The Rock Report of the Serria Madre

The Rock Report of the Sierra Madre. ©
or; The Grasshopper And Warped Space-Time.

Despite scientists' assurance to the contrary, there is a tear, or "hole" in the very fabric of the space-time Continuum. Through this tear, time travel is possible. No, men cannot go through it, nor lab rats either, but one can stick his arm into it and with deft hand and nimble fingers pick the pockets of people living ten, twenty, even thirty years into the future. This bizarre phenomenon is better known as the "5+ Trillion Dollar National Debt." Politicians claim in their campaign speeches that because of the National Debt, the new born of today are saddled with owing several tens of thousands of dollars the very minute of their birth, and they are, of course, correct. However, this text will attempt to show that it's a bit more complex than the politicians admit to and more complex than most people want to consider.

Disclaimer: Not being a well-educated man, I of course have no training in economics. What I will try to do is state some logical conclusions based on one established fact, and then let you judge if I got it right, or if I did not.

Sources: The one established fact is called "Pork Politics," or "Pork Barrel legislation". My understanding of pork Politics is based on the books "The Triumph of Politics." by David Stockman. (A book I highly recommend, it is probably the best perspective of the 1980"s.) And also "Honest Graft" by Brooks Jackson, (Another highly recommended book, it has insight into today's campaign finance scandals).

Establishing One Fact: FROM THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DESK DICTIONARY,
"PORK BARREL" SLANG. A GOVERNMENT PROJECT OR APPROPRIATION BENEFITING A SPECIFIC LOCALE AND A LEGISLATOR'S CONSTITUENTS.
I think we can expand this definition somewhat. Because I believe that pork is much more common than this limited definition implies. Pork has been described as a method for incumbent politicians to purchase votes. This is one reason why it's hard to unseat an incumbent politician running in an election. The process is to spend (or dump) money into the state or district of a congressman or congressmen, or the whole damn country, preferably a lot of money. What this does is to boost the local economy, or the nation's economy for that matter. Opposing politicians in congress frequently blast the other's pork projects while applying pork of their own in vast quantities. Conservative politicians have openly admitted that dumping money into local economies is beneficial to those economies. Liberal politicians prefer to call it "Investing In America," which of course, is something they like to do. Calling it "Investing In America" or the new alias "Corporate Welfare" (used to discredit opponents) is just a dodge. The fact is, Congress readily spends pork money in its many forms. (Hey, pork happens.) Of course when the next election comes around we as voters see that the economy is doing really well, and that we have high




				Happy Happy Voters

employment figures and we are all very happy with the efforts of our elected politicians so, we vote accordingly to retain this basic political philosophy. Pork is sustained more by the electorate than by the Congress.
Pork legislation can come in many forms:
The most common is going to be social programs: new programs, or increases to existing programs, because they affect the entire country and there-fore get support from most congressmen. It is easier for me to believe that pork is a more basic reason for the growth of social programs in our times than a mythical compassion of Congress.

Unnecessary military programs are another medium for pork.
(What is, or, is not, a necessary military program, I will leave for others to debate. )
But unlike social programs, these only touch certain areas around the country. However there are still enough cities that have big military contractors in them so that passage in Congress is relatively easy.

High technology projects can be another pork item. Private industry loves to have the government develop new technology items. Then if it pans out they can then market it, and make a bundle without having to make the investment. And Congress loves to oblige them, because this frequently dumps money into congressional campaign accounts as well as dumping money in to the local economies where such projects are carried out. Now this type you may think is much harder to get through Congress, because it effects maybe just one state and district, and there-fore has limited support. This handicap can be overcome with the "you vote for my pork, and I'll vote for your pork" scenario. This type of action is cloaked under the more polite phrase of "compromise."
What other forms of pork legislation are out there is anybody's guess.

My more elaborate definition of pork also explains why the government has in years past ignored complaints of waste and fraud when it spends money. The object is to get cash into the economy; where money goes and to whom the money goes is unimportant as long as it is eventually distributed within the market place, and the more money the better.
There are no statistics to offer as evidence to my basic assumption, the economy is too dynamic, it has too many other factors that muddy the samples. But the fact that pork is so prevalent in the actions of Congress proves the point that dumping money into the economy has the effect of improving it. If it did not have the desired effect, pork would not happen. Yet it does and we all think that this is a good thing, and cast our votes to continue it again and again. We are the real reason why pork happens.

First Logical Assumption. If all things were equal we would be left with a staggering contradiction. For, if putting money into the economy improves it, then would not taking money out of the economy have the exact opposite effect? Pork puts cash in the pockets of some citizens, those citizens make extra purchases in the market place, purchases they would not have been able to make otherwise. This has the effect of putting cash in the pockets of the merchants, who in turn purchase from other merchants. Taxation takes cash from some citizens, with that they can only make fewer purchases. Which restricts the purchasing power of other merchants, and even more "other merchants."




				Not at all Happy Voters

In the same manner that pork is beneficial, taxation must by default be equally harmful. Again there are no statistics to verify this, the concept is un-testable just by itself, but common sense and logic I hope point to its validity. For each and every beneficial dollar spent for pork, an equally harmful tax dollar must exist. For the government cannot spend unless it first commits to taxation. Every single dollar bill put into the economy as pork must without exception be taken out of the economy. Using my favorite equation of equals and opposites, with pork as positive factor (+X) added to the negative




				Confused Voters

factor of tax (-X) to pay for the pork, the equation (+X) + (-X) = 0. Zero, Zip, Nada, Null. With equal amounts of harm and help the economy should see no change at all. This is our staggering contradiction, because we have already established that pork does in fact work. Yet common sense states that it should not. Then why does it work?

Second Logical Assumption. If you could unbalance the equation by dumping money into the economy, without taking it out, then the concept of pork spending would have the desired effect. Unencumbered by the higher taxation to pay for the pork, our economy would indeed flourish. The question stands where to get money other than through taxation. In the past governments have just conquered other countries and demanded tribute in some form. But this is not and should never be a valid course for the land of the brave and home of the free. So where can Congress get some quick cash without taxing us even more? This is were reaching into the hole in the space time continuum comes in. Where congress cannot plunder other countries, they can plunder our own. Only they do it in the future so they don't hear the complaints nor suffer the visitations of the ghost of elections yet to come. In order to meet the requirement of "porking" more than they tax. Congress has reached into the future to tax the unborn. This would create the equation (+X) +(-X) + (+Z) = (+Z) with (Z) being the positive effect of pork from borrowing money instead of taxing for it.



				Duped But happy Voters And That "Something is Fishy" Smell

This is how Congress in contemporary times has bolstered the economy, placated the voter, perpetuated their jobs, and generally screwed things up. Despite this last statement some may ask "why is bolstering the economy a bad thing?" It's a good question and the assumption that using money that is not yours in order to bolster an economy has historic precedence.
The Roman Empire demanding tribute from the lands it conquered was very beneficial to the Roman economy of that time.
Regrettably this was not so for the conquered lands.
Europe's plundering of the Americas over four hundred years ago was very beneficial to the Europeans economies.
Regrettably the native inhabitants got the shaft.
America's past indulgence in slavery was very beneficial to the southern economy.
Regrettably the slaves got the very short end of the stick.
Yes, boosting a nations economy with wealth that is not its own is an old and very effective story. But the gains made by one group often equate to loss in another group. It's only bad when you're in the wrong group. Of course accepting your place in the right group requires that either you are completely dishonest, or totally unethical, or you're in absolute denial about the harm you do and have fooled yourself into believing that the situation is actually beneficial to those in the other group. (Regrettably, all too common human behavior.)

Third Logical Assumption. Warning: Don't even assume that this next section is a suggestion of opposition to balancing the federal budget.

In an unusual burst of responsibility, Congress, is close to balancing the federal budget. What this means is the end of deficit spending. No more free money from the hole in the space-time continuum.



				Extremely Pissed Voters

No more positive pork in our equation. The only factor left for our simple equation is the negative effect of taxation for pork, the taxation necessary to pay back the debt of decades of pork spending. This should push the economy down, just as deficit spending has pulled it up. It's not all doom and gloom, because there are other factors not mentioned here that could keep the economy on an even keel. (they're not mentioned here because I do not know what they are.) But if we expand on our simple equations to show the unknown factors as in the table below.

Equation #1	Equation #2	Equation #3
Present Situation - Deficit Spending For Pork.	Balanced Budget, With Debt Pay Down. (The near future,)	Debt Paid, Free And Clear. (Some thirty years hence.)
unknown factor 1 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 2 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 3 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 4 (+ or - ?) *PORK (+)* + normal tax (-) = The Economy (the sum of all factors)	unknown factor 1 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 2 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 3 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 4 (+ or - ?) *TAX FOR PAST PORK (-)* + normal tax (-) = The Economy (the sum of all factors)	unknown factor 1 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 2 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 3 (+ or - ?) unknown factor 4 (+ or - ?) + normal tax (-) = The Economy (the sum of all factors)

You can see in equation #1 our present situation of deficit spending for pork. Clearly, pork is a positive influence on our economy, but when Congress does balance the federal budget, that plus factor goes away and the negative factor of tax for pork remains while we pay down the debt, as shown in equation #2. Not until that debt is paid do we lose the negative factor of tax for pork, as in equation #3. The negative effect of normal taxation is something we will always have to live with. As the debt is paid down and even after, we can only hope that the unknown factors (the total quality of which are unknown, even to the experts.) are positive enough to counter the negative normal tax factor. But what ever does happen to the economy we will have to buckle up and bear it. Since the alternative is total collapse of ours and then the world's economy.

If the reader assumes we can just go on as we have been, deficit spending year after year, please consider this. The interest each year on the debt is currently about 15%, and we must pay it. When it gets to 25% we still must pay it. If it got to 50% we would still have no choice but to pay it. 60%, 70%, no matter how high it goes up to it MUST be paid. With U. S. currency not on the gold standard the value of the dollar is maintained by what is labeled as the "Full Faith And Credit Of The United States Of America". If Congress were to vote to simply void the debt, wholly or in part, they would automatically void the value of the dollar at the same time.
The green backs in your wallet would be worth zip.
Your bank account would worth zip.
Your U. S. Savings bonds would be worth zip.
Your grand mothers T-bills would be worth zip.
Your private retirement account, (401k) would fold up.
The result of such an action would make the decade of the 30's look like a day at the beach..

What wise man of antiquity warned of having to pay the piper, after calling the tune?
What scholar of ancient times warned of having to sleep in the beds that we make for our selves?
Who first quoted "never varnish your clams".................. What??

Real Ants Don't Eat Pork. Allow me to blast away at the logic of those who assume that the National debt is something that we can live with.
During the debates on a proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, many Liberal politicians try to compare the government maintaining the debt to that of an individual maintaining a home mortgage. It sounds about the same, but if one looks at the numbers a very different scenario crops up.
Imagine:
You have purchased a $100,000 home on a 30 year mortgage at an interest rate of 8%.
By special arrangement with your mortgage company each month you pay only the interest of the loan but never on the principle.
Each month you would pay $666.67 dollars, and you do this for thirty years. ( The figure was unintentional, I swear.)
At the end of that time you will have paid $240,001 dollars in interest.
At the end of that time you still owe $100,000 for the house, regardless of its current market value.
At the end of that time your equity is zero, zip, nada
At the end of that time you have nothing to show for your investment.

Despite that this scenario would be very beneficial to the mortgage companies, they do not offer such a deal as this, because there is nobody out there so stupid as to accept it,.........Well, almost nobody.
The Congress of the United States of America does this exact same scenario with the federal budget. Each year our tax dollars go to pay the interest on the debt, but to date we have not paid on the debt itself.

If your still not sure what this implies, try this example:
If, in conversation somebody states that the war in Vietnam costs a quantity of millions of dollars, you can truthfully counter that he is simply wrong. Nobody knows the total cost of the war because we are still paying for it. Each year we pay the interest on the money we borrowed to fight that war, but never the war debt itself. Each year the total cost of the Vietnam just goes up and up and up. But by the time we do stop paying for it, the men who survived it will be long since deceased.

An example of total Vietnam war expenditures to date.
And you thought we were finished with that war.

This equation is also valid for the moon landings in the 60’s, the S&L bailout of the 90’s, the welfare expenditures of the 80’s, the military expenditures of the 80’s, just about anything you can think of.

It all just adds up year after year after year. The final value will be determined in the year the debt is paid off. Whenever that will be.

Vietnam War Costs Equation.
all money spent on the war at the time
1974 interest on war borrowing
1975 interest on war borrowing

etc. etc.

1994 interest on war borrowing
1995 interest on war borrowing
+ 1996 interest on war borrowing
= the total cost of Vietnam as of 1996 ( = Sh_L)

Walking The Razors Edge. As I stated before the interest on the national debt currently runs at about 15%, so in each tax year only 85% of federal revenues go to pay for government functions *. This 15/85 ratio has been maintained over the last several years because the growth of the debt has been running parallel with the growth of the economy therefore the growth of federal revenues. Please ask yourself what happens to that ratio if a economic slowdown does occur and federal revenues are reduced. We will see a jump in the interest side of the ratio with a corresponding loss in government functions. I would consider it possible to be as high as 25 percent for the interest on the debt in the span of a single fiscal year. Now ask yourself what a 10% loss of government functions will do to a sagging economy, or what the tax increase to avoid said loss would do. The debt is a incredible liability that could in a short time bring down disaster upon us. The debt is not something we can live with, but it is something we could perish with. As a voter the choice to live with it or to pay it down is yours. Your decision now may not be half as important as it will be in the years ahead, and equally harder to make.

( * this does not cover the covert funds described in "The Curse Of The Rock Report.")

Review: Points I Have Tried To Raise Are:

That Pork happens. The object is to keep the voter contented, the purpose to keep politicians in office.

That it is only beneficial when it’s done with deficit spending. And functionally no different than demanding tribute from another country.

That with the coming of a balanced budget Pork as we have known it will be non-functional.

That we will now have to face a possible reduction of the economy as a result of our deficit spending.

That despite whatever hardships that may come, proceeding with the balanced budget and the debt pay-down is the proper and only logical coarse of action..

Reiteration: I repeat that these assumptions can not make a reliable prediction of any kind of recession or other slowdown in our economy. If professional economist cannot predict next years economic trends, then I will not attempt it. But as always the economy in the years ahead will be the sum of all the factors that influence it. It's just that we will lose one factor that to date has been a beneficial factor for us, and one that we will find has a harmful side that must now be faced. Responsibility requires that we do face it. We have called the tune and the piper will be paid. My greatest fear in all this is that politicians being human, (another bold assumption), will revert to old habits if the pressure of bad economies is applied to them. An even greater danger is that the American electorate, (also, all too human), will push for the return of the old ways of deficit spending.

Last thoughts: 1. Unlike my other reports there are not many references to socialism in this one. Yet the report is very much about socialism, because the notion that we require government control to guarantee a good economy is very much a socialist philosophy. So there

2. If the reader thinks that what I have put down here is just so much hooey, I would counter that there is little disagreement that it was deficit spending employed by the government in the thirties and forties that brought the country out of the great depression. The benefits of deficit spending to an economy are well established. The difference here is that after the war the Congress of that time set about to repay that debt, and did so. Consider the effect that our current deficit spending has had on our contemporary economy and what it will mean when we lose it.

3. If Congress wants to maintain a high economy they are going to have to enter the stalls, grunt real hard, and pass some realistic legislation that will add positive factors to our economy equations. This could mean some interesting changes in the very nature of the politics that we have today, if so we need to insure they will be changes for the better.

4. Better men than I have already established that "pork" is how politicians buy votes. If you think that this is a deplorable behavior for the politicians, it is best to keep in mind that one can not buy votes unless some body else is out there selling them. Keep this in mind the next time your elected representatives brags about what he has done for your local economy, and consider what it may have cost, not only to your own local economy, but the economy of the nation.

5. This text reflects another variation of how we entrap ourselves into a political system, similar to the versions of "The Hook" as described in the "Rock Report Of The Damned." we’ll call this one, The Hook version 4.0.

6. Summertime For The Grasshopper May Be Coming To A Close.

So now you have read yet another report... Thanks.
If you agree with it pass it around for comment by others.
If you disagree with it then write your own damn report and submit it for comment.

Submitted for your review by.
Mr. Eric (Rock) Andersen
A citizen 0f the USA.
Thus given the Right to have and express an opinion.(and a warning.)
Also:
A taxpayer of the USA.
Thus given the Right to have and express an attitude.( and a suggestion, "pay the piper.")