nation.html

I did not know that.

Posted from WordPress for Android

80 jobs equals $7.4 million?  That averages to $92,500 per job.  Even if you account for the cost of insurance in that figure that is still a lot of money by Vermont standards.

“While I am certainly appreciative that they are looking first at vacancy savings and retirements the fact is that nobody had to lose their jobs at all,” Kraus said. “It didn’t have to happen.”

via State trims about 80 jobs, saving $7.4M in payroll, benefits: Rutland Herald Online.

Jes Kraus is the director of the Vermont State Employees Association.  This is the type of thinking that has led to $200 million budget problems.  Nobody had to lose their job at all?  Really?  Does she also think that money grows on trees?