Republican Deficit Hypocrisy

In the November 2009 Forbes article "Republican Deficit Hypocrisy," conservative Bruce Bartlett reminds readers that the current U.S. budget problem was created by Republicans:

The human capacity for self-delusion never ceases to amaze me, so it shouldn't surprise me that so many Republicans seem to genuinely believe that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. Perhaps at one time they were, but those days are long gone.

This fact became blindingly obvious to me six years ago this month when a Republican president and a Republican Congress enacted the Medicare drug benefit, which former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker has called "the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."

Recall the situation in 2003. The Bush administration was already projecting the largest deficit in American history--$475 billion in fiscal year 2004, according to the July 2003 mid-session budget review. But a big election was coming up that Bush and his party were desperately fearful of losing. So they decided to win it by buying the votes of America's seniors by giving them an expensive new program to pay for their prescription drugs.

Recall, too, that Medicare was already broke in every meaningful sense of the term. According to the 2003 Medicare trustees report, spending for Medicare was projected to rise much more rapidly than the payroll tax as the baby boomers retired. Consequently, the rational thing for Congress to do would have been to find ways of cutting its costs. Instead, Republicans voted to vastly increase them--and the federal deficit--by $395 billion between 2004 and 2013.

However, the Bush administration knew this figure was not accurate because Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, had concluded, well before passage, that the more likely cost would be $534 billion. Tom Scully, a Republican political appointee at the Department of Health and Human Services, threatened to fire him if he dared to make that information public before the vote. (See this report by the HHS inspector general and this article by Foster.)

It's important to remember that the congressional budget resolution capped the projected cost of the drug benefit at $400 billion over 10 years. If there had been an official estimate from Medicare's chief actuary putting the cost at well more than that, then the legislation could have been killed by a single member in either the House or Senate by raising a point of order. Then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., later said he regretted not doing so.

Even with a deceptively low estimate of the drug benefit's cost, there were still a few Republicans in the House of Representatives who wouldn't roll over and play dead just to buy re-election. Consequently, when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)

Otter and Istook are no longer in Congress, but Franks still is, so I checked to see what he has been saying about the health legislation now being debated. Like all Republicans, he has vowed to fight it with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. (See here for the Senate bill estimate and here for the House bill.)

Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured--which is deficit-neutral--somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.

Of course, there are good reasons conservatives oppose expanding the government, as the pending health legislation would do, even if it adds nothing to the deficit. But anyone who voted for the drug benefit, especially someone who switched his vote to make its enactment possible, has zero credibility. People like Franks ought to have the decency to keep their mouths shut forever when it comes to blaming anyone else for increasing the national debt.

Franks is not alone among Republicans for whom fiscal responsibility never consists of anything other than talk. The worst, undoubtedly, is DeLay, who actually went so far as to attack Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last year for his principled vote against the drug benefit, one of only nine Republican senators to do so. (By my count, there are still 24 Republicans in the Senate who voted for the drug benefit, including such alleged conservatives as Jim Bunning and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Jon Kyl of Arizona.)

Amazingly, leading Republicans still defend the drug benefit. Just the other day, former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., celebrated its passage, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum, former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., berated me for criticizing it. In each case, their main argument was that it ended up costing a little less than originally projected. Somehow, I doubt that Frist or Thomas would feel the same way if their wives thought it was OK to buy a closet full of expensive new shoes just because they were on sale.

I don't mean to suggest that Democrats are any better when it comes to the deficit, although they have a better case for saying so based on the contrasting fiscal records of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The national debt belongs to both parties. But at least the Democrats don't go on Fox News day after day proclaiming how fiscally conservative they are, and organize tea parties to rant about deficits, without ever putting forward any plan for reducing them. Nor do they pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever for projected deficits, at least half of which can be traced directly to Republican policies, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag.

It astonishes me that a party enacting anything like the drug benefit would have the chutzpah to view itself as fiscally responsible in any sense of the term. As far as I am concerned, any Republican who voted for the Medicare drug benefit has no right to criticize anything the Democrats have done in terms of adding to the national debt. Space prohibits listing all their names, but the final Senate vote can be found here and the House vote here.

Bruce Bartlett is a former Treasury Department economist and the author of Reaganomics: Supply-Side Economics in Action and Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Bruce Bartlett's new book is: The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

Consumer Price Index news release

The latest Consumer Price Index news release
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf)
was issued today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights are below.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, the CPI-U increased 0.3 percent in October after rising 0.2 percent in September.
The index for all items less food and energy increased 0.2 percent in October, the same increase as in September.

News releases archives:
http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/all_nr.htm

Budget Hero - "If you ever wanted to control where your tax dollars go, here is your chance to decide."

Budget Hero is an online game that allows you see how different policy choices will affect the U.S. fiscal budget in the future. According to the website:

Budget Hero seeks to provide a values- and fiscal-based lens for citizens to examine policy debates during this election year. Partisan messages tend to cloud the real issues at play during campaigns, and most candidates are loath to attach detailed financial impacts to solutions which make up their platform. Budget Hero provides an interactive experience involving policy options that have been extensively researched and vetted with non-partisan government and think tank experts to enable players to objectively evaluate candidates.

No Matter How Much Stuff People Have, It Seems They Always Want More

No matter how much money or material possessions people have, it seems they always want more. The November 17, 2009 Access Hollywood article "Nicolas Cage's Former Business Manager Files Counter Suit, Claims Actor Went 'On A Spending Binge Of Epic Proportions'" provides an example:

LOS ANGELES, Calif. -- A former business manager for Nicolas Cage has filed a cross complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming the actor was already deeply in debt when he was hired by the star in 2001.

As previously reported on AccessHollywood.com, last month Cage filed suit against Samuel J. Levin, whom he claimed in court papers was an "incompetent business manager," and whom he said sent the star, "down a path toward financial ruin."

But in his cross complaint, filed late last week, Levin claims that when he was hired by Cage in 2001, the actor had already, "squandered tens of millions of dollars he had earned as a movie star, he was deeply in debt, and he owed millions of dollars in accrued but unpaid income taxes, with no funds available to pay the debut."

Levin claims in his court filing that from the start of the two men's "Business Management Agreement," Cage "knew about his perilous financial situation and he knew he was behind on paying his taxes."

The business manager claims he "warned" Cage that in order to "maintain his lavish lifestyle," he needed to earn $30,000,000 a year.

In fact, Levin said the two came up with an agreement at the start of their business relationship.

Among the "objectives" Levin claimed the men agreed to were:

Reduce Cage's spending and use his "assets and earnings to pay off his debts and eliminate the tax arrearage."

Accumulate a "cushion" of at least $10,000,000, but preferably $20,000,000, for Cage's financial security purposes and to "alleviate the financial pressure to take film roles that might be detrimental to his career."

Levin said after agreeing, he sold off the actor's $1.6 million comic book collection and more than "a dozen of his automobiles."

But the business manager claims that after Cage had "a string of hit films," his increased earnings saw the actor abandon "the economic conservatism" he had agreed to.

Levin claims Cage went bought new cars to replace the ones he sold and "set off on a spending binge of epic proportions."

By July 2008, Levin claims, Cage owned:

15 palatial homes around the world

4 yachts (one for the following locations: Caribbean, Mediterranean, Newport Beach and Rhode Island)

1 island in the Bahamas

1 Gulfstream jet

Millions in jewelry and art

Levin claims he "implored" the actor to stop buying property and spending, but he "rejected this advice and continued his compulsive spending.

Levin claims the actor then bought more including

3 more homes worth more than $33,000,000

22 automobiles (including 9 Rolls Royces)

12 expensive jewelry pieces

47 artwork and exotic item purchases.

Levin claims as time went on, his advice was ignored and "rebuked."

"The pinnacle of [Cage's] spending spree came with his quixotic acquisition of Midford Castle in England and Schloss Neidstein Castle in Bavaria," Levin claims in the cross complaint.

The business manager claims he was eventually "terminated" and the actor hired a Certified Public Accountant to take over the account, an account which brought Levin back on board on an "hourly basis" until October 13, 2009, when Levin filed the actor's 2008 tax returns. A short while later, Cage filed the original suit against Levin.

Just last week, Cage lost two of his New Orleans homes due to foreclosure auction and the IRS has claimed the actor currently owes over $6 million back taxes.

As previously reported on AccessHollywood.com, Cage claims he is having to divest himself of a host of assets because of "Levin's incompetence, misrepresentations and recklessness."

He further asserted in his lawsuit that Levin paid himself "millions of dollars" while putting Cage's money into "risky" and "highly speculative" investments, and that he also allegedly failed to "timely pay taxes."

Producer Price Index

The latest Producer Price Index (PPI) news release
(http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ppi.pdf)
was issued today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Highlights are below.

The PPI tracks the prices of goods before they reach store shelves and is considered a predictor of price trends. This small increase in wholesales prices suggests inflation is not a current concern of the Federal Reserve System and they are expected to keep interest rates near zero to encourage economic growth to spur continued recovery from the economic recession.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Producer Price Index for Finished Goods advanced 0.3 percent in October, seasonally adjusted. This increase followed a 0.6-percent decline in September and a 1.7-percent rise in August. Prices for finished goods other than foods and energy fell 0.6 percent after decreasing 0.1 percent in September.

Bernanke: Fed will keep eye on sliding dollar

In the November 16, 2009 article "Bernanke: Fed will keep eye on sliding dollar," Associated Press economics writer Jeannine Aversa reports the Federal Reserve System anticipates keeping interests rates extremely low to encourage economic growth. But the declining value of the dollar and continued high budget deficits remain as challenges for U.S. macroeconomoic policymakers.

WASHINGTON – Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday said the central bank will monitor the sliding U.S. dollar but pledged anew to keep interest rates at record lows to nurture the economic recovery.

In remarks to the Economic Club of New York, Bernanke engaged in a delicate dance. He tried to bolster confidence in the dollar without taking any real action.

"Bernanke is trying to use words — not interest rates — to prevent the dollar from going even lower," said Jay Bryson, global economist with Wells Fargo Securities.

Bryson and other analysts said they didn't think Bernanke was signaling that the Fed would join with central bankers in other countries to intervene in markets to strengthen the dollar. But that is an option for the Fed if the dollar were to start plunging.

Bernanke's remarks gave a brief lift to the dollar in trading Monday. But it resumed its fall after traders focused on his assertion that the central bank would hold interest rates low for an extended period. The dollar has posted double-digit declines against other major currencies since spring.

Low interest rates could put additional downward pressure on the dollar. And economists say a free-fall in the value of the dollar, while unlikely, can't be entirely dismissed. Still, low rates are needed to encourage consumers and businesses to spend more and fuel the economic rebound.

"We are attentive to the implications of changes in the value of the dollar," Bernanke said in rare remarks about the greenback. The Fed, he said, will continue to "monitor these developments closely."

Commodity prices — such as oil — have risen lately. That pickup likely reflects a revival in global economic activity and the recent depreciation of the dollar, Bernanke said. Commodities such as oil and gold are priced in dollars so they become cheaper when the dollar falls.

Despite "cross-currents" in the outlook for prices, the Fed chief predicted inflation probably will remain "subdued for some time."

That gives the Fed leeway to hold rates at record-low levels for an "extended period," he said, repeating a pledge made at the Fed's meeting earlier this month.

The sagging dollar has helped sales of U.S. exports because it makes those goods less expensive on foreign markets. But if the dollar were to plunge in value, it could ignite a new economic crisis in the U.S., prompting investors to dump their dollar holdings and driving up domestic interest rates.

Still, by holding rates at record-lows, the Fed risks creating a speculative bubble.

"It's extraordinarily difficult to tell" if a bubble is forming, Bernanke acknowledged. "It's not obvious to me in any case."

If a bubble did form, "we use our interest rate tools to try to meet our mandate — full employment and price stability," he said.

The Fed's decision to hold interest rates at exceptionally low levels after the 2001 recession was blamed for feeding the housing bubble. When the housing boom went bust in late 2006 the economy soon followed.

During the question and answer session, the Fed chief also urged Congress and the White House to trim the record $1.42 trillion budget deficit, another force depressing the value of the dollar.

China, the No. 1 lender to the United States, has expressed concerns that the falling dollar threatens the value of its existing U.S. holdings. China also is the third-largest market for American goods, accounting for 6 percent of U.S. exports through September.

The ICE Dollar Index, which measures the value of the dollar against a basket of foreign currencies, has fallen 16.7 percent since March 4. The dollar is off 19.5 percent against the Canadian dollar since March 9, while the euro is up 18.4 percent since March 4. The dollar has also lost 12.2 percent of its value against the Japanese yen since April.

In recent weeks, some Asian countries have been intervening to try to keep their currencies from rising further against the dollar. They are feeling pressure because of China's tight link to the dollar which has meant as the dollar has tumbled since March, China's currency has fallen in relation to their currencies, giving China a competitive advantage.

Economists expect the Fed will hold rates near zero at its next meeting on Dec. 15-16 and into part of next year to help the recovery gain traction.

Bernanke predicted the economy should continue to grow next year, but he warned of "important headwinds" that will restrain the recovery, including a weak job market and tight credit for small businesses and households.

After a record four straight losing quarters, the economy started to grow again in the July-September period at a pace of 3.5 percent. Government-supported spending on homes and cars drove the rebound, raising questions about the staying power of the recovery once that assistance fades.

Bernanke said the rebound reflected more than "purely temporary factors" and predicted growth would continue into next year.

One of the biggest threats hanging over the recovery is rising unemployment. The nation's unemployment rate bolted to 10.2 percent in October. It marked just the second time in the post-World War II period that the jobless rate topped 10 percent.

Some economists think it could rise as high as 11 percent by the middle of next year before starting to gradually drift down.

Bernanke said the unemployment rate "likely will decline only slowly" if economic growth remains "moderate" as he expects.

USDA: Number of Americans going hungry increases

In the November 16, 2009 article "USDA: Number of Americans going hungry increases," Associated Press writer Henry C. Jackson reports an increase in the number of U.S. residents who have difficulty feeding their families.

WASHINGTON – More than one in seven American households struggled to put enough food on the table in 2008, the highest rate since the Agriculture Department began tracking food security levels in 1995.

That's about 49 million people, or 14.6 percent of U.S. households. The numbers are a significant increase from 2007, when 11.1 percent of U.S. households suffered from what USDA classifies as "food insecurity" — not having enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle.

Researchers blamed the increase in hunger on a lack of money and other resources.

President Barack Obama called the USDA's findings "unsettling." He noted that other indicators of hunger have gone up, such as the number of food stamp applications and the use of food banks. And he said his administration is committed to reversing the trend.

"The first task is to restore job growth, which will help relieve the economic pressures that make it difficult for parents to put a square meal on the table each day," Obama said in a statement.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the numbers could be higher in 2009 because of the global economic slowdown.

"This report suggests its time for America to get very serious about food security and hunger," Vilsack told reporters during a conference call.

The USDA said Monday that 5.7 percent of those who struggled for food experienced "very low food security," meaning household members reduced their food intake.

The numbers dovetail with dire economic conditions for many Americans. And they may not take the full measure of America's current struggles with hunger: Vilsack and the report's lead author, Mark Nord with USDA's economic research service, both emphasized that the numbers reflected the situation in 2008 and that the economy's continued troubles in 2009 would likely mean higher numbers next year.

The report also showed an increasing number of children in the United States are suffering. In 2008, 16.7 million children were classified as not having enough food, 4.3 million more than in 2007.

Hunger advocates said they were not surprised by the numbers, and said the problem among children, in particular, is lamentable.

"What should really shock us is that almost one in four children in our country lives on the brink of hunger," said David Beckmann, the President of Bread of the World, an advocacy organization.

Vilsack said that it would take a concerted effort to reduce the number of Americans who face a lack of food and said he hoped that the stark reality of Monday's report would inspire action. The numbers could have been much worse without adequately funded food aid programs, such as food stamps, he said.

"There's an opportunity here for the country to make a major commitment to focus on ways we can improve this process and make sure that food is safe and available for everyone," he said.

Fox News - the subtle altering of reality to sell a preconceived narrative?

On the Thursday, November 12, 2009 broadcast of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart implied that the Fox network is far from fair and balanced:

But, of course, that was just one big story from cable news last night. There was another story – one that actually concerns our humble program here.

On Tuesday night, we did a little bit about Sean Hannity’s program, or to call it by its official name `the greatest program that has ever given to a people by God.’

It concerned the Super Bowl of Freedom that Michele Bachmann sponsored on Capitol Hill.

On Sean’s show, Mr. Hannity and Ms. Bachmann discussed her rally and for no apparent reason then started showing images of Glenn Beck’s much better attended 9/12 rally, not acknowledging that the footage was different, but in fact commenting on how robust the crowd was, even though Bachman’s rally took place on a sunny day in fall and this rally appeared to take place on a cloudy day in summer.

So, we thought that was funny because we finally had a literal manifestation of what we feel is the metaphorical methodology of the entire Fox network, which, of course, is the subtle altering of reality to sell a preconceived narrative.

The previous night, Sean Hannity acknowledged the “inadvertent mistake” that had been caught by one of The Daily Show‘s producers.

Stewart suggests the mistake was not accidental, but part of systematic and intentional deception designed to rally viewers behind favored causes. Stewart seems to imply that other networks may have biases, but they are not as extensive, coordinated, and intentional as those on Fox. The network defends distortions on many of its programs, such as Hannity's, by claiming the shows are widely acknowledged (even by Fox) to be opinion-based.

People of all political persuasions may cling to opinions that support a current perspective and ignore facts that contradict it. The human brain seems to prefer to fit new information into an existing belief system. In the 2008 book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, behavioral economist Dan Ariely explains that people have an irrational tendency to overvalue things they own, including ideas. This can make people reluctant to let go of a preexisting belief, even when provided with substantial contradictory information.

Ariely suggests people will make better individual and social choices if they acknowledge these biases and try to limit their impact. People might benefit by using diverse sources of news rather than limiting their exposure to the information they want to hear.

Related articles:

Click here for a Chicago Tribune article linked to the video discussed above.

An October 29, 2009 report by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press concludes that Fox News is Viewed as the Most Ideological Network.

The Value of Education

According to EarnMyDegree.com, education has a significant effect on a worker's annual and lifetime earnings:

You can make much more money by earning a college degree.

The data shows that a college degree correlates directly to your salary range—and the relationship between compensation and education level is becoming even more prominent.

At the turn of the 20th century, American working life was different. Only a minority of adults had a high school diploma. But by 1975, full-time workers with a Bachelor's degree had 1.5 times the annual earnings of workers with a high school diploma. By 1999, this ratio had edged up to 1.8. As our society has continued to evolve, education has become the optimal route to professional success: pursuing a degree is the best way to receive training, to gain expertise in a given field, and even to guide you and help you make choices about your career.

Today, a formal, focused education is an essential ingredient. Employers have increasingly used diplomas and degrees as a way to screen applicants. And once you’ve landed the job you want, your salary will reflect your credentials. On average, a person with a Master's degree earns $31,900 more per year than a high school graduate—a difference of as much as 105%!

Average Annual Earnings for College Graduates and Non-Graduates
Professional Degree
$109,600
Doctoral Degree
$89,400
Master's Degree
$62,300
Bachelor's Degree
$52,200
Associate's Degree
$38,200
Some College
$36,800
High School Graduate
$30,400
Some High School
$23,400
Average Annual Earnings—Different Levels of Education.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, March 1998, 1999, and 2000.
Making a Lifetime of Difference.

By the time you comfortably retire, you’ll look back and see that your earnings increase, as figured by your level of education, has compounded over your lifetime.

A person with a Bachelor's degree will earn, on average, almost twice as much as workers with a high school diploma over a lifetime ($2.1 million compared to $1.2 million). This is a result of not only higher starting salaries for people with higher education levels, but also the sharper earnings growth over the course their careers.

Work-Life Earnings for Full-Time Employees (in $ millions)
Professional Degree
$4.4
Doctoral Degree
$3.4
Master's Degree
$2.5
Bachelor's Degree
$2.1
Associate's Degree
$1.6
Some College
$1.5
High School Graduate
$1.2
Some High School
$1.0
Average Lifetime Earnings—Different Levels of Education.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Surveys, March 1998, 1999, and 2000.

Retrieved November 15, 2009.

Opportunity Costs of War

When people discuss the costs of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they usually focus on the government expenditures which are approaching $1 trillion since 2001. Economists argue that society makes better decisions when decisions are based on opportunity costs - which include everything that is sacrificed when a choice is made.

According to the Military Casualty Information provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, as of November 7, 2009 there were 909 deaths in Operation Enduring Freedom (in Afghanistan) and 4,349 deaths in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The number of U.S. military personnel wounded in action were 4,472 in the conflict in Afghanistan and 31,556 in Iraq. The value of these lives, and their lost contributions to society and the economy, are part of the opportunity costs of these wars.

Unfilled Jobs Illustrate Structural Unemployment

In the November 2009 article "Good Jobs Going Unfilled: 6 Careers in High Demand," Patricia Cecil-Reed illustrates structural unemployment because the skills of current unemployed workers do not match the skills required in these growing sectors of the U.S. economy.

With the U.S. unemployment rate now above 10 percent, millions of Americans are searching for new careers. A strange paradox currently exists, however. There are also many empty jobs that remain unfilled. So what's the problem? According to economists and hiring managers, the main problem is finding candidates with the right career training for jobs in emerging fields like energy, health care, and engineering.

Some of these careers require only one to two years of training, while others call for a four-year degree, but one fact remains clear: These new industries are here to stay. Investing in continuing education or career training might be a small price to pay to stay in the game for years to come. Below are some of the hottest careers in need of qualified professionals.

Environmental Science Technician

As scientific procedures have become more complex, the role of science technicians has steadily increased. Technicians not only solve problems in research and development, but also are specially trained in operating and maintaining laboratory equipment. Environmental science technicians perform their work with the goal of determining, alleviating, or controlling environmentally harmful substances.

Job growth for environmental science technicians is expected to be much faster than average from 2006 to 2016. The most common job requirement is a two-year associate's degree in science-related technology.

Average Annual Salary: $43,180.

Electrical Engineer

Electrical equipment of all kinds is developed, designed, and tested by electrical engineers. From lighting to electric motors to the wiring of buildings, electrical engineers shine new light on the way we live and work. Most electrical engineers specialize in an area like power systems engineering or electrical equipment manufacturing.

A bachelor's degree in engineering, with a specialty in electrical engineering, is usually a requirement for entry-level jobs.

Average Annual Salary: $85,350.

Internal Auditor

Following a rash of corporate scandals coupled with the current financial crisis, companies are cracking down on waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Internal auditors evaluate an organization's financial and information systems while keeping an eye on efficiency and productivity. They also evaluate organizational compliance with corporate and government regulations.

A bachelor's degree in accounting or a related field is a good idea for auditors. Some colleges offer programs specifically geared towards internal auditing. Certification as a certified internal auditor (CIA) also boosts credibility and hiring potential.

Average Annual Salary: $65,840.

Management Accountant

For many accountants, there has been a professional shift away from merely preparing tax documents. Management accountants work for businesses, recording, and analyzing their financial information. They also prepare budgets, financial reports, and cost management strategies. Management accountants often work as part of an executive team and communicate with company heads, stockholders, creditors, and regulatory agencies on a regular basis.

Employment of accountants is expected to grow by 18 percent over the next seven years. A bachelor's degree in accounting or finance is usually required, and those who have certification as a certified public accountant (CPA) or other professional certifications should have the best opportunities.

Average Annual Salary: $65,840.

Diagnostic Medical Sonographer

As sonography grows in popularity, and in some cases becomes preferable to radiologic procedures, there is a growing demand for sonographers. Diagnostic sonography helps in diagnosing ailments of all kinds, using high frequency sound waves to assess a particular part of the body. Sonographers are specially trained to use this equipment and evaluate the results. They also interact with patients, keep detailed records, and maintain sonography equipment.

Most employers prefer to hire registered sonographers who have trained for the position by earning an associate's or bachelor's degree in X-ray technology or a closely-related field. In some cases, those already working in the health care field can earn a one-year certificate that may suffice for entry-level sonography positions.

Average Annual Salary: $62,660.

Cardiovascular Technologist

These technologists assist physicians in diagnosing heart and blood vessel ailments. Their day-to-day duties often include scheduling appointments, explaining procedures to patients, and maintaining equipment. Cardiovascular technologists generally specialize in one of three areas: invasive cardiology, echocardiography, or vascular technology.

This career is expected to see much faster than average job growth in coming years, with 26 percent growth expected. Most cardiovascular technologists have an associate's degree in x-ray or cardiovascular technology. Certification is also available, but is not always required.

Average Annual Salary: $48,640.

Like it or not, it seems unlikely that outmoded industries will be making a comeback anytime soon. Rather than hitting your head against a career wall, consider training for a new career in an emerging field. The time spent may be rewarded in a fulfilling new career and an end to your lay-off worries.

Capitalism Sucks?

Federal deficit: Trail of broken promises

In the October 29, 2009 CNNMoney article "Federal deficit: Trail of broken promises," Jeanne Sahad reports that "Republicans and Democrats rage about the long-term deficit, as if they had nothing to do with it. But both parties undermine efforts to get it under control."

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- When it comes to figuring out what has caused the country's record accumulation of debt, just about every politician in Washington has a theory.

The theories usually boil down to this: The other guy did it. The other party's White House. A previous Congress. You get the picture.

In reality, growing the deficit has been very much a bipartisan effort. Members of Congress from both parties and presidents past and present have all contributed to the problem.

And it is a problem. By 2019 the total debt accrued over the past several decades is on track to approach an unhealthy 82% of gross domestic product. That's one reason why those who own U.S. debt and credit ratings agencies will be looking for lawmakers to put together a plausible deficit-reduction plan in the next few years. (Clock is ticking on debt ceiling.)

But if Congress and the president are going to stick to it, they better curb the budget trickery. Here are 5 common tricks that undermine fiscal responsibility.

Great idea! Let's ignore it.
The trick: Bypass rule to rein in spending and then overturn it

In 1997, Congress passed a provision that aimed to limit overall Medicare spending. When spending exceeds a certain target, an automatic reduction in physicians' reimbursement fees kicks in -- unless lawmakers act to block the reduction.

And they do, almost every time a cut to doctors is in the offing.

They usually don't bother to cut spending or raise revenue elsewhere to make up for it. And when they do, they aren't exactly realistic about it.

Four years ago, they decided to pay for rescinding a cut by promising to cut rates even more steeply in the future, said Donald Marron, an acting director of the Congressional Budget Office during the last Bush Administration.

Well, welcome to the future. Those steeper rate cuts aren't flying either. Lawmakers now want to pass a permanent "fix" so that physician payment rates don't drop. The estimated cost of doing so: $247 billion over 10 years.

The proposal was voted down last week in part because there were no provisions in the bill to pay for the cost. But don't expect that to be the end of it.

How about a quickie?
The trick: Enact a one-year "fix" that really fixes nothing

Few lawmakers want to see physician rates cut. They need physicians' support for health reform and there is concern that more physicians would refuse to treat Medicare patients if their rates are cut further.

So lawmakers may just pass another one-year fix to prevent near-term cuts, just like they've done in years past.

The one-year "fix" for perennial issues makes the cost of what Congress is doing look less expensive because well, it's only for one year, right?

The classic example is how Congress deals with the pernicious Alternative Minimum Tax. Without congressional action, an increasing number of middle class families will have to pay the tax, originally created to extract tax payments from the wealthy.

So every year Congress enacts a "patch" to protect those middle-class families. Those one-year patches have recently cost in the neighborhood of $70 billion. A permanent patch, which President Obama has called for, would cost at least $448 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Let's play make-believe
The trick: Count on future taxes everyone knows will never be collected

The AMT patches are not paid for through reduced spending or increased revenue elsewhere.

The argument is that the AMT was never supposed to hit so many people and generate so much revenue. So why pay for the loss of revenue that was never supposed to be collected in the first place?

It's a good theory. The problem is that Congress, in deciding which policies to pursue, uses budget and deficit projections that assume the AMT will raise lots and lots of revenue.

As a result that phantom AMT revenue makes the deficit look better than it is.

While the estimated cost of permanently patching the AMT is $448 billion, the real price goes up by hundreds of billions if it's done in conjunction with extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. And odds are high they will be extended.

This is just temporary. Honest.
The trick: Call a tax cut or spending hike temporary

Like the one-year fix, implementing a "temporary" tax cut or spending increase often disguises the true cost, since there will be pressure to make the measure permanent -- or to "temporarily" renew it every year.

"There's a ton of effort to get things into law because once there, they're hard to get rid of," said Marron, who is now a visiting professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts are a good example.

No one really expected the cuts to expire, even though they're slated to do so by 2011. In fact, President Obama has called for them to be made permanent for the majority of Americans. The cost: $2.3 trillion in forgone revenue over the next 10 years.

We'll pay for everything ... except some things
The trick: Promise to pay for some tax cuts and not others

In a speech this week, Christina Romer, head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, pointed to research that found nearly half of the long-run fiscal shortfalls is due to the policies that cut taxes and increased spending under the Bush administration.

"Obviously, we can't go back eight years and make more responsible choices," she said.

Well, yes, the past is past.

But what about future choices? Obama has promised to pay for any new tax cuts or spending increases he proposes. Yet he is not calling on Congress to pay for his $2.3 trillion proposal to extend the Bush tax cuts.

By not doing so, he joins a not-so-select club of politicians, according to Diane Rogers, chief economist at the deficit watchdog group Concord Coalition.

"[T]he clever idea to hide the permanent costs of spending or tax cuts by making them temporary, and then later extending them while refusing to pay for the costs of extending them ... is something government policymakers have been practicing in a bipartisan manner for awhile," Rogers wrote in her blog EconomistMom.com.

Donations to Reduce the U.S. Public Debt

In the November 11, 2009 CNN Money article "Donating This Year? Uncle Sam Needs Your Help," Jeanne Sahadi reports that under a little-known law, the U.S. government accepts contributions to pay down national debt.

If you're irked by the U.S. debt, you can make tax-deductible contributions to pay it down. Fiscal year 2009 saw $3.1 million in donations. Only $12 trillion left to go!

You've probably heard about the country's giant debt load - $12 trillion and rising.

Did you know you can help reduce it?

Under a little-known law enacted in 1961, Uncle Sam accepts tax-deductible contributions to pay down the country's debt.

Not that the Treasury Department does much to publicize the program.

You can find it under the header "Accepting Gifts" in the U.S. Code. Or, if you're not an avid reader of dusty legal books, you can check the FAQ section on the Web site of the Bureau of Public Debt, an agency within Treasury. Or flip to page 91 of the IRS' 2009 Instruction Booklet for Form 1040.

Contributions made are typically small -- under $100. But there have been a few humdingers over the years.

The largest single gift ever made was in 1992 for $3.5 million, said Mckayla Braden, a spokesperson for the Bureau of the Public Debt.

For fiscal year 2009, all donations totaled just over $3 million. That's well more than what was donated in any single year in the decade prior. But it's far less than the nearly $21 million collected in 1994.

The money credited to the "Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt" account in theory reduces the amount of money the government has to borrow to finance its debt. But the dent is not deep or lasting.

"We might have to finance a tiny bit less that week," Braden said.

The Nuts and Bolts

So who are the folks who send Uncle Sam money of their own volition?

"Usually someone dies and leaves a gift. And many contribute regularly," Braden said. "On average, we get five donations a week."

Sometimes, she said, a large donation is made by an estate but is paid out over a number of years.

The names and addresses of the donors are not released. And blessedly, unlike most charities that reward you for giving by bombarding you with solicitations for more money, Uncle Sam will acknowledge your gift but then never bother you again.

There are two ways to give. One is to send a check directly to the Bureau of Public Debt, an agency within the Treasury Department. The address: Attn: Dept G, Bureau of the Public Debt, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188.

The other is to include a check -- separate from any tax payment you make - with your federal income tax return.

Hate writing checks? You soon may be able to donate online. "We are going to make it very easy in the future to make gifts to reduce the public debt through PayPal on a regular basis," Braden said.

Would You Give?

CNNMoney.com's video team took to the streets of New York to ask random passers-by if they were aware of the program. No one was.

When asked if they'd contribute now that they know, the majority said that wouldn't be happening.

One woman put it this way: "They can use my tax dollars to do that and work it out." One man was a little more blunt. "Hell no. Hell no."

But others weren't so put off.

"I think I could give $10 to $20. And if everyone could do that it would make a good dent in the debt," another woman said. Another man figured he could "help the government out" with a hundred bucks.

Of course, with the national debt at $12 trillion, it would take more than a few $100 contributions to get back to even -- 120 billion of them, in fact.

Obama wants domestic spending cuts in next budget

In the November 14, 2009 article "Obama wants domestic spending cuts in next budget" Associated Press writers Tom Raum and Andrew Taylor outline the challenges of managing the current U.S. economy that needs short-term stimulus to fight the recession, but subsequently needs reduced budget deficits to minimize the burdensome effect of public debt on long-term economic growth.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration, mindful of public anxiety over the government's mushrooming debt, is shifting emphasis from big-spending policies to deficit reduction. Domestic agencies have been told to brace for a spending freeze or cuts of up to 5 percent as part of a midterm election-year push to rein in record budget shortfalls.

Yet with the economy still in distress and unemployment pushing past 10 percent, prospects for making a dent in a trillion-dollar-plus annual deficit seem slight. And since the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs would likely be shielded from such cuts, overtures toward trimming the deficit may hold more symbolic value than substance.

President Barack Obama is expected to make post-recession spending restraint a key theme of his State of the Union address in January and an important element of the budget he submits to Congress a few weeks later. He is under increasing pressure, including from moderate and conservative members of his own party, to show he is serious about tackling a deficit that has become both an economic and political liability.

Not since billionaire Ross Perot made budget-balancing the centerpiece of his 1992 third-party presidential bid has so much public concern been voiced over the gulf between what the government spends and what it takes in.

White House budget director Peter Orszag on Friday told The Associated Press it is imperative to start curbing the flow of red ink. But he called it a balancing act and said acting too fast could undercut what appears to be a fledgling economic recovery.

Orszag has said the spending blueprint, for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, 2010, would put the nation "back on a fiscally sustainable path" and suggested it would include a mix of spending cuts and new revenue-producing measures.

Democratic officials in the White House and on Capitol Hill say options for locking in budget savings include caps on the amount of money Congress gets to distribute each year for agency operating budgets. They spoke on condition of anonymity to frankly discuss internal deliberations.

The White House told agencies to submit spending plans that would, at the very least, freeze their budgets, and to prepare for cuts as high as 5 percent. That edict is but one round in internal administration deliberations on the budget. Cabinet heads are sure to seek exemptions, and Orszag warned that firm budget decisions haven't been made.

The administration also is weighing committing to debt reduction any unspent funds from the $700 billion bank bailout program. However, such a move would be largely a bookkeeping shift and not likely to yield much in the way of deficit reduction.

The new emphasis at the White House on deficit-reduction follows last month's report showing the economy surged at a 3.5 percent annual pace in the July-September quarter after contracting for four consecutive quarters. That suggested the recession is likely over — even though job losses are expected to continue for some time.

Congress will soon vote on legislation to raise the debt ceiling — the limit on how much the government can borrow — above the present $12.1 trillion. On Friday, the nation's overall debt stood at $11.99 trillion. Some fiscally conservative lawmakers have said they would not vote for further increases in the debt ceiling until the administration took deficit-cutting steps.

The national debt is the accumulation of annual budget deficits. The deficit for the 2009 budget year, which ended on Sept. 30, set an all-time record in dollar terms at $1.42 trillion.

The flow of red ink has been increased by war spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, recession-fighting stimulus and bank bailout spending and by reduced tax revenues from high unemployment and reduced personal and business income.

Polls show rising public concern over deficits. Exit polls from elections earlier this month showed clear majorities of Virginia and New Jersey voters said they were worried about the direction of the nation's economy. In both states, Republicans won gubernatorial seats that had been held by Democrats.

Republicans are seeking to capitalize on this month's Democratic election setbacks and rising voter concerns over the burst in federal spending. House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said the Democrats' "so-called `war on deficits' comes about a year late and more than a trillion dollars short."

"Spending in Washington has been out of control for years, and instead of changing it as they promised they would, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama have stepped on the accelerator," Boehner said in a statement.

Pollster Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said increasingly "the percentage of people naming the deficit as a problem is pretty substantial."

"It may be approaching the level of concern we had in the early 1990s when Ross Perot rode that horse for quite some time politically," Kohut said.

Still, politicians have typically avoided politically painful deficit-cutting steps in election years.

Stanley Collender, a budget expert at Qorvis Communications and a former staff aide to House and Senate budget committees, said if the administration could actually accomplish cuts in discretionary spending on the order of 5 percent — a big "if" — it would be a notable step toward bringing down deficits.

Despite today's hard times, putting such measures in play sooner rather than later makes sense since they wouldn't take effect until next Oct. 1, when jobs hopefully will be coming back and the economy humming again, Collender said. "It's sort of like an outfielder trying to catch a fly ball. You try to get to where the ball's going to be rather than where it is at that particular moment."

The deficit-cutting drive comes as Obama traveled to Asia where several nations, especially China, have expressed concerns about the size of U.S. deficits. China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt and policymakers worry that alarm over deficits could push foreigners into cutting back on their purchases of Treasury securities.