I hope that your experience with income taxes will be more pleasant than mine this year. If you are one of those people who don't pay income taxes or gets back more than you pay into the system, just stop reading now. For those who work their tails off all year long, follow the rules, and pay more than their fair share of taxes, continue to paragraph two.
If you itemize your deductions as we do, the federal government would not even accept tax returns until Monday because of the need to retool their software. This was caused by lame duck session, end of the year tax legislation changes. The Internal Revenue Service could not keep up with the tax code changes in order to start accepting tax returns.
The State of North Carolina took our return on time, no problem. Or so I thought, anyway. I saw a reminder about how I can check the status of my return on the State Department of Revenue web site. I figured I would make use of that service this morning, since no refund had made its way to my checking account yet. Upon entering my identifying information, I got a message that said, "Please call [their phone number] about your refund amount." My first thought was that there was some attachment to my refund for some unknown past bill with the state. That has happened to myself and to others before.
I called the state IRS and spent some twenty minutes on hold only to be told that my return was still being processed and that I should expect it to take 45 days to process my return. OK, let me get this straight. The State of North Carolina is so technologically retarded that they can not put up a simple web page message that my return is still being processed, even though I know it was received. Then I wasted all that time on hold just to find out that information that could have been told to me in an instant over the internet.
What floored me was that the state is telling me that it will take a month and a half to process my tax return. I prepared my returns on my computer. I paid for the software and state e-filing fee so that the process could be faster and smoother. I even signed up for direct deposit so that the process could go even faster still. If it is going to take 45 days to process an electronic form that can be done instantly by their computer system, then why did we bother with the extra expense of filing electronically? We could have printed out the forms and mailed them for the cost of a postage stamp if it was going to take six weeks to process.
I am none too impressed with electronic transactions lately. When I send a payment through PayPal or other electronic service, the transaction is handled relatively instantaneously. When I pay bills through my bank's web site, sometimes it is rapid, sometimes not so much. Obviously the state Department of Revenue is in the "not so much" category.
The real slap in the face is that my refund is going to be somewhere around $1800 or more. That means that I am going to have to pay tax on that money yet again next year. The State of North Carolina hoses anyone who gets a tax refund by making us claim that refund as income the following year. This is money that was already taxed once. The money is a refund of an overpayment of taxes, not income. When that overpayment is returned to me, I am forced to count it as income yet again. That is just plain unethical.
I have more money withdrawn from my paycheck than needs to be. This is not so much so I will get a refund, since I don't enjoy lending the government my money, interest free. Rather I do that so that I don't have any surprises once a year and have to pay them. It is a personal choice. Still, that should not be counted as income twice. The state is not going to repay my money with interest. However, if I am late with a payment to them, they will charge not only interest but late penalties as well.
The government that can't process a computer transaction in a timely fashion is the same state government that is several billion dollars behind in its budget, has billions of dollars in fraud and waste, and double charges us on either tax over payments or underpayments. The state government wants to trust them with more projects, education, and our hard earned money WHY?
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Column for Nov. 18, 2010
When a topic comes up more than once in a week, I figure it is something that may be worthy of my attention. I was reading an article in a Winston-Salem newspaper the other day with the headline, “Is N.C. now ripe for gay-marriage vote? Conservatives want GOP to put ban on ballot". I have also had conversations on the legality of constitutional measures, federal courts, and about homosexuality all in the past week.
I don’t hate homosexuals. I personally find their behavior repugnant, but I personally could not care less what they do with their private lives or in their own bedrooms. I do, however, take issue with ascribing legitimacy to their relationships under civil law as if equal to heterosexual marriage. What I do hate is the attempts by homosexual activists at forcing the majority of people to accept a deviant behavioral choice as normal. Again, I don’t care if someone engages in that lifestyle. Yes, I do have homosexual friends, relatives, and acquaintances. I do not treat them as less than human beings or without common courtesy. I just don’t want those who speak for their cause to force the government sanctioned indoctrination of my children and society in general towards acceptance of their behavior.
I have to laugh at most right wingers who make the claims that once homosexual marriage is passed, people will want to marry their pets or inanimate objects. Though I understand the thought process, it is indeed flawed language and an over-reactionary extrapolation. It is, however, a fundamental redefinition of marriage. Marriage, since the beginning of the human race, has been between male and female. There has obviously been some variations in cases of polygamy, but they have always been marriages between those of opposite sex. Male and female is the natural, God ordained order of things, both in human kind and in the animal kingdom.
There are plenty of civil reasons I have besides my religious values that go into my opposition to homosexual marriage. Note that I do not use the word “gay”. I despise the use of the word in this context. I hate that several good, wholesome things such as the symbol of the rainbow and “civil rights” have also been hijacked by the homosexual activists just like the word gay. I can’t listen to “The Flintstones” theme song anymore without cringing.
I take great exception with theologians who are accepting of homosexuality as anything less than a sin. I also take great exception with any politician who thinks that we should all be accepting of homosexuality as something intrinsically normal and should treat that behavioral choice just as we would the color of some one's skin or their national origin. That is why I even take issue with someone like Rush Limbaugh, who does not support homosexual marriage but does accept the idea of “civil unions”. That is tantamount to calling table condiment catchup as opposed to ketchup. They are both the same thing, just under a slightly different name.
Now that a Republican majority controls both houses of the NC State Legislature, I do hope for a ballot initiative to formally codify a ban on homosexual marriage in the state constitution. However, I also have a fear that if we did so, some foolish judicial activist federal judge would attempt to strike down the measure. Just within the past couple of weeks, we have seen the State of Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly to affirm a constitutional amendment that would ban the state from considering the use of Sharia (Muslim) or foreign national laws in determining legality in their state. That is only common sense and how a sovereign state works.
Simply put, a sovereign state has the right to determine its own laws. The Tenth Amendment does still apply in that the powers not specifically granted to the national government are reserved for the states. After all, it was the states that created the national government, not the other way around. If a state (which derives its power from the people thereof) that has the right to sanction and dissolve marriage chooses to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anything but the natural order, fabric of society, moral principle of marriage being equal to one man and one woman, then that is their prerogative. A state should also be able to refuse to recognize marriages sanctioned outside of those parameters as sanctioned by another sovereign state. If you don’t like the marriage laws of a state, you don’t have to live there.
I don’t hate homosexuals. I personally find their behavior repugnant, but I personally could not care less what they do with their private lives or in their own bedrooms. I do, however, take issue with ascribing legitimacy to their relationships under civil law as if equal to heterosexual marriage. What I do hate is the attempts by homosexual activists at forcing the majority of people to accept a deviant behavioral choice as normal. Again, I don’t care if someone engages in that lifestyle. Yes, I do have homosexual friends, relatives, and acquaintances. I do not treat them as less than human beings or without common courtesy. I just don’t want those who speak for their cause to force the government sanctioned indoctrination of my children and society in general towards acceptance of their behavior.
I have to laugh at most right wingers who make the claims that once homosexual marriage is passed, people will want to marry their pets or inanimate objects. Though I understand the thought process, it is indeed flawed language and an over-reactionary extrapolation. It is, however, a fundamental redefinition of marriage. Marriage, since the beginning of the human race, has been between male and female. There has obviously been some variations in cases of polygamy, but they have always been marriages between those of opposite sex. Male and female is the natural, God ordained order of things, both in human kind and in the animal kingdom.
There are plenty of civil reasons I have besides my religious values that go into my opposition to homosexual marriage. Note that I do not use the word “gay”. I despise the use of the word in this context. I hate that several good, wholesome things such as the symbol of the rainbow and “civil rights” have also been hijacked by the homosexual activists just like the word gay. I can’t listen to “The Flintstones” theme song anymore without cringing.
I take great exception with theologians who are accepting of homosexuality as anything less than a sin. I also take great exception with any politician who thinks that we should all be accepting of homosexuality as something intrinsically normal and should treat that behavioral choice just as we would the color of some one's skin or their national origin. That is why I even take issue with someone like Rush Limbaugh, who does not support homosexual marriage but does accept the idea of “civil unions”. That is tantamount to calling table condiment catchup as opposed to ketchup. They are both the same thing, just under a slightly different name.
Now that a Republican majority controls both houses of the NC State Legislature, I do hope for a ballot initiative to formally codify a ban on homosexual marriage in the state constitution. However, I also have a fear that if we did so, some foolish judicial activist federal judge would attempt to strike down the measure. Just within the past couple of weeks, we have seen the State of Oklahoma voted overwhelmingly to affirm a constitutional amendment that would ban the state from considering the use of Sharia (Muslim) or foreign national laws in determining legality in their state. That is only common sense and how a sovereign state works.
Simply put, a sovereign state has the right to determine its own laws. The Tenth Amendment does still apply in that the powers not specifically granted to the national government are reserved for the states. After all, it was the states that created the national government, not the other way around. If a state (which derives its power from the people thereof) that has the right to sanction and dissolve marriage chooses to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anything but the natural order, fabric of society, moral principle of marriage being equal to one man and one woman, then that is their prerogative. A state should also be able to refuse to recognize marriages sanctioned outside of those parameters as sanctioned by another sovereign state. If you don’t like the marriage laws of a state, you don’t have to live there.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Column for Feb. 19, 2009
Congratulations, my fellow Americans. The United States government now has more debt than the entire annual gross domestic product of the entire world combined.
I was asked to give Obama a chance. When I declared that he is a socialist and was going to bankrupt America, I was told that I was just plain unfair. With the non-stimulus bill that is going to be law, we just mortgaged the future of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Many have dubbed the so-called stimulus bill the "porkulus" bill, and rightfully so. Even the Congressional Budget Office has declared that the stimulus spending effects on job growth will be miniscule.
With so many business concerns being taken over or even funded by the government, I have actually seen some fools cheer. Just this weekend, I was part of an internet discussion. One poor, misguided soul named Hannah was heralding the end of capitalism with the non-stimulus bill. She said, "Hurray! The end of capitalism! Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Off with the chains of capitalism and then we will have real freedom."
The sad thing is that she meant it. She declared that the election of Barack Hussein Obama was a mandate for a change of the type of government, saying that those who cleave to the Constitution are "outmoded". Of course there was the obligatory liberal twaddle of blaming George Bush for war spending and any other leftist nonsense she could muster with her diminished thought processing ability.
To the concept of blaming Bush for war spending and the so called mandate I said, "The "war debt" combined for the past decade is dwarfed by the liberal spending of the non-stimulus spending about to hit. Do you consider the Constitution to be "outmoded"? If that founding document is outmoded, then I will be happy to be considered such, as well."
Apparently, to those who must have failed civics class in school, if you do not support democracy, then you are an imbecile. I am told that accepting Obama's policies are merely the end result of democracy in action, regardless of the Constitution or the evils of socialism.
I want to make this point clear. The United States is not now nor has it ever has been a democracy. This nation is a representative republic. My five year old is learning to recite The Pledge of Allegiance, which has the phrase "...and to the republic for which it stands". I shall ensure that he understands what that means. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". There is a huge difference between a republic and a democracy. In reading the notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it is clear that the founding fathers abhorred democracy.
It is impossible to be a true patriot and be a liberal at the same time. Ironically, I find that liberals often defend their characterizations of the Bush/Reagan/Bush era as patriotic. I personally have a lot of criticism for the Bushes as well as some of Reagan's policies. However, my criticisms are based upon an established standard rather than irrational, erroneous representations of an impossible Utopian society. This one woman actually called herself a "liberal patriot". One can not be a patriot and be antithetical to the very foundation of your nation and its core values.
I find it ironic that many liberals bash capitalism, big business, and the quest for profit while at the same time laud socialism, big government, and the quest for monetary control over its subjects. With all of its inherent flaws, mainly because of the sinful nature of man, capitalism is the best system of economics for all of mankind.
Capitalism has brought this nation from being a developing nation to being an economic powerhouse in the world. It has caused a fraction of the world's population to be the innovators in business and modern society. We have developed technology faster and advanced science further than any other nation on the planet as a result of pursuing financial gain as a reward.
No other nation on earth is more generous to charitable organizations, builds more hospitals, has built a better health care system, brought wealth to more people, or financed the spread of the Gospel more than the United States. All of this was made possible by the positive benefits of capitalism.
The national debt with which we are now saddled as well as the increasingly unconstitutional spending and governmental control now threaten to totally destroy the greatest republic in human history. Watch for resistance movements emerge as more and more states rediscover the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
I was asked to give Obama a chance. When I declared that he is a socialist and was going to bankrupt America, I was told that I was just plain unfair. With the non-stimulus bill that is going to be law, we just mortgaged the future of our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Many have dubbed the so-called stimulus bill the "porkulus" bill, and rightfully so. Even the Congressional Budget Office has declared that the stimulus spending effects on job growth will be miniscule.
With so many business concerns being taken over or even funded by the government, I have actually seen some fools cheer. Just this weekend, I was part of an internet discussion. One poor, misguided soul named Hannah was heralding the end of capitalism with the non-stimulus bill. She said, "Hurray! The end of capitalism! Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains! Off with the chains of capitalism and then we will have real freedom."
The sad thing is that she meant it. She declared that the election of Barack Hussein Obama was a mandate for a change of the type of government, saying that those who cleave to the Constitution are "outmoded". Of course there was the obligatory liberal twaddle of blaming George Bush for war spending and any other leftist nonsense she could muster with her diminished thought processing ability.
To the concept of blaming Bush for war spending and the so called mandate I said, "The "war debt" combined for the past decade is dwarfed by the liberal spending of the non-stimulus spending about to hit. Do you consider the Constitution to be "outmoded"? If that founding document is outmoded, then I will be happy to be considered such, as well."
Apparently, to those who must have failed civics class in school, if you do not support democracy, then you are an imbecile. I am told that accepting Obama's policies are merely the end result of democracy in action, regardless of the Constitution or the evils of socialism.
I want to make this point clear. The United States is not now nor has it ever has been a democracy. This nation is a representative republic. My five year old is learning to recite The Pledge of Allegiance, which has the phrase "...and to the republic for which it stands". I shall ensure that he understands what that means. Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". There is a huge difference between a republic and a democracy. In reading the notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it is clear that the founding fathers abhorred democracy.
It is impossible to be a true patriot and be a liberal at the same time. Ironically, I find that liberals often defend their characterizations of the Bush/Reagan/Bush era as patriotic. I personally have a lot of criticism for the Bushes as well as some of Reagan's policies. However, my criticisms are based upon an established standard rather than irrational, erroneous representations of an impossible Utopian society. This one woman actually called herself a "liberal patriot". One can not be a patriot and be antithetical to the very foundation of your nation and its core values.
I find it ironic that many liberals bash capitalism, big business, and the quest for profit while at the same time laud socialism, big government, and the quest for monetary control over its subjects. With all of its inherent flaws, mainly because of the sinful nature of man, capitalism is the best system of economics for all of mankind.
Capitalism has brought this nation from being a developing nation to being an economic powerhouse in the world. It has caused a fraction of the world's population to be the innovators in business and modern society. We have developed technology faster and advanced science further than any other nation on the planet as a result of pursuing financial gain as a reward.
No other nation on earth is more generous to charitable organizations, builds more hospitals, has built a better health care system, brought wealth to more people, or financed the spread of the Gospel more than the United States. All of this was made possible by the positive benefits of capitalism.
The national debt with which we are now saddled as well as the increasingly unconstitutional spending and governmental control now threaten to totally destroy the greatest republic in human history. Watch for resistance movements emerge as more and more states rediscover the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Column for Oct. 2, 2008
Bailouts suck
As you may well be aware, the big buzzword in the news today is "bailout". The federal government has been busily creating financial bailouts for mortgage companies, insurance companies, and automobile manufacturers. I have been reading about and commenting upon the various maneuvers that the government has been concocting just within the last couple of weeks. On Monday, The House of Representatives surprisingly defeated a $700 billion dollar package to make the government the largest mortgage holder in the nation. The government has already been bailing out AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, and is making $25 billion in loan guarantees to the automobile industry.
Forget the fact that automobile manufacturers have been slow to adapt to the changing economy, to fuel efficiency customer mandates, and have been run into the ground by labor unions. Let us just look at the concept that we as citizens of the United States already support these same companies by our purchases and ongoing maintenance of their flawed products. Now we have to potentially pay for loans to these same incorrigible companies. GM, Ford, and Daimler/Chrysler have all floundered while Toyota has flourished. Because American companies have been too stubborn to change, U.S. taxpayers may eventually have to bail out loans made to these companies. General Motors is on the brink of insolvency and we are stuck paying for their mistakes? I am not much of a GM man, anyway. I have never really liked any GM product I have owned or driven.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government created entities. They wrote a lot of mortgages themselves and guaranteed mortgages written by other companies. Because of worries about risky mortgages, the United States taxpayer would have been on the hook for the reckless lending practices of mortgage companies that were spurred by government threats of regulation. People who had absolutely no business purchasing houses did so or bought more house than they could afford. Some in Congress along with President Bush wanted the rest of us to foot the bill with a purely socialist move, allegedly to save our economy. Personally, I believe it would have done more harm than good.
If Warren Buffet, the world's richest man and leader of Berkshire Hathaway found it to be a good move to buy Goldman Sachs as a private venture, then I am sure that many more such deals could be reached. If we can allow the private sector to operate in a truly free market economy without government intervention, then every issue could be resolved. Berkshire Hathaway is the epitome of success in such things. Their current holdings include Dairy Queen, GEICO, Helzberg Diamonds, The Pampered Chef, Clayton Homes, Fruit of the Loom, and many other fine companies.
Just looking at the AIG bailout of $85 billion dollars, I found the following. If we take that dollar figure and divide it by the entire United States population of +/- 301,000,000 people, then this represents approximately $282.39 for every man, woman, and child in the nation. Keep in mind that about a third are not even 18 years or older and are not tax payers. Even at that 18 years of age figure, a smaller percentage still actually pay taxes, so the figure is going to be higher per tax payer than that, but for the sake of argument, let's use that $282 figure. That figure represents approximately $44,458,634 to just Johnston County residents, based upon 2007 population figures.
Using the same methodology, the $700 billion package would have cost Johnstonians $366,132,558. The automotive bail out could cost every Johnstonian another $83 for a total of $13,076,162 from our county alone. Just these three bailouts alone would have impacted Johnston County potentially as much as $423,667,354. People, that is a bunch of money. The entire county's annual government operational budget is only $149 million by comparison. Keep in mind that that is based upon the idea of $x per capita, not per tax payer. When you divide out those figures, the total gets much higher per person.
When is this going to stop? I do not know. I guarantee that though the $700 billion bailout failed in The House of Representatives, it will come up again. We spend a bunch of money overseas in foreign wars, building foreign nations, policing the world, paying people to not work here at home, we pay farmers not to grow crops, and now the government is trying to pay businesses for failure. It all ends up on the backs of the United States tax payers. If we keep trying to save mortgage companies and mortgagees, we would have mortgaged the future of our children by saddling them with a huge debt with socialist policies and bad economic decisions. Whether through political courage or cowardice, at least one gigantic spending bill failed with a 228-205 vote to reject the bill. We'll see it come up again.
As you may well be aware, the big buzzword in the news today is "bailout". The federal government has been busily creating financial bailouts for mortgage companies, insurance companies, and automobile manufacturers. I have been reading about and commenting upon the various maneuvers that the government has been concocting just within the last couple of weeks. On Monday, The House of Representatives surprisingly defeated a $700 billion dollar package to make the government the largest mortgage holder in the nation. The government has already been bailing out AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, and is making $25 billion in loan guarantees to the automobile industry.
Forget the fact that automobile manufacturers have been slow to adapt to the changing economy, to fuel efficiency customer mandates, and have been run into the ground by labor unions. Let us just look at the concept that we as citizens of the United States already support these same companies by our purchases and ongoing maintenance of their flawed products. Now we have to potentially pay for loans to these same incorrigible companies. GM, Ford, and Daimler/Chrysler have all floundered while Toyota has flourished. Because American companies have been too stubborn to change, U.S. taxpayers may eventually have to bail out loans made to these companies. General Motors is on the brink of insolvency and we are stuck paying for their mistakes? I am not much of a GM man, anyway. I have never really liked any GM product I have owned or driven.
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are government created entities. They wrote a lot of mortgages themselves and guaranteed mortgages written by other companies. Because of worries about risky mortgages, the United States taxpayer would have been on the hook for the reckless lending practices of mortgage companies that were spurred by government threats of regulation. People who had absolutely no business purchasing houses did so or bought more house than they could afford. Some in Congress along with President Bush wanted the rest of us to foot the bill with a purely socialist move, allegedly to save our economy. Personally, I believe it would have done more harm than good.
If Warren Buffet, the world's richest man and leader of Berkshire Hathaway found it to be a good move to buy Goldman Sachs as a private venture, then I am sure that many more such deals could be reached. If we can allow the private sector to operate in a truly free market economy without government intervention, then every issue could be resolved. Berkshire Hathaway is the epitome of success in such things. Their current holdings include Dairy Queen, GEICO, Helzberg Diamonds, The Pampered Chef, Clayton Homes, Fruit of the Loom, and many other fine companies.
Just looking at the AIG bailout of $85 billion dollars, I found the following. If we take that dollar figure and divide it by the entire United States population of +/- 301,000,000 people, then this represents approximately $282.39 for every man, woman, and child in the nation. Keep in mind that about a third are not even 18 years or older and are not tax payers. Even at that 18 years of age figure, a smaller percentage still actually pay taxes, so the figure is going to be higher per tax payer than that, but for the sake of argument, let's use that $282 figure. That figure represents approximately $44,458,634 to just Johnston County residents, based upon 2007 population figures.
Using the same methodology, the $700 billion package would have cost Johnstonians $366,132,558. The automotive bail out could cost every Johnstonian another $83 for a total of $13,076,162 from our county alone. Just these three bailouts alone would have impacted Johnston County potentially as much as $423,667,354. People, that is a bunch of money. The entire county's annual government operational budget is only $149 million by comparison. Keep in mind that that is based upon the idea of $x per capita, not per tax payer. When you divide out those figures, the total gets much higher per person.
When is this going to stop? I do not know. I guarantee that though the $700 billion bailout failed in The House of Representatives, it will come up again. We spend a bunch of money overseas in foreign wars, building foreign nations, policing the world, paying people to not work here at home, we pay farmers not to grow crops, and now the government is trying to pay businesses for failure. It all ends up on the backs of the United States tax payers. If we keep trying to save mortgage companies and mortgagees, we would have mortgaged the future of our children by saddling them with a huge debt with socialist policies and bad economic decisions. Whether through political courage or cowardice, at least one gigantic spending bill failed with a 228-205 vote to reject the bill. We'll see it come up again.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Column for Jan. 31, 2008
Remember, grant money is not free. We pay for it either way.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Is grant money from the federal government that is awarded to local towns or states free money? How about grant money that is given to private corporations or citizens? Is there any such thing as free money? Of course not. If it comes from our tax dollars one way or another.
I read with interest the news that the Town of Selma was awarded $850,000 in grant money last week. The money is intended for "community revitalization, infrastructure improvements, and the construction of affordable housing". Selma was one of eighteen municipalities that received grants. The money was supplied through U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was doled out through the NC government. Also, I read that the towns of Pine Level, Henderson, and Dunn were awarded grant money through the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the purposes of safety, operational expenses, and fire equipment acquisition.
Perhaps we would have more ability to do things locally if the federal and state governments did not siphon off so much money into Washington, DC. Second, even though these are "grants", they are still coming from tax dollars. Furthermore, the purpose of the grants are to be for "rehabilitation of housing" and the construction of "affordable housing". The term affordable is subjective. The idea of my tax dollars being taken from me, a man who works a full time, skilled labor job, on the threat of force if I do not comply voluntarily to dole out my hard earned money, and having those dollars inefficiently laundered through the world's largest bureaucracy only to be filtered down to another bureaucracy, then to another, then to private citizens for them to pay minimal money for housing or to renovate their existing homes is just plain repugnant. It is insulting. It is unfair. It is a disincentive to succeed. It is communistic and evil.
There were 18 towns in NC that got the HUD grants and three FEMA grants in the state. Multiply this times hundreds of towns across the country each year and you can see how our tax dollars are being wasted on programs that are not even supposed to exist. Take this program and multiply it by the countless such programs that some communistic or ignorant fools have pushed through Congress, and some well meaning but selfish President who wants to get re-elected and play politics with our tax money have passed, and the amount of money is mind boggling.
Perhaps the only thing more insidious than the idea of a grant from the federal government to a municipality is the concept of the federal government providing a loan to a local municipality other local government for the purposes of infrastructure development and community revitalization. In such instances, we are taxed at the federal level to provide the loan and then get taxed on the local level to pay the loan back to the federal government.
I had an email discussion with a close friend about an article from 1955 in "Housekeeping Monthly". I have a copy of this article on my personal web site. The article was full of tips for women on how to take care of their husbands, how to run the home, how to relieve personal and family stress, and the like. This conservative lady asserted that the article was from 1955 and this was 2008. Below is my response, which is related to my disdain for such government spending.
"In 1955, most women did stay at home and take care of the kids and do the house work. Unfortunately, our tax burden increased substantially necessitating a dual income family. Also, the women's liberation movement only hurt the family structure. The 1960's forward really hurt with the hedonism, atheistic, and hyper libertine agendas. That led to a decline in the family unit, an emphasis on self reliance instead of family reliance, a rise in births out of wedlock, single parent families, divorce, and the need for women to work outside the home." By family versus self reliance, I was referring to the idea of only thinking of one's own self, not supporting the family unit but instead believing that one can and should only rely on one's own self. For instance, a woman can and should be able to stay at home and raise her children rather than paying some low income earner with a different set of values to raise them for her.
It is bad enough that we have a high percentage of our money taken in the form of taxation of various types and from various levels of government. To have my tax dollars, which could be used to renovate my own home (which I have been trying to work on more and more lately) and have them sucked into a giant bureaucracy and given to someone else to renovate their home is a travesty. It angers me, and it should you, too. I believe that I know how to spend my money better than some bureaucrat does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
