I just got done reading an interesting article about earmarks. It puts Hillary at the top of the list for earmarks. I guess we know now why she wants to repeal the tax cuts. I realize that all Senators and Congressmen want to do the most they can for their constituents but why should I pay for a Woodstock Museum in New York? The opportunity to abuse the system is too easy as is evidenced by the bridge to nowhere. I resent that they are so willing to tax the "rich" while feeding these useless projects our hard earned money. People are loosing family farms and family businesses because of the inheritance taxes while Hillary is spending their money like a drunken sailor. This is so wrong. Here is the article if you want to read it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303635.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Very interesting article-I hope all read this.
We should note, however, that senators funneling money into state projects is one of their major roles. Hillary appears to be spending a lot, but it is obviously what her constituents want her to do-otherwise they would have voted in someone else. Having a senator that fights for state interests at D.C. is not a bad thing per se-a lot of these monies go towards education and health care. A Woodstock museum? Perhaps excessive. But if half of New York wants it, then they have some right for their tax dollars to go towards it.
I hope our senators are at the capital fighting for money to come down to Utah's universities-we need the money, and higher education is a wonderful place to spend it.
As far as the "evils" of taxing the rich go-I think that everyone agrees to some extent that not every family has the same opportunities, and to take more heavily from those that can more easily bear the burden is a principle of common sense, as well as a teaching of the gospel. I agree that wasting the money that is taxed is an evil thing-but that is why we can vote for who spends our money.
Adam, I think that it's important to remember that the purpose of government in society is this: protect the people and facilitate public order.
HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Fundamental_purpose_of_government"> Click here for a WikiPedia reference
All of the other functions our US government provides are extra-curricular. I'm all for distributing funding to those less fortunate and to help the poor, but I believe this should be the choice of the individual contributor, not a mandate by a wasteful body of government.
I wish that our government politicians would see these tax revenue funds as what they really are, sacred monies. They represent the sacrifice of every hard working US citizen. To take it and give it to the greedy or to organizations that misuse and waste it is immoral. The way our system prevents this is by vetting all budgetary considerations out on the floor of congress (and other areas of responsibility) and discussing the underlying details. They then vote on whether or not the the use is appropriate. Earmarks bypass these checks and balances, thereby facilitating dreadful waste and the feeding of corrupt programs.
Trust, but verify.
My link was messed up. Let's see if this works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Fundamental_purpose_of_government
Nope! Google "purpose of government" in order to get various references.
Brent
What an intelligent, well thought out comment by a very handsome man. I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, Brent.
Adam, I disagree with your premise that taxing the rich to help the needy is a gospel principle. I believe that charity is a choice. If I truly am trying to live a Christ-like life, I will share with those in need. We are not perfect people but Brent and I fully agree with the Hymn "Because I Have Been Given Much I Too Must Give." We do our best to share our blessings with those in need but we could always do better. That is our spiritual burden to improve, not the governments. When our family chooses to donate to charity, we really research those charities to find out which ones will use our money wisely. It is always a sacrifice in some way to give money and I want to be sure that what I am donating will go straight to those in need, not some inept bureaucracy. Charitynavigator.org is a great site to see which charities deal with our money the best. By the way, here is a great article about who is the most charitable. http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Now about your assertion that it is part of Hillary's role to funnel money into her state, I disagree. It is her role to legislate, i.e. to create or enact laws. What she is doing is tagging on extra money onto these laws after the full Senate vote. There is little to no oversight. In the real-world, this is called embezzlement. Why should the government be able to do something that the rest of the nation is not able to do? Because the people benefiting from the embezzlement like it? The people of Alaska loved the idea of the bridge to nowhere. Unfortunately, if you divide the amount they were spending, $320 million by the number of people benefiting, 8,900 in one town and 50 in the other, the cost per person benefited is approximately $35754. Does anybody feel good about this? Who is to say that what Hillary is doing is any better. Where is the oversight in all of this?
Finally, to end my rant, both sides are guilty of earmarks. Both sides need to control their spending. This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This is about honesty and being transparent in running our government. How can anyone complain about the deficit or a balanced budget when this is going on? Congress cannot blame Bush for this one. When Brent and I have been in debt, we cut back on unnecessary things. Why can't the government at least try?
The bridge to nowhere was ridiculous, just like the Woodstock museum is ridiculous. I agree with that. And I didn't say taxing the rich was a gospel principle-I said having the stronger bear the heavier burdens is a gospel principle. I'm not talking about charitable contributions either-I agree that each individual should be able to decide how those are allocated. And I'm certainly not saying that all generous people love high taxes and pork barrel spending-I think opinions on these matters are totally unrelated to someone's generosity.
Running governments is expensive work. In my opinion, disproportionately taxing higher income brackets is not a bad thing. Placing heavier taxes on people with very low incomes makes it more difficult for them to cover living costs; under those circumstances, it would be nearly impossible for them to also have insurance for their families, or save for retirement or unforeseen difficulties. However, the government needs to be funded, and placing somewhat heavier taxes on people with a higher income allows funding to be possible. This is not the same as donating to charitable organizations and generosity-this is simply running the nation.
Now earmarks are certainly over used on both sides Dani, and I agree that they should be cut down. However, the $18 billion used last year in earmarks are a very small drop in the bucket compared to the billions (around $180 billion) that get spent on projects of questionable importance (Iraq war), and I think the blame SHOULD point towards the Bush administration for that. I am still not convinced that moderating an almost unavoidable civil war is in the best interests of America, yet Bush continues to cut down on programs that would help people (CHIP, WIC, etc.) so he can write blank checks for countries that don't deserve our funding.
Take out government aid programs, increase taxes on the poor, and watch what happens. Twenty years from now, crime will be through the roof, and those people's children will be shooting at our children for drug money. We are obligated to help others raise their children because they are unable to do so themselves.
Adam, I think that you need to clarify what you mean by the stronger bearing the heavier burden being a gospel principle. I always thought of the stronger bearing the heavier burden to be directly correlated with charity. Government taxation has nothing whatsoever to do with Charity. You cannot legislate generosity. I would think that people who are not Mormon are reading this blog and you need to make sure that what is being posted here is not set forth as doctrine when it is just oppinion.
I would think that people who are not Mormon are reading this blog and you need to make sure that what is being posted here is not set forth as doctrine when it is just oppinion. Maybe I am just being defensive but that is how it felt to me.
I also think that it is wrong to assume that someone has so much money that you can just take tons away because they will have enough anyway. Most people work hard for their money. When Brent and I get a big bonus, it is at a tremendous family cost. He has to work overtime and travel to get most of his good bonuses. We try to use that extra money to do something special with our family. I know that it doesn't replace time lost but it creates greater closeness to help us get through the next period of sacrifice. The government has no right to rape us of our money gained through sacrifice and hard work.
I agree that common sense suggests that wealthier people need to bear a larger burden of taxation. You cannot tax what is not there. It should not be the sole purpose of the wealthy, though. We all have a responsiblity to contribute to our government through paying a fair tax. I think that the best idea is the flat tax. It still taxes the "rich" more than the poor since you are taxing more money but it keeps the same rate. A reasonable rate, too, I might add. Why should I pay between 30-40% in taxes when others are only paying 10%? Because I can afford it? Try living on the east coast where mortgages are so expensive and the cost of living is so much higher. Factoring in my cost of living, am I still rich? Who decides that? Are they factoring in my cost of living? Are they paying the same percentage in taxes or can they afford accountants that can find every loophole in the world to get around it? Anyway, here is a good article about the flat tax. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm
Finally, I wish that there were only the bridge to nowhere and the the woodstock museum. There are many, many more earmarks that we know of. How many more are there that we don't know of? There is no oversight of earmarks. No voting on them. Simply lawmakers acting on their own for whatever benefit they seek. Here is a link and if you go down the page, you will see a list of controversial earmarks. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks
Notice that there are more Republicans than Democrats? This isn't a partisan thing. This is about the government misusing our money.
Finally, getting rid of earmarks will not completely balance the budget and get rid of the deficit but it is part of being fiscally responsible. We need to stop using them along with getting rid of failed programs, reducing bureaucracies, and reducing misuse of government funds. At least with the war in Iraq, I know that that has the possibility to benefit our nation. I know that the Woodstock museum does not.
P.S. Adam, I know you feel strongly about these things as do I. I hope that my enthusiasm does not come off as putting you down. I am excited that you are getting involved. I hate it when people are apathetic to what is going on in the world. I think that they do themselves and their families a disservice. So, even though you do not see eye to eye with me, thanks for not being a slug. ;-)
Really off the subject of your debate, but when I first saw this posting, I thought it said "Hillary loves earmuffs!" and I thought, "well, New York gets cold, and a good pair of earmuffs could be cute..." Then I read it again, and realized the errors.
I think that earmuffs might be good for Hillary actually--she has a bit of a problem with her image, and I think that earmuffs could soften her up. :)
Earmuffs could really add to her style. She did a really funny article on her fashion faux pas in US Weekly. I might not like her politics but she can at least poke fun at herself sometimes.
It's funny that everyone says how ugly Hillary is-I think she looks professional and well groomed! I also think that my fashion sense may be lacking. I remember when I first realized I had bad fashion-I was in 10th grade, and I wore a pair of cloth boxer looking shorts and a gray zipped up hoodie for 2 months straight. One of my friends eventually made a comment-it was quite embarrassing. Jill is helping me now :)
I think my worst was in 8th grade. I wore seashell pink lipstick. Really, that was it's name. I also used huge amounts of hairspray and a blow dryer to make my hair have "wings". Very frightening. Unfortunately, I was not alone in my endeavors. It was quite the popular thing back then. Fortunately, all pictures seem to be lost.
Hey, I know you probably hate FoxNews, but here is a great video. It explains some of the resentment I feel about taxes. It is also Neil Cavuto, who I think is just a really great person.
javascript:newVideo('022508/022508_cav_sense','Your_World_Common_Sense','Common%20Sense%3A%202/25','Common%20Sense%3A%202/25','Common%20Sense','-1','Business','108','','');
I don't know if the link will work, but is is worth a try
I think that link failed. It is on foxnews. You have to go to Neil's common sense and get it for 2/25. It is a real down to earth reason why tax the rich makes me crazy.
Post a Comment