It’s Doug Hall’s mission to educate the taxpayer on where their taxes are really being spent.
Introduction:
Jason invites his mother, Sara, Fernando, and Brad to do a mini recap on the Memphis property tour they just had. Fernando shares his property performance statistics to the audience and Brad talks about the Mississippi real estate market. Our guest today is Doug Hall of the National Priorities Project. He talks to Jason on the federal discretionary budget and how his company is trying to make the federal budget more transparent to taxpayers.
Key Takeaways:
[1:50] Sara shares her thoughts on the Memphis property event.
[3:30] Jason’s mother shares her thoughts about the properties in Memphis.
[6:00] Fernando showed clients charts and graphs on how his properties have preformed over the years.
[9:50] Fernando has a annual 23% return from his real estate investments versus 13% annual return from his Apple stock.
[14:10] Brad talks about what Jason and the team can expect to see in the Jackson, Mississippi market.
[18:50] Jason introduces Doug Hall.
[21:05] Doug looks at both the federal discretionary budget as well as the overall budget.
[27:14] Should there even be unions in the public sector?
[29:50] What is the impact of federal spending at both the state and local level?
[34:40] Doug points out that the Pentagon is essentially unauditable.
[38:45] If you reduced the military spending by 2 billion dollars, you could increase other areas of the discretionary budget like education, medicare, etc by 50%.
Mentioned In This Episode:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/
Tweetables:
“54% of the federal discretionary budget is going to the Pentagon.”
“Public sector unions have been the backbone of the American middle class for so many people.”
Transcript
Jason Hartman:
Welcome to the Creating Wealth show. This is yous host Jason Hartman. This is episode number 511. 511. Thank you so much for joining me today. I am in here in Jackson, Mississippi. We just concluded our Memphis property tour last night and it was a fantastic weekend and I’m with Sarah and Fernando and my mom, Joyce, and we drove down here last night and kind of had a good time playing everybody’s different Djing in the car and picking music and so forth and also, Brad, our local market specialist from Jackson, Mississippi who you heard on one of the episode last week. I think just a week a go actually. Just wanted to give you a quick impression of the Memphis property tour and maybe a little bit about what we’re going to see today in terms of property. Our guest today after the intro portion will be from the National Priorities Project. Sara, what was your big takeaway from the weekend?
Sara:
Well, I know I say this after every event, but this is was the best property tour ever!
Jason:
I don’t know. It’s always the best. You know, that reminds me of what Apple says and we will talk about this since Fernando used to work with Apple. Every project they release, Johnny Ive on the video, you know this Fernando, he always says, “This is the best iPad Apple has ever done.” Of course it is! We expected it to be better than the last one, but it really was. I mean, just yesterday alone, I think our clients purchased 17-18 properties yesterday, all told leading up to the tour in the few weeks prior to about 40 properties. So, we saw some good stuff yesterdays and, you know, other takeaways than it was the best tour, go for it.
Sara:
You know what? I’m just really proud of our clients for taking action. We saw a lot of properties, nice neighborhoods, good diversification in terms of areas, you know, we saw some A areas, B areas, didn’t really dip into the C areas, I don’t think, but our clients did well. They loved the content and the Creating Wealth seminar. We had a lot of fun and then let’s not forget about Graceland.
Jason:
We had a private tour and dinner at Graceland, Elvis Presley’s mansion, Saturday night. That was really unique and fun.
Sara:
That was my favorite.
Jason:
Good stuff and we had one of our clients who was on the tour actually knows Lisa Marie Presley was still amazed with the tour and loved it. So, Marisa, I’m glad you liked that a lot. I know you did, you told me that. Anyway, mom, what was your impression of the tour? You can be candid on this one, because you were just a moment ago when I told you what the question I would be asking would be.
Joyce:
Well, I’ve been on two tours now. One in Birmingham and this one and…
Jason:
You’ve only been on two of our property tours? I know you’ve been on a lot of my seminars and events, but only two, huh? This one and Birmingham, okay.
Joyce:
But, this was, the properties here were much superior to Birmingham, even the B properties were, you know, the lawns, the areas were just very, very nice.
Jason:
Now, what makes you say that? Why do you think, why did you like Memphis better than Birmingham?
Joyce:
Just has a nicer ambiance, a nicer feeling about it.
Jason:
Hmm, okay, good and that was pretty amazing, the most expensive property that we saw on the tour, that one of our clients actually purchased, we – she had dibs on it before we got there to the property, but this house was gorgeous. It was a whopping, I know we have a lot of listeners from California and New York, the north east, South Florida, expensive areas around the world too, but this property was a whopping $146,900 and wasn’t that house gorgeous?
Joyce:
Gorgeous, absolutely. Absolutely gorgeous. The area was just beautiful.
Jason:
And projected rent on that one by the way was still better than 1% RV ratio. It was $1,595 for that, so good stuff. Fernando, you own 70 units now and that’s 50 different properties, 70 doors total that you’ve acquired over the last three years. What were your impressions of the tour?
Fernando:
Well, I always like the opportunity to network and meet with new people and like Sara says, the quality of the clients that we see is just phenomenal and the learning that goes on and the feedback that we get and people come to me and say, I really enjoy this. It really helped me understand the whole process. We had people wanted to see how properties looked before rehab, during rehab, and after rehab and they wanted to get an appreciation for how good of a transformation you could expect for some of these houses. I also spent sometime talking to clients about my personal finances. I showed some charts on how my properties have performed over the last three years and we went through a lot of these graphs and it was really awesome. I got a lot of good feedback on that.
Jason:
That was very enlightening, Fernando. Thank you so much for doing that, because just a few days before the tour you shared those graphs with me and those spreadsheets with me and I thought, wow, that’s amazing. Why don’t you share just a little bit of that, maybe a highlight of it real quick. We should do a whole episode on this, really with the listeners today, if you would. I know you probably weren’t prepared for that totally, but yeah, but you do have the graphs handy.
Tell us a little bit about how your performance of your portfolio has been and I’ll tell you why, listeners; this is a great case study because it’s such a fragmented business and it’s very hard to quantify these returns because everybody is an individual, every property is an individual and everybody has a different experience and the part where you start to really see that you can kind of quantify it is when you have enough properties and enough time go by and, one more thing, someone like Fernando who is meticulous about keeping track of everything, because he is, of course, an engineer and so that’s great. So, yeah, give us a few highlights from that real quick, if you would and you presented this to our audience on Saturday and then again a little bit of it on Sunday when you did a separate presentation. Those were both fantastic by the way.
Fernando:
So, I think the most interesting chart for me and I think many people got a good information from was one that I showed 2012-2013-2014, financial indicator bar chart and he showed that my total return on gross equity divided by cash invested. So, this is really my return on the bulk of the investment when you consider appreciation, principle reduction, and cash flow. The combination of all these three indicator is called gross equity income. When you divide that by the cash that I invested when I started the process, showed me that my annual return for 2014 was 23%. Now, I wanted to compare that with Apple stock did from 2012 to 2014. As it turns out..
Jason:
Let’s tell the listeners why, because when I met you four years ago at a bar. We didn’t meet at a bar unintentionally. He was a podcast listener, he discovered the podcast and then was in Phoenix and I had just moved there actually at the time not too long before. You had contacted me and said, hey, I’m going to be there, you know, I’d like to meet you to ask some questions. You showed me your financial independence day plan, that’s what you called it. After we met, you just started acquiring properties. You only had your own home at that time and you worked for Apple and you were originally a chip designer designing potato chips.
Fernando:
Yeah, no. The ones you don’t eat.
Jason:
The ones you don’t eat. The ones in this device with which I’m using to record integrated chips, they used to call them integrated chips, now they just say chips. You started acquiring properties and you really kept grate track of it, but oh, that was the point. There I am on another tangent. I need one more cup of coffee folks and then I’ll be okay, but you liquidated a lot of your Apple stock to invest in real estate.
Fernando:
Yes, right. So, I liquidated the stock and purchased real estate over the last two-three years. So, I wanted to compare how did my real estate investments perform compared to Apple stock and Apple had a great run over the last few years. As it turns out my total return when you look at this gross equity income over the cash that I invested was 23% in 2014. Well, Apple’s annualized return was 13% over that period of time. So, you’re comparing 23% against 13% over a company that did pretty well. So, I’m very pleased that I made the right decision even though Apple stock is at an all-time high.
Jason:
Right, yeah. That’s a great point and Apple is obviously the most successful company in the history of the world. It’s an amazing company, for sure, and 13% in any given year is a fantastic return on stocks. I just wanted to remind the listeners to keep this stuff in perspective, because income property is a multidimensional asset class and the returns can easily, well, I don’t want to say easily, but you pick the right property.
You have a reasonably good experience with it, with a one month vacancy per year reasonable maintenance of anywhere between, you know, 5-8% of your income of you don’t have a disaster, which believe me, disasters do happen, okay, so it’s not all roses by any means, but because it’s a multidimensional asset class and you get your return from so many areas, just keep that in perspective.
Remember Bernie Madoff who made off with so much money, you know, I mean, a name like that you’d just had to be a crook, okay, you know. I mean, why didn’t they just, you know, Bernie Crook. I mean, he, of course as we all know, had the largest found, I mean, there may be others out there that are bigger, but the largest known to date Ponzi scheme outside of the US social security system and that’s where he got the idea. His promise to investors was, look, I can get you 10-12% and Apple on a great year 13%, your portfolio was that a great year? I mean, your real estate portfolio. Well, maybe you don’t know yet, because you are only four years into this game, but you got, what do you say, 23%?
Fernando:
Yeah, 23% for 2014. It’s important to also tell the listeners that we went through each of my markets and showed the good and the bad as well.
Jason:
And how many markets are you in? How many cities in other words or metro areas. MSA is metropolitan statistical areas.
Fernando:
I’m in six different MSAs.
Jason:
Okay.
Fernando:
So, we showed how they all performed on a per capita basis, in a cash flow per door and which ones I’m having more difficulty with and which ones are performing better. So, it gives you, I think this came about from a question from the listeners, from one of the clients in the room yesterday and we went through and showed the actually, you know, returns and how it performed, so I think it gave people are really good sense of the good and the bad and the realistic expectation for what they could do if they got into the same program.
Jason:
Yeah, good, good stuff. Okay, I wanted to – so, that’s our impression of the Memphis property tour over the weekend and that’s kind of in review. It’s now Monday morning. We’re here in Jackson, Mississippi. We drove here last night, of course, and about a three hour drive between the two with my mom’s driving, it’s about two hours and 45 minutes. She gets there pretty quick and now we’re in Jackson. So, we’re about to go look at some properties with Brad, our local market specialist here and as you heard on the podcast episode last week where Brad and I talked for quite awhile. You know, he’s doing a good job investing here. You’ve really built quite a portfolio, don’t you have, as I recall, about 117 houses or something?
Brad:
Yes, we’re up to about 117 total single family homes with one or two duplexes thrown in there.
Jason:
It’s amazing, you know, you can go to a relatively small town like Jackson, Mississippi and here we are talking with a real estate mogul of the town, right? Yeah.
Brad:
I’d like to think so.
Jason:
Good stuff. Tell us what are we going to see today, Brad?
Brad:
We’re going to go look at about 15 properties. Most of them will be already rehabed, rented, performing, and we’ll look at a few that we’ve just finished and we’re going to look at a few that we’re in the middle of working on that will be available for rent shortly.
Jason:
Good stuff. Just in a nut shell, I mean, of course most of the listeners hearing this heard the entire episode we did last week, but what are your thoughts on your market here or thoughts on real estate investing in general?
Brad:
Well, I think I like real estate investing personally as opposed to the stock market because you’re in control of your investments and I think it generates as Fernando was talking about, I think it generates higher returns than you can get in traditional investments. Concerning the market here, we have a very unique market here supply is basically unlimited for somebody who wants to go out and build a large portfolio. We have extremely high rents compared to price. Our prices are lower than the national average for your typical three bedroom, one bath, three bedroom, two bath home and the rents are very strong. So, it’s easy to generate double digit cash flow returns in this market here in Jackson.
Jason:
Fantastic, good stuff. Well, I know that you actually moved here as I recall. I mean, the episode was aired last week, but we recorded about a month ago, so it’s hard for me to remember everything, but you moved here from another city just to be a real estate investor, was that correct? Tell me that story again.
Brad:
Well, I moved here. I took a job back in 1997, I had a sales job and I was just looking for another way to make some extra money, although I’ve since come to learn that there’s no such thing as extra money.
Jason:
What does that mean? Does that mean you’re married and someone helps you spend it or..?
Brad;
That means I’m married with four children and then every penny is necessary. There’s no extra money.
Jason:
No matter how much you earn, your lifestyle will expand to fill the income.
Sara:
I’m really glad you said that.
Brad:
That’s correct. So, anyway, I took a job and I was just looking for a way to make some extra money and I had a friend, a couple of friends in the real estate business, he was exiting the business and he had ten properties left that he wanted to sell, so I read half a book, thought it was a great thing to do, and jumped right in, and I’ve expanded and bought and sold over 15,000 homes in the last 15 years and it’s just gone from there.
Jason:
The distinction I want to make and what Brad is saying is similar to what I do, what Sara does, what Fernando does is, you know; well, Fernando is newly in the business of being in the real estate business, but he has a great investor story and then came to work with us and we’re very grateful that he did, but the 15,000 homes you’re talking about is what you did as a business for your company, the company you own, but you kept a 117 of those properties for your own account. So, folks, you know, when you’re investing and you’re thinking about this, make sure the person you’re working with is following their own plan and taking their own medicine. So, yeah, any comment on that before we go?
Brad:
No, I mean, mainly we’re in the buy and sell business, but we keep the same homes, my partner and I, we keep the same homes that we sell. So, I’m doing what I’m also talking about.
Jason:
Yeah, practice what you preach. It’s a good thing. Good stuff. Well, hey, everybody. We better get to our guest today and let’s get out and look at some properties. I’m really excited about it. So, do you often have four people here who are experts in the industry who are going to be critiquing the properties you show them. Is that normal?
Brad:
No, I’ve had a few people in here over the years, but never this many at one time.
Jason:
This is a tough audience, Brad. You better see some good stuff today!
Brad:
Alright, we’ll be on our A game.
Jason:
Here we go, so let’s get to our guest and talk about the National Priorities Project. We’ll be back with you on Wednesday.
It’s my pleasure to welcome Doug Hall to the show. He is executive director of the National Priorities Project, which was a 2014 nominee for the Nobel peace price. Doug, welcome, how are you?
Doug Hall:
I’m doing well, thanks.
Jason:
Good to have you on the show.
Doug:
I appreciate you having me on today.
Jason:
Yeah, yeah, my pleasure. Give our listeners a sense of geography, where are you located?
Doug:
We’re actually located in Northhampton, Massachusetts.
Jason:
Taxachusetts, that’s funny that you should be located there, almost. So, what is the National Priorities Project really focusing on nowadays?
Doug:
Well, we’re an organization that’s been around for over 30 years and our basic approach is to try to make our federal budget accessible and transparent so that regular people can wrap their heads around it. We’ve certainty been focusing most recently on the President’s budget proposal and the various options from other sources and, of course, as we head into tax day, we’ve been looking at some of that stuff too and really showing folks how their tax dollars are distributed in terms of the various programs and services that result from that.
Jason:
Is it even possible for a typical, regular, average Joe, so to speak, to wrap the head around the federal budget, even? We’re not even talking state and local, before we get to that.
Doug:
Well, I mean, certainty no human being could wrap their head around sort of all the intricacies of it, but even just giving people a better sense of what the general buckets look like, you know, a great example is we get a lot of traffic on the work that we’ve done around international aid and there’s, you know, if you look at pulling data, people think we spend the 20 cents on every dollar that we spend goes to international aid of some sort and the truth is it’s closer to one cent on every dollar. So, it gives you a sense of sort of the magnitude of the misconceptions that out there and the importance of giving people a more accurate sense of what the federal budget actually looks like.
Jason:
Can you give us kind of that overview. I mean, I want to dive in to the impact of various spending with different levels of government and so forth. Can you give us an overview of those buckets? I think that would be really interesting to the listeners.
Doug:
Yeah. Well, so, the two sort of main buckets that we look at are the discretionary budget and then the whole budget, which includes not just the discretionary part, but also the non-discretionary parts, the mandatory spending. Those two pieces, they’re huge and they account for literally billion, trillions of dollars in fact and that’s another great example of how it is that people have trouble wrapping their head around this, I suppose.
Certainty, if you’re talking about the discretionary side of the budget, you know, the real piece of that is the fact that over 50%, I think it’s 54% now, of the federal – of discretionary budget, is going to the Pentagon spending, which leaves very little for things like education, infrastructure, all of those sorts of things that are critical to the well being of the American people today and in the future.
Jason:
Maybe in the context of the political parties, you know, people on the left would certainty say we’re spending too much money on war. I think a lot of people on the right are starting to say that too. People on the right would say we’re spending too much money on government hand outs in the welfare state. Kind of bring those into focus a little more if you would and talk about the welfare side too.
Doug:
Certainty there’s lots of room for disagreement on what the federal budget should emphasize. I think that probably people across all parties strips and all ideologies would agree that if there is something like waste and fraud and abuse in the system, we should address that and certainty if you look at the Pentagon budget and some of the, you know, sort of stereotypical examples you hear about million dollar toilets and that kind of thing.
Those are great examples, but it’s just sort of one piece of the puzzle, obviously. The truth of the matter is that when you drill down, you get a better sense that, you know, there’s lot of complexities to this and there’s no magic answers, but at the same time, you know, you mentioned the welfare piece of that. You know, that’s a piece of the puzzle that if we spend our money wisely at the front end, we end up having much better results at the back end.
So, just as an example, when I worked in Connecticut for several years, they quite literally used forth grade education testing results to determine how much they would need to spend, you know, down the road on corrections. Just wrap your head around that. They’re using, you know, the educational achievement of folks to figure out how many of them are going to end up in prison. It makes so much more sense to invest early in those kids, you know, call it welfare if you like, call it whatever you want to, but is smart public policy and smart spending. It’s not pennywises and non-foolish, instead it’s exactly the opposite. Sort of stitch in nine, in time saves nine, if you wanna, evoke competing vision there.
Jason:
Or an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure as my grandmother used to say, yeah. So, that certainty makes sense from an ideological perspective. I don’t think anybody is going to disagree with you there, but where the disagreement comes is people will say, well, the educational system is broken. You know, Steve Forbes was on my show, he, years ago, referred to the NEA as the National Extortion Association. These organizations get, they get big and they get entrenched and they become corrupt and inefficient and they become what one of my other guest called, ‘iron triangles’.
I happen to be back, just visiting in my home state of California. I mean, the state is just a disaster. It’s like the public employee unions run the state and they are just driving it in the ground. I don’t know, maybe you’ll disagree with me there, but that’s what a lot of people, at least myself included, think. So, it’s not really the concept, it’s more the application, right? Are those fair concerns in your eyes?
Doug:
Well, I think they are fair concerns, but I think that it is very easy to latch on to a few antidotes here and there and over generalize. I look at someone like Randi Wiengarten, for example. The head of the American Federation of Teachers and she is obviously a strong advocate for the unions that teachers belong to, but she’s also very receptive to some really constructive ways of looking at education reform. So, yes, you know, any time that you have entrenched interests, you need to be looking for ways, you know, to get those folks out of the trench per say, but I don’t think the fact that they are unions or the fact that they are public employees, that’s not what the problem is.
In fact, the evidence is pretty clear that public sector unions have been the foundation, the backbone, of the American middle class for so many people for generations and the fact we are attacking them now, I actually think is really misguided and it, I think it also distracts in very important ways from some of the bigger struggles that are out there.
Jason:
Let me run an idea by you. I’m really curious what and, please, just be open with me on this. If my thinking is wrong, tell me so, I have no problem with that at all. So, the government, the legal system, the government and its court system is really the arbitrator of fairness in our society and that’s why it seems to me like, I don’t mind unions in the private sector. I think really, definitely served a purpose, especially in the time where they rose, but should there be a union for public employees? I mean, basically those unions are on the opposite side of the table as the tax payers.
The government should be fair, because it should be impartial, like it’s not the government’s money, so why would they have a big problem with paying people a fair wage? It’s kind of like the tragedy of the commons, right, when it’s everybody’s money, it’s nobody’s money, you know? I mean, I certainty see the need for unions and so forth. I’m fine with their existence, but public employee unions, that’s a distinction, isn’t it? Isn’t that a fair distinction to make a different between employee unions and regular unions?
Doug:
Well, I think it’s certainty fair to distinguish between those two, for sure, but what we find actually when you look at what’s going on out there in the labor market is, you know, there is quite literally a war on workers going on where we’ve had decades of wage stagnation and you are only now..
Jason:
Well, of course we have, because they’ve offshore all their jobs and the tax code is kind of incentivized the companies to do that, unfortunately.
Doug:
Well, there’s no doubt there’s some room for changes there and some of the trade agreements that we have, you know, signed onto are ones that have very clearly, you know, been very much in the interest of transnational corporations, but not so much in the interest of workers in our country or any other country for that matter. Those are bigger conversations that I’m sure you could do a couple of shows of as well.
Jason:
Totally. We could do a couple of days on that, so yeah, fair enough, fair enough. Okay, but, so just the concept though on the public employee unions. That was all I was really getting at.
Doug:
Right and my sense is that we need to be looking, you know, what you so often hear our arguments to say, you know, those public sector workers, they have, you know, good retirement benefits and they have good health care and that’s not fair and, you know what, it’s not fair, but then the question should be not how can I take it away from them; the question should be, how can I get back. What are they doing right that I’m not doing right? Some of that might in fact be looking for ways to achieve co-active bargaining whether it’s through a formal union or some other mechanism.
Jason:
Okay, alright. I didn’t mean to, you know like, derail the conversation too much, because there’s some other stuff I want to touch on. So, you know, one of the things I wanted to discuss with you is just sort of a general statement and that is, you know, what is the impact of federal spending at the state and local level? You know, just kind of a very broad, general question, just your thoughts on that.
Doug:
Yeah, I think that’s a really good example of a question that not enough people of asked and certainty not enough people have answered and there’s sort of two ways I can come at that. One is to sort of think, you know, when you wake up in the morning and you turn on your water, you can trust your water is going to be safe. When you go outside, when your kids go outside, breathing air, you know, which for the most part is safe. That’s your federal government at work and doing good work.
Another way to look at it is sort of more directly in terms of the relationship between federal spending and what goes on with your state and local government and just as a point of example, on average, in 2012, 32% are pretty much, 1/3 of every dollar in state budgets comes from the federal government. So, wrap your head around that, you know, I think people have a better sense of what goes on in, you know, government that are closer to them, so certainty they might have a better sense of what’s going on with state government, but I don’t think very many people realize that a third of the money that their state government is spending is really the federal tax dollars at work.
Having said that, the other thing that’s really quite striking is that ranges considerably from about 20% in Alaska to 45% in Mississippi and it’s certainty not a coincidence that, you know, Mississippi is one of the poorer states and it’s actually hugely ironic that this states that are most heavily dependent on federal spending are also the states where the people most consistently take an anti government perspective.
Jason:
Well, either like ungrateful teenage kids, okay, or what I don’t know if you said in that statement is that doesn’t that spending come with a whole bunch of strings attached? I mean, there are sorts of mandates that come with that spending where’s it’s this horse trading game. The federal government says, look, if you do this and you know, in the old days it was, if you keep your speed limit at 55 miles per hour, then we’ll give you some money for roads and there are a million other examples of that that I can’t think of, maybe you can, but it’s not like there’s no strings to that, right?
Doug:
Oh, of course, and that’s exactly as it should be. I mean, you know, if you were spending anybody’s money, it would be reasonable to think that the person whose money that was would have some say in that. If it’s coming from the federal government, I think it’s entirely appropriate that we expected states would, for example, meet minimum national standards.
Jason:
Right, right. There is kind of a states rights issue here though that arises, because when – just like, you know, anybody getting money from a parent or the government, they become beholden to them and then it’s all about, you know, do this thing, bring the money to my district, then it becomes these like, turf wars and it’s not what’s good for the country, it’s just what’s good for my little district, you know, that’s what the congress will argue for, right? I got to bring this money to my distinct and even if it’s totally illogical – that’s why we have these airports around the country that aren’t used, we have these facilities around the country, because they’re in like these nonsensical places and they showed up there because someone lobbied well! They were just a good lobbyist, you know?
Doug:
Right, but you know what? When you started talking about that type of expenditure, my mind immediately went to sort of the “bridge to no where” in Alaska. Like, a specific project that was, you know, ten or 12 years ago, which to me speaks volumes by the fact that, you know, there’s no question you’re going to find examples like that and that’s not good. That’s not the smartest way for us to be spending our public dollars, but that doesn’t mean that, you know, 80% of the dollars that are spent or 90% of the dollars that are spent are being spent unwisely. You would never want to look at sort of the worst, you know, the worst performer on a sports team or the worst student in the class room and paint everybody with that same brush. That’s not fair in education and it’s not fair in sports and it’s not fair in assessing the effectiveness in government programs, either.
Jason:
Yeah, okay. I guess that’s a fair statement. So, do you think that the Obama administration is transparent enough with their budget?
Doug:
I think in a general sense, yes, and certainty, I don’t think there’s any evidence that I am aware of that they are any less transparent than other governments. Having said that, I pointed out fairly early that a big chunk of our money is going to defense and it’s a complete travesty that the Pentagon has been essentially unauditable.
Jason:
That’s for sure. You’ll get a 100% agreement with me on that one and same goes for the federal reserve, by the way, but that’s sort of a different conversation.
Doug:
Yeah, also another conversation, you’re right about. Certainty any time our public dollars are being spent, I think there is a reasonable expectation that the citizens of this country have, at least, a general sense of what that looks like. Now, that’s not to say that, you know, there can’t be areas where money is being spent that we don’t know necessarily know about. We don’t need to know sort of the intricacies of international spy stuff. The stuff you read about in novels, for example, because that’s, obviously, there are legitimate national security concerns there. Having said that, it’s completely bogus to, you know, redact three quarters of every single document and just label that, ‘national security’, ‘national security’. There needs to be a middle road.
Jason:
I think you’re right and I think Bradley Manning would say the same thing and Edward Snowden would say the same thing, because the government can basically criminalize everything. You know, everything because classified, everything becomes national security. I mean, that’s totally bogus. You’re absolutely right. It’s ridiculous. Who gets to decide, FISA court, probably, you know, gets to decide that everything, we’ll just mark everything classified. It’s all got the red classified stamp at the top, so you can’t talk about anything anymore. I mean, is it really, you know, how much of the Pentagon is auditable? You said it basically wasn’t, but degree of transparency is there and by the way, I don’t even know if it should be called the Department of Defense anymore. I think it should be called the War Department, like it was called before, because it acts more like that.
Doug:
I think, yes, I think there’s no question of that and Eisenhower talked about the military industrial complex, which has now very clearly morphed into a military industrial congressional complex and there’s lot of dysfunctions there and it’s pretty save bet that there’s lots of dollars being spent, public dollars being spent in unwise ways and in ways that not only don’t make us safer, but probably increase the danger that we face. If you look at what’s going on in the Middle East, every drone we send in, ever bomb that we drop, you know, that’s not enduring to the rest of the world and the results of that we see bubbling up as this terrorist attack here or that one over there and those are certainty horrific acts, but they’re not things that spending another 100 billion dollars on defense or Pentagon money are going to solve either.
Jason:
I couldn’t agree more, but to be on balance, we have to also talk about the, what I call, the government entitlement complex. So, that’s another one, you know, like the military industrial complex. They’re both there and they’re both – all these misdeeds in both of them. As we wrap up here, what else did you want to say that maybe I didn’t ask you. I know we got off on a few tangents here, but I thought that there were kind of interesting in pursuing them. Just anything you want to talk about?
Doug:
Well, to me, one of the most important things is that people realize that the voice of the people is virtually the only thing that stands the hope of having as much influence over how we spend our money as the big spending of very wealthy and corporate doors and it’s because of that that we need to make sure that we’re, you know, in contact with our congressional delegations, letting them know how we would like to see our dollars spent and to get a sense that there is some potential to reallocate just as a real quick example, you know, one of the things I did playing around with the spreadsheet was to sort of take a look at that discretionary spending budget that has things like education benefits, medicare and health, international affairs.
You could increase every single one of those slices by 50% and you would only reduce military spending by about 200 billion dollars and it would still by far the largest slice accounting for about 36% of discretionary spending. So, that’s sort of one example of how, you know, we could reallocate our money to place a higher priority on something like education, on infrastructure, on the things that are going to, you know, build a foundation for our prosperity, you know, generation and decades down the road.
Jason:
Doug, give out your website.
Doug:
So, it’s NationalPriorities.org and for folks that are interested in taking a look of what’s going onat the state level, I urge you to take a look at our State Smart data set.
Jason:
Excellent and Doug, just one more question before you go and it really, you may have said it, but I just want to kind of ask you to wrap it up in a nice little box with a bow on it and that is, what is the ideal, perfect government budget, overall? I mean, I know you mentioned education a moment ago compared to the military spending and so forth, but kind of overall, what’s that ideal budget look like?
Doug:
You know, to me, in an ideal budget, you’re going to see a spending pattern that both reflects the opinions, the priorities of the citizen reign while also ensuring, you know, the general well being of Americas and I think there’s lots of evidence right now, we’re not even close to that on either of those accounts.
Jason:
Good stuff. Doug Hall, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate having you on.
Doug:
Thank you. Take care, bye bye.
Announcer:
This show is produced by the Hartman Media Company, all rights reserved. For distribution or publication rights and media interviews, please visit www.hartmanmedia.com or email [email protected]. Nothing on this show should be considered specific personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own and the host is acting on behalf of Empowered Investor Network Inc. exclusively.
