Andy Strum's Blog, page 7
September 30, 2010
Earmarks, Entitlements, and Pork (Bribery????)
We have the best government that money can buy. - Mark Twain
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy..." - Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770
An earmark is an inclusion to a law, by a member of Congress, to specify funds for a particular purpose. Usually these earmarks have little or nothing to do with the main premise of the proposed bill. In order to vote against an earmark, a congressman would have to vote against the entire bill, thereby voting against a conceivably worthwhile program. Because of this, the lesser of two evils is practiced, voting for a good bill containing a bad earmark.
Approximately 9,000 earmarks costing about $8 Billion were included in the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill. If the $8 Billion was excluded, the tax bill for 800,000 families would be reduced by $10,000 each, a real tax relief to America's Middle Class. And that example was just for the Omnibus Spending Bill in 2009. In fiscal year's 2008 Total Federal Budget, there were approximately 11,500 earmarks totaling about $16.5 Billion for the year. This means in 2008, 1 ½ million families could have saved over $10,000 each in taxes. Again, this would be meaningful tax relief for the middle class. A Billion here and a Billion there and pretty soon you're talking serious money; if Congress only knew. Although the party in power gets the majority of earmarks included in a bill, earmarks do not belong to any one party alone. Each political party is guilty; a factual wakeup call for all the American public. The public hears of transparency, earmarks are an area where transparency would be appreciated. The larger the total budget, the less any one earmark becomes 'meaningful.' Therefore, Congress may have a selfish motive to continually spend and increase the budget. In 2008, the total Federal Budget was a little less than $3 Trillion. With earmarks at $16.5 Billion, they represented "only" 0.55% of the total, a little more than ½%. Now that doesn't sound so bad. The larger the total budget, the less ominous each earmark. Congress has a way of using percentages instead of real dollar figures to fool the public. Of course they've had years and years of practice.
Earmarks should not be included in proposed bills. Each earmark should be reported to the public (transparency) and should include: The sponsor, the amount, the purpose and the local or national benefit to the public. Earmarks should be voted on separately, based on merits only. A bill coming before Congress should have a theme, an easily distinguishable commonality. Any proposals, additions, or amendments must match the theme of the proposed bill. If not, a separate vote is essential. Congressmen should not force millions of taxpayers to fund their pet projects by burying them in otherwise worthwhile legislation. It's our money they're spending, not theirs.
In the political system there is also a practice of adding special provisions to a bill to get one or more congressman's support. These provisions are different than the earmarks discussed above and may actually benefit the Congressman's state or district residents; however, the provisions are only being added to secure a vote and not to enhance the proposed bill. They do not add value to the entire country. In 2009, we saw this happen with the Health Reform Bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars were added so that a few areas of the country would benefit at the expense of the rest of the country. This was only done to get enough votes to pass the bill. Without these provisions being added, it is doubtful that the bill would be passed. In other words, on the merits of the bill alone, there would not have been passage. That does not speak well for the bill. If a bill can only be passed by adding special sweeteners, the bill should be allowed to fail. One such sweetener, to a southern state, was reported to be $300 Million. 30,000 American families will have to pay $10,000 each for one state to benefit. Another state received a promise that any increase in cost of one of the mandated programs, to that state and that state alone, would be, forever, paid for by the Federal government. How can the public put a cost on something that will never end? Would our Founding Fathers consent to our Federal Government treating one state differently than another? Hardly seems democratic!
This is an excerpt from my book: "Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American"
See more excerpts of my book at Amazon Books:
Amazon Books Preview: Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy..." - Alexander Fraser Tytler, Scottish lawyer and writer, 1770
An earmark is an inclusion to a law, by a member of Congress, to specify funds for a particular purpose. Usually these earmarks have little or nothing to do with the main premise of the proposed bill. In order to vote against an earmark, a congressman would have to vote against the entire bill, thereby voting against a conceivably worthwhile program. Because of this, the lesser of two evils is practiced, voting for a good bill containing a bad earmark.
Approximately 9,000 earmarks costing about $8 Billion were included in the 2009 Omnibus Spending Bill. If the $8 Billion was excluded, the tax bill for 800,000 families would be reduced by $10,000 each, a real tax relief to America's Middle Class. And that example was just for the Omnibus Spending Bill in 2009. In fiscal year's 2008 Total Federal Budget, there were approximately 11,500 earmarks totaling about $16.5 Billion for the year. This means in 2008, 1 ½ million families could have saved over $10,000 each in taxes. Again, this would be meaningful tax relief for the middle class. A Billion here and a Billion there and pretty soon you're talking serious money; if Congress only knew. Although the party in power gets the majority of earmarks included in a bill, earmarks do not belong to any one party alone. Each political party is guilty; a factual wakeup call for all the American public. The public hears of transparency, earmarks are an area where transparency would be appreciated. The larger the total budget, the less any one earmark becomes 'meaningful.' Therefore, Congress may have a selfish motive to continually spend and increase the budget. In 2008, the total Federal Budget was a little less than $3 Trillion. With earmarks at $16.5 Billion, they represented "only" 0.55% of the total, a little more than ½%. Now that doesn't sound so bad. The larger the total budget, the less ominous each earmark. Congress has a way of using percentages instead of real dollar figures to fool the public. Of course they've had years and years of practice.
Earmarks should not be included in proposed bills. Each earmark should be reported to the public (transparency) and should include: The sponsor, the amount, the purpose and the local or national benefit to the public. Earmarks should be voted on separately, based on merits only. A bill coming before Congress should have a theme, an easily distinguishable commonality. Any proposals, additions, or amendments must match the theme of the proposed bill. If not, a separate vote is essential. Congressmen should not force millions of taxpayers to fund their pet projects by burying them in otherwise worthwhile legislation. It's our money they're spending, not theirs.
In the political system there is also a practice of adding special provisions to a bill to get one or more congressman's support. These provisions are different than the earmarks discussed above and may actually benefit the Congressman's state or district residents; however, the provisions are only being added to secure a vote and not to enhance the proposed bill. They do not add value to the entire country. In 2009, we saw this happen with the Health Reform Bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars were added so that a few areas of the country would benefit at the expense of the rest of the country. This was only done to get enough votes to pass the bill. Without these provisions being added, it is doubtful that the bill would be passed. In other words, on the merits of the bill alone, there would not have been passage. That does not speak well for the bill. If a bill can only be passed by adding special sweeteners, the bill should be allowed to fail. One such sweetener, to a southern state, was reported to be $300 Million. 30,000 American families will have to pay $10,000 each for one state to benefit. Another state received a promise that any increase in cost of one of the mandated programs, to that state and that state alone, would be, forever, paid for by the Federal government. How can the public put a cost on something that will never end? Would our Founding Fathers consent to our Federal Government treating one state differently than another? Hardly seems democratic!
This is an excerpt from my book: "Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American"
See more excerpts of my book at Amazon Books:
Amazon Books Preview: Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American
September 28, 2010
Some Thoughts on the Bush Tax Cut Debate
It is suggested that allowing the Bush Tax Cuts to continue for everyone EXCEPT those making somewhere over $200,000 ($250,000) is the right thing to do. It will reduce the deficit and the people it would affect should be paying more taxes. It is implied they do not pay their fair share. It will bring in (depending on who is speaking) $700 Billion to $1 Trillion over ten years.
Ten years is a convenient time frame for politicians. The numbers seem large when you express them over ten years. It might as well be a life time. It is hard to estimate next year's numbers, let alone 10 years out. There will be many elections over that time and many, many things will change. One must wonder what kind of odds Las Vegas would place on that number being correct. If it is close, then we're looking at over $70 Billion a year.
Will collecting this tax revenue reduce the deficit? It might if congress freezes the budget and does not allow our current deficit to increase. Has that been introduced? Has this new tax revenue been designated only to reduce the deficit and not for any new program or to fund an existing program? Has congress been successful in passing "a no earmark or entitlement" provision? In fiscal year's 2008 Total Federal Budget, there were approximately 11,500 earmarks totaling about $16.5 Billion for the year. Don't know what the 2009 number is. But $16.5 Billion is approximately 25 % of the expected revenue from the tax proposal. Do we really want to take that money out of the public's hand so politicians can spend it at will?
Should families that struggled to start a business, borrow against their homes and credit cards, hire people from the neighborhood and give their employees benefits, and finally make over the magic number of $250,000, be put in the same category as multi-millionaires and billionaires? Our government makes it seem that all successful businessmen fall into that category. Should our country have the attitude that because someone becomes successful or their family has had success they should fund whatever programs congress decides on?
Most people don't mind paying taxes. Most feel that the United States has given them the opportunity to earn a living and lead a good life. They realize that many services are needed and funding for those services should come from tax revenue. What is often objected to is the disregard that is showed by our government on how the money is spent. They throw around billions of dollars as if it's a rounding error.
For every $1 billion congress spends 100,000 families have to pay $10,000 in taxes. Maybe those 100,000 families could use that money to benefit their own families. (Food, Education, Housing, Utilities, etc..)
It's time the congress makes the first move before taxing anyone anymore. Freeze the spending, eliminate earmarks, eliminate new entitlements, examine all existing entitlements, cut all government budgets by some % (that's what business does), examine all the benefit packages of government employees and the list goes on and on.
Let them do that before they take more of our money.
You can preview my book:
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=andy strum&x=7&y=13
Ten years is a convenient time frame for politicians. The numbers seem large when you express them over ten years. It might as well be a life time. It is hard to estimate next year's numbers, let alone 10 years out. There will be many elections over that time and many, many things will change. One must wonder what kind of odds Las Vegas would place on that number being correct. If it is close, then we're looking at over $70 Billion a year.
Will collecting this tax revenue reduce the deficit? It might if congress freezes the budget and does not allow our current deficit to increase. Has that been introduced? Has this new tax revenue been designated only to reduce the deficit and not for any new program or to fund an existing program? Has congress been successful in passing "a no earmark or entitlement" provision? In fiscal year's 2008 Total Federal Budget, there were approximately 11,500 earmarks totaling about $16.5 Billion for the year. Don't know what the 2009 number is. But $16.5 Billion is approximately 25 % of the expected revenue from the tax proposal. Do we really want to take that money out of the public's hand so politicians can spend it at will?
Should families that struggled to start a business, borrow against their homes and credit cards, hire people from the neighborhood and give their employees benefits, and finally make over the magic number of $250,000, be put in the same category as multi-millionaires and billionaires? Our government makes it seem that all successful businessmen fall into that category. Should our country have the attitude that because someone becomes successful or their family has had success they should fund whatever programs congress decides on?
Most people don't mind paying taxes. Most feel that the United States has given them the opportunity to earn a living and lead a good life. They realize that many services are needed and funding for those services should come from tax revenue. What is often objected to is the disregard that is showed by our government on how the money is spent. They throw around billions of dollars as if it's a rounding error.
For every $1 billion congress spends 100,000 families have to pay $10,000 in taxes. Maybe those 100,000 families could use that money to benefit their own families. (Food, Education, Housing, Utilities, etc..)
It's time the congress makes the first move before taxing anyone anymore. Freeze the spending, eliminate earmarks, eliminate new entitlements, examine all existing entitlements, cut all government budgets by some % (that's what business does), examine all the benefit packages of government employees and the list goes on and on.
Let them do that before they take more of our money.
You can preview my book:
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
on Amazon at:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=andy strum&x=7&y=13
September 26, 2010
One 6 Year Term for Elected Officials
The member (of Congress) who is not making a career of politics looks quite differently at the world.-Robert Novak
In my book: "Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" I have a chapter "Question: What does a Congressman do for a living? Answer: Spends the days trying to get re-elected."
I make a case; In 1951, term limits for the President of The United States were enacted. It's time to enact new term limits for the President and add term limits for Senators and House of Repre...
In my book: "Essays from a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" I have a chapter "Question: What does a Congressman do for a living? Answer: Spends the days trying to get re-elected."
I make a case; In 1951, term limits for the President of The United States were enacted. It's time to enact new term limits for the President and add term limits for Senators and House of Repre...
September 25, 2010
The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.
My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees... I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all b...
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees... I don't feel threatened.. I don't feel discriminated against.. That's what they are, Christmas trees.
It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all b...
September 22, 2010
Camel's Back !!! Baloon Bursting !!! What about our Debt???
Our parents and grandparents were appalled when the Government's spending and debts were put in numbers as Billions and Tens of Billions. Now our government expects us to accept Trillions as the norm. Make that Tens of Trillions!!!!
There is a straw out there and the camel's back is sagging!!!
Remember watching a child pushing a pin into a balloon. One second the balloon is filled with air and then, in an instant, it has burst. The child cries and apologizes. He can't understand what happened. ...
There is a straw out there and the camel's back is sagging!!!
Remember watching a child pushing a pin into a balloon. One second the balloon is filled with air and then, in an instant, it has burst. The child cries and apologizes. He can't understand what happened. ...
September 17, 2010
House of Representatives - December 12, 1995 - "...Mr. Speaker, how can America be bankrupt?
House of Representatives - December 12, 1995
"...Mr. Speaker, how can America be bankrupt? There are airport taxes, highway taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, nanny taxes, old taxes, new taxes, hidden taxes, inheritance taxes; there is even now a tax called a sin tax. I say to my colleagues, no wonder the American people are taxed off..."
"...The truth is that Congress as a Congress that taxes everything ultimately will tax fre...
"...Mr. Speaker, how can America be bankrupt? There are airport taxes, highway taxes, excise taxes, estate taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, luxury taxes, nanny taxes, old taxes, new taxes, hidden taxes, inheritance taxes; there is even now a tax called a sin tax. I say to my colleagues, no wonder the American people are taxed off..."
"...The truth is that Congress as a Congress that taxes everything ultimately will tax fre...
September 15, 2010
Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy; Who is the President Talking About?
When the President talks of repealing the Bush Tax Cuts for the wealthy; is he referring to those families that sacrificed to start businesses? Does he mean those that took out loans against their homes, borrowed on their credit cards and worked 15 hours a day for years? Could he be talking about the start up family businesses, that took a risk, knowing that a small percentage of small businesses are successful, to try to make a better life for their families? Are these the same business peop...
September 14, 2010
Recieve a discount on my book
To all my friends, please enter the discount code HMNP5Q65 to receive a 20% discount on my book at the link below.
Hope you enjoy it!
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
http://www.createspace.com/3462397
Hope you enjoy it!
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
http://www.createspace.com/3462397
September 12, 2010
Now You'll Know!
Where did Piss Poor come from?
Interesting History
They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families
used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken &
Sold to the tannery.......if you had to do this to survive
you were "Piss Poor"
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't
even afford to buy a pot......they "didn't have a pot to
piss in" & were the lowest of the low
The next time you are washing your hands and complain
because the water temperature isn't just how you like ...
Interesting History
They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families
used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken &
Sold to the tannery.......if you had to do this to survive
you were "Piss Poor"
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't
even afford to buy a pot......they "didn't have a pot to
piss in" & were the lowest of the low
The next time you are washing your hands and complain
because the water temperature isn't just how you like ...
September 10, 2010
See 9.11.2001 Pictures on my Facebook Page
9.11.2001 Pictures
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
http://www.createspace.com/3462397
Essays From a Fed-Up Middle Aged, Middle Class American" By: Andy Strum
http://www.createspace.com/3462397
