No Coat Tails

In light of the Massachusetts senate election is now official:

Barack Obama has the political coat tails of a naked midget.

Health Costs In One's Final Year

During the course of the debate on television last night after President's O'Bama's "news conference" a pundit mentioned something interesting. He said, statistically, fully one fourth of an American's total health care costs occur in the final year of life.

Can anyone confirm this?

If true, it takes no genius to see where "cost cutting" will occur when generational warfare breaks out over this massive national debt.

Fed Obligations Exceed WORLD GDP!

Anyone worried YET?

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

The total U.S. obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits to be paid in the future, effectively have placed the U.S. government in bankruptcy, even before new continuing social welfare obligation embedded in the massive spending plan are taken into account.

The real 2008 federal budget deficit was $5.1 trillion, not the $455 billion previously reported by the Congressional Budget Office, according to the "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" as released by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The difference between the $455 billion "official" budget deficit numbers and the $5.1 trillion budget deficit cited by "2008 Financial Report of the United States Government" is that the official budget deficit is calculated on a cash basis, where all tax receipts, including Social Security tax receipts, are used to pay government liabilities as they occur.

But the numbers in the 2008 report are calculated on a GAAP basis ("Generally Accepted Accounting Practices") that include year-for-year changes in the net present value of unfunded liabilities in social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Under cash accounting, the government makes no provision for future Social Security and Medicare benefits in the year in which those benefits accrue.

IL State Employee Retirement Pensions Severely Underfunded

From the Illinois Review:

Terry Savage lays out a dire scenario in the Sun-Times for those state lawmakers and Chicago city employees expecting a retirement pension. Here's a look at the dire situation for the retirement plans of state workers ranging from police to judges to university professors to members of the Illinois General Assembly. All are counting on generous state pensions, but may soon wake up to a brutal reality.

A financial war is brewing -- and it's likely to pit these public employees against Illinois taxpayers who are responsible for paying those generous pension promises. There simply isn't enough money in all these retirement plans (see below) to send out the promised checks. If you think Bernie Madoff had a Ponzi scheme going, wait until the wave of boomer retirement hits the reality of pension underfunding.

Complicating matters is the fact that the Illinois Constitution guarantees pensions to be paid before any other obligations. Savage gives the facts on how poorly these expected pensions are currently funded, just as baby boomers are heading towards retirement years:

* State Universities Retirement System (SURS): 58.5 PERCENT

* Teachers Retirement System (TRS): 56 PERCENT

* State Employees' Retirement System (SERS): 46.1 PERCENT

* Judges Retirement System (JRS): 42 PERCENT

* General Assembly Retirement System (GARS): 32 PERCENT

One Illinoisan's Perspective On Property Taxes

From a letter to the Northwest Herald, Crystal Lake, IL 60014: Outrageous property taxes

To the Editor:

My wife and I moved into our Woodstock retirement home more than two years ago. Last year’s property taxes were $5,099. This year’s were a whopping $7,259. That represents a jump of more than 40 percent.

We had moved out of a huge, five-bedroom home in Arlington Heights because we couldn’t afford the $7,200 property taxes there.

We left an area with great amenities, including the Lake County Forest Preserve only two blocks away, a beautiful park just three blocks away, and loads of nearby shopping.

I’m 64 and disabled. I thought moving to McHenry County, with its much lower land values, would equate to lower taxes. (I was wrong.)

We live in the smallest, three-bedroom home, with a half basement, on the smallest lot in our development. Yet, our neighbors, with much larger homes, full basements, and on larger lots, pay less than we do. Does this make sense?

I’ve spoken to both the county treasurer’s office and the township office, and hear the same “excuses” that my tiny home is worth more.

What can I do?

All I can afford to do is move to a much less expensive area, such as western or southern Illinois, or Iowa.

William Bodzioch

Woodstock

Breach of Faith

As the promises have grown so have the unfunded liabilities:

Bond Issues Finally Explained!

This pretty much sums up localities' thinking on most bond funded issues:

Agflation And The End Of Cheap Food

This from the 12-06-2007 print edition of "The Economist":

Rising food prices are a threat to many; they also present the world with an enormous opportunity

FOR as long as most people can remember, food has been getting cheaper and farming has been in decline. In 1974-2005 food prices on world markets fell by three-quarters in real terms. Food today is so cheap that the West is battling gluttony even as it scrapes piles of half-eaten leftovers into the bin.

That is why this year's price rise has been so extraordinary. Since the spring, wheat prices have doubled and almost every crop under the sun—maize, milk, oilseeds, you name it—is at or near a peak in nominal terms. The Economist's food-price index is higher today than at any time since it was created in 1845 (see chart). Even in real terms, prices have jumped by 75% since 2005. No doubt farmers will meet higher prices with investment and more production, but dearer food is likely to persist for years (see article). That is because “agflation” is underpinned by long-running changes in diet that accompany the growing wealth of emerging economies—the Chinese consumer who ate 20kg (44lb) of meat in 1985 will scoff over 50kg of the stuff this year. That in turn pushes up demand for grain: it takes 8kg of grain to produce one of beef.

But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks.

Dearer food has the capacity to do enormous good and enormous harm. It will hurt urban consumers, especially in poor countries, by increasing the price of what is already the most expensive item in their household budgets. It will benefit farmers and agricultural communities by increasing the rewards of their labour; in many poor rural places it will boost the most important source of jobs and economic growth.

Although the cost of food is determined by fundamental patterns of demand and supply, the balance between good and ill also depends in part on governments. If politicians do nothing, or the wrong things, the world faces more misery, especially among the urban poor. If they get policy right, they can help increase the wealth of the poorest nations, aid the rural poor, rescue farming from subsidies and neglect—and minimise the harm to the slum-dwellers and landless labourers. So far, the auguries look gloomy.

In the trough

That, at least, is the lesson of half a century of food policy. Whatever the supposed threat—the lack of food security, rural poverty, environmental stewardship—the world seems to have only one solution: government intervention. Most of the subsidies and trade barriers have come at a huge cost. The trillions of dollars spent supporting farmers in rich countries have led to higher taxes, worse food, intensively farmed monocultures, overproduction and world prices that wreck the lives of poor farmers in the emerging markets. And for what? Despite the help, plenty of Western farmers have been beset by poverty. Increasing productivity means you need fewer farmers, which steadily drives the least efficient off the land. Even a vast subsidy cannot reverse that.

With agflation, policy has reached a new level of self-parody. Take America's supposedly verdant ethanol subsidies. It is not just that they are supporting a relatively dirty version of ethanol (far better to import Brazil's sugar-based liquor); they are also offsetting older grain subsidies that lowered prices by encouraging overproduction. Intervention multiplies like lies. Now countries such as Russia and Venezuela have imposed price controls—an aid to consumers—to offset America's aid to ethanol producers. Meanwhile, high grain prices are persuading people to clear forests to plant more maize.

Dearer food is a chance to break this dizzying cycle. Higher market prices make it possible to reduce subsidies without hurting incomes. A farm bill is now going through America's Congress. The European Union has promised a root-and-branch review (not yet reform) of its farm-support scheme. The reforms of the past few decades have, in fact, grappled with the rich world's farm programmes—but only timidly. Now comes the chance for politicians to show that they are serious when they say they want to put agriculture right.

Cutting rich-world subsidies and trade barriers would help taxpayers; it could revive the stalled Doha round of world trade talks, boosting the world economy; and, most important, it would directly help many of the world's poor. In terms of economic policy, it is hard to think of a greater good.

Where government help is really needed

Three-quarters of the world's poor live in rural areas. The depressed world prices created by farm policies over the past few decades have had a devastating effect. There has been a long-term fall in investment in farming and the things that sustain it, such as irrigation. The share of public spending going to agriculture in developing countries has fallen by half since 1980. Poor countries that used to export food now import it.

Reducing subsidies in the West would help reverse this. The World Bank reckons that if you free up agricultural trade, the prices of things poor countries specialise in (like cotton) would rise and developing countries would capture the gains by increasing exports. And because farming accounts for two-thirds of jobs in the poorest countries, it is the most important contributor to the early stages of economic growth. According to the World Bank, the really poor get three times as much extra income from an increase in farm productivity as from the same gain in industry or services. In the long term, thriving farms and open markets provide a secure food supply.

However, there is an obvious catch—and one that justifies government help. High prices have a mixed impact on poverty: they hurt anyone who loses more from dear food than he gains from a higher income. And that means over a billion urban consumers (and some landless labourers), many of whom are politically influential in poor countries. Given the speed of this year's food-price rises, governments in emerging markets have no alternative but to try to soften the blow.

Where they can, these governments should subsidise the incomes of the poor, rather than food itself, because that minimises price distortions. Where food subsidies are unavoidable, they should be temporary and targeted on the poor. So far, most government interventions in the poor world have failed these tests: politicians who seem to think cheap food part of the natural order of things have slapped on price controls and export restraints, which hurt farmers and will almost certainly fail.

Over the past few years, a sense has grown that the rich are hogging the world's wealth. In poor countries, widening income inequality takes the form of a gap between city and country: incomes have been rising faster for urban dwellers than for rural ones. If handled properly, dearer food is a once-in-a-generation chance to narrow income disparities and to wean rich farmers from subsidies and help poor ones. The ultimate reward, though, is not merely theirs: it is to make the world richer and fairer.

The emphases are ours.

So go ahead and chow down and fill up with E85 on the way.
It'll only hurt when you laugh.

Woodford County Factoids

According to Bert Sperling,

The median home value in Woodford County, IL, is $191,500. Home appreciation is 0.22% over the last year. The median age of Woodford County, IL, real estate is 36 years.

Woodford County, IL Apartments and Rentals

Renters make up 16.12% of the Woodford County, IL, population. 5.12% of houses and apartments in Woodford County, IL, are unoccupied (vacancy rate).

Woodford, IL Housing data

The emphases are our own. That's not 22% (for those in Rio Linda as someone would say). That's POINT 22 percent. What is the rationale (you've heard the line; you're property value has been growing Soooo Fast) for property tax increases of 7, 8, 10 percent for various taxing authorities in light of the above stats?

Gallup: Republicans Rate Themselves With Better Mental Health

We're just going to publish a couple of these graphs from a recent Gallup Poll and let them speak for themselves:


































































No real surprises here if one carefully thinks through the ramifications.