Last week, I wrote that I am “hoping to share them [my library] and knowledge with my progeny”. Interestingly enough, I ended up having one of those conversations with my third grade son just a couple of days after I wrote the column.
My son, being in the third grade, just had his first end of grade (EOG) tests. I certainly have no objection to having EOG tests. The concept is nothing new. I had plenty of tests when I was in school. The EOG is just one more comprehensive test that is administered. If a child paid attention in school all year long, taking an EOG test is nothing to be feared. The way I see it, testing measures achievement, both by the student and by the pedagogical staff.
That, however, is not the point of my rant today. What came out of the EOG testing that I found curious and led to a discussion about reality, economics, government, and life was the topic of breakfast. Our nine-year-old informed us that he wanted to eat breakfast at school on the days the tests were being administered. Not only was it encouraged by the teachers at the school that the students should have a good night’s rest, but also a decent breakfast in the morning. I am in agreement with both ideas. The interesting thing was that the school would be offering breakfast to all students, not just those who were “economically disadvantaged” on test days. I was informed that breakfast was “free”.
Personally, I understand the need to serve a cafeteria style lunch at large schools. At Selma Elementary School, 90% of students get either free or reduced price lunch. We don’t qualify for free or reduced pricing on lunch, nor would we accept it if we did. A full priced lunch is only $2. If you can’t afford $2 a day for lunch, you either need to rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be having children. When I was in elementary school, I remember taking a metal lunch box with a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich, some cheese puffs, and a bit of milk in a thermos. I was happy with that, and it was what my family could afford sometimes. We send our son with a home packed lunch every day, not out of necessity, but out of choice.
School lunch is heavily subsidized by the federal government. The average school lunch costs $2.66 to prepare, according to the research I just did (and those are outdated figures). Add to that the costs of running a cafeteria, staff, electricity, and water (and I am sure there are many other costs) and it is a significant amount of money. The federal government subsidized $2.47 for every free lunch (again, probably an outdated number). Ironically, full priced lunches are only subsidized $1.90, so schools get more federal funds for free or reduced lunches. Besides tying the amounts of free and reduced lunches to Title 1 federal funds, you can now see why schools push so hard for as many students to get on the free and reduced lunch programs at your local public schools. In 2011, the federal government spent $14.3 billion just on the school lunch program, not that the Constitution allows for such expenditures. Politicians, however, never let that stand in their way.
Obviously, free lunches are not free. Someone has to pay for them, and that is the US taxpayer. We pay for the school lunch program at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, so we are on the hook for the cost one way or another. If I pay full cost, we pay more at the local levels of government for lunch. If we get reduced or “free” cost lunch, we pay more at the federal level.
A gallon of milk costs approximately $3.50 right now. A box of Wal-Mart store brand cereal can be as cheap as $1, maybe $2 if you get a larger box of a more popular variety. I know, since I do my own shopping. A box of cereal will certainly last at least a week for one child. That means breakfast will cost as low as $4.50 per week. At less than $5 a week, I still cannot fathom the need for a regular school breakfast program in addition to a school lunch program. If you can’t afford $5 a week for your child to eat breakfast at home, you need to either rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be reproducing.
I had the discussion with my nine-year-old that the breakfast was not actually free. Taxpayers are picking up the tab for his newly found breakfast. Regardless of how many times he insisted that the meal was free, I corrected him on that concept. I am paying for his breakfast one way or another, and I hope that he grasped the concept.
We all love our children, but there are no guarantees of equality of outcome in either one’s ability to provide meals or even in test scores. Children can still live on a simple, home provided meal, and be happy. To be honest, I wish that more parents took the personal responsibility to provide for their own children more seriously and the school cafeteria trash cans were overflowing with brown paper bags from home packed lunches and even breakfast items rather than letting the taxpayers pick up the cost.
Showing posts with label spending. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spending. Show all posts
Friday, June 01, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Column for Feb. 9, 2012
When
considering the government expenditure of public money, we all have to
ask, “To what end?” Not everything that is a nice idea is necessarily a
good idea, nor is it in the public best interest. Furthermore,
government has to take into account the impact on area residents when
entering into contracts. There are several cases in point in the news.
There have been and will be meetings in the Town of Selma at which residents can express their concerns to the town leadership. One big concern has been the high cost of utilities in town. Selma, like other towns, is a public power community, meaning that the town owns the electrical system and is contracted to purchase energy and then retails it to its citizenry. I have written many times about this. Basically, this amounts to another tax upon the town residents. Since we pay significantly higher rates than customers who deal with Progress Energy directly, any dollar amount above what would be charged if we bought the electricity ourselves from the power company should be considered taxation, not merely utility costs.
What I found unacceptable was the town’s attitude of “Too bad, we have a contract to do business this way, so you have to live with the high costs. Try cutting back on your electricity use.” No, the town brought this burden upon us by a poor contract for services, so the town, if not already doing so, should be looking at being released from that contract. I never hear that as a possibility from anyone. Also, any town should never obligate itself and its citizens for numerous decades as has been done with many local communities.
I looked with interest at an article about the Town of Selma moving forward with building a train viewing platform. I still laugh at this one. We may be a railroad-centric town, but this is ridiculous. I don’t care if the town is seeking funding from some grant. If the grant comes from any governmental source, it is tax money. If it is from a private institution, that is another thing. Either way, the town has to pay $2500 just to have a company process the grant application. Then it is recommended that the town commit to at least a $5000 sum of public tax dollars to help attract the grant. So the town wants to spend at least $7500 to hope to get a $75,000 platform.
I am making an offer right now to the Town of Selma. I will gladly save them all of the money mentioned, go to Lowe’s or Big Lots and buy a couple of park style benches out of my own pocket. I won’t even ask to have my name on a plaque attached to them. We don’t need a train watching platform in town. We already have a nice train station with a sizable concrete pad. People already come here with lawn chairs and sometimes even radios to hear the train radio traffic. When the come, however, they come with their own coolers, drinks, and lunches. I doubt that they purchase much, if anything, in town.
Again, I ask, “To what end?” If the desired end is to attract more people to town, will we ever attract sufficient people to little old Selma to watch trains to justify the public expenditure of $75,000? That is doubtful, regardless of from where that money comes. How about the $7500 that the town will be staking for the project? I doubt highly we will make that back in tax revenue, ever. How about just the $2500 the town will spend for someone to process a grant application to pursue the money? Yeah, right. I doubt even that would be recovered.
People who come here to watch trains are not going to be interested in purchasing antiques. And if they do venture into town to find a restaurant, their choices will be limited. Creech’s Drug can’t sell enough homemade orange-ade to gain sufficient sales tax to cover the town’s expenses on this project. Just because it is a nice idea, it doesn’t mean that the town should spend money on it.
I like the Selma Development Partnership’s idea of having a town museum as one example of how to do a project without tax dollars involved. Granted, the small building may end up falling off the property tax rolls now that it is owned by a non-profit group, but at least we are not spending tax dollars. It is ironic that one of the smallest business buildings in town will be the Selma museum. Basically it can showcase a jar of Vick’s Vaporub and a model train and that about covers the town. At least my tax dollars won’t be paying for it, though I will be willing to buy the jar of Vaporub at Creech’s Drugstore to donate to the museum.
There have been and will be meetings in the Town of Selma at which residents can express their concerns to the town leadership. One big concern has been the high cost of utilities in town. Selma, like other towns, is a public power community, meaning that the town owns the electrical system and is contracted to purchase energy and then retails it to its citizenry. I have written many times about this. Basically, this amounts to another tax upon the town residents. Since we pay significantly higher rates than customers who deal with Progress Energy directly, any dollar amount above what would be charged if we bought the electricity ourselves from the power company should be considered taxation, not merely utility costs.
What I found unacceptable was the town’s attitude of “Too bad, we have a contract to do business this way, so you have to live with the high costs. Try cutting back on your electricity use.” No, the town brought this burden upon us by a poor contract for services, so the town, if not already doing so, should be looking at being released from that contract. I never hear that as a possibility from anyone. Also, any town should never obligate itself and its citizens for numerous decades as has been done with many local communities.
I looked with interest at an article about the Town of Selma moving forward with building a train viewing platform. I still laugh at this one. We may be a railroad-centric town, but this is ridiculous. I don’t care if the town is seeking funding from some grant. If the grant comes from any governmental source, it is tax money. If it is from a private institution, that is another thing. Either way, the town has to pay $2500 just to have a company process the grant application. Then it is recommended that the town commit to at least a $5000 sum of public tax dollars to help attract the grant. So the town wants to spend at least $7500 to hope to get a $75,000 platform.
I am making an offer right now to the Town of Selma. I will gladly save them all of the money mentioned, go to Lowe’s or Big Lots and buy a couple of park style benches out of my own pocket. I won’t even ask to have my name on a plaque attached to them. We don’t need a train watching platform in town. We already have a nice train station with a sizable concrete pad. People already come here with lawn chairs and sometimes even radios to hear the train radio traffic. When the come, however, they come with their own coolers, drinks, and lunches. I doubt that they purchase much, if anything, in town.
Again, I ask, “To what end?” If the desired end is to attract more people to town, will we ever attract sufficient people to little old Selma to watch trains to justify the public expenditure of $75,000? That is doubtful, regardless of from where that money comes. How about the $7500 that the town will be staking for the project? I doubt highly we will make that back in tax revenue, ever. How about just the $2500 the town will spend for someone to process a grant application to pursue the money? Yeah, right. I doubt even that would be recovered.
People who come here to watch trains are not going to be interested in purchasing antiques. And if they do venture into town to find a restaurant, their choices will be limited. Creech’s Drug can’t sell enough homemade orange-ade to gain sufficient sales tax to cover the town’s expenses on this project. Just because it is a nice idea, it doesn’t mean that the town should spend money on it.
I like the Selma Development Partnership’s idea of having a town museum as one example of how to do a project without tax dollars involved. Granted, the small building may end up falling off the property tax rolls now that it is owned by a non-profit group, but at least we are not spending tax dollars. It is ironic that one of the smallest business buildings in town will be the Selma museum. Basically it can showcase a jar of Vick’s Vaporub and a model train and that about covers the town. At least my tax dollars won’t be paying for it, though I will be willing to buy the jar of Vaporub at Creech’s Drugstore to donate to the museum.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Column for Jan. 26, 2012
I hate toll roads. Whenever I drive through the northeast corridor or some parts of Florida, I end up paying a lot of money in tolls. Some states hit motorists at a high rate, others just nickel and dime you. A trip to New England costs over $20 in tolls, one way. My last trip to Miami was over $10. Now we have a toll road in the Triangle area. I was just reading about North Carolina wanting to have tolls on I-95. This is nothing new and the topic comes up every once in a while. Now that the ice has been cracked in getting an initial toll road, I knew that it would be just a matter of time until the I-95 toll idea actually took a stronghold.
The state Department of Transportation has just issued a report suggesting that I-95 be widened significantly, some bridges be raised, and some bridges replaced. I understand road maintenance, but widening I-95, putting up toll plazas, and spending $4.4 billion? Johnston County has the oldest stretch of the interstate, so it also has some of the oldest and lowest bridges. I cringed when I saw that rather than replacing bridges over the past few years, the DOT spent millions of dollars just raising the height of some bridges by a mere eighteen inches. Why not spend the extra money, do it right, and replace the bridges rather than having to come back later and replace them, anyway? That was a waste of taxpayer money, but it would not have given the DOT as much job security with some expensive busy work now, and some guaranteed work later.
We pay a high tax rate as it is, but a lot of money is seemingly squandered on busy work projects. I just pulled up an article I saved from last September when the DOT was going to hold public hearings on proposed road “improvements” on Highway 70. These so-called improvements included median closures at key intersections that will inconvenience motorists and are totally unnecessary. It was bad enough that the DOT closed the median crossover on Highway 70 at Oak Street in Selma. I used that crossover almost every time I drove home, but now I waste more gas and time going further down the road because some pinhead who has to justify his existence on the state payroll wants to improve a roadway at great taxpayer expense.
I used to live near where the Booker Dairy Road extension was going to cross Wilson’s Mills Road in Smithfield. That road now runs right next to where my driveway was. Now that the roadway is finished, I still fail to comprehend its great necessity or benefit over its cost and inconvenience with eminent domain and development processes. Furthermore, like a lot of bypassing roadways, some local businesses will suffer.
I have a friend in Shallotte, North Carolina whose business is suffering from a similar road “improvement”. About every business trip to Shallotte, I stop by his restaurant for some of the best chicken wings known to mankind. His restaurant business has dropped off considerably since a new roadway was built, bypassing a mile or two of roadway. The road was not so busy as to be burdensome in terms of traffic. The local residents, mayor, and town council are all baffled as to the need for the project to this day.
Even worse, these two bypassing projects were partially paid for with the so-called “stimulus package” federal spending. The boondoggle allegedly meant to stimulate business actually has helped kill business. Even worse still is that the DOT wants to nail us for even more money to pay for interstate improvements via toll roads all over after they continuously squander our tax money on road improvements that are unnecessary and inconvenience the very ones paying for it. We already pay taxes, and now it looks like we are going to be taxed a second time to drive on the roads for which our tax dollars pay.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Column for Jan. 12, 2012
It
has been said that politicians and diapers both need to be changed
every so often...and for the same reason. As a father of two and
another baby on the way, I can relate to that axiom. In our area, we
changed our diaper when we voted Congressman Bob Etheridge out of office
last year. Now, like a bad slasher film or Rocky movie series, he
wants to make a comeback after just half of one term out of office.
Old Bob has been around a long time in North Carolina politics. I remember after he decided to leave his position at the Department of Public Instruction to run for Congress. I interviewed Mr. Etheridge on numerous occasions when I was working in radio. I had a habit of asking tough questions, regardless of party affiliation. I quizzed Democrats and Republicans alike with similar zeal. When it became evident to Old Bob that I would not throw softball questions at him each time he called the radio station, he stopped trying to get free public relations airtime.
I have followed Bob Etheridge’s congressional career over the fourteen years he was in office. When he did well on issues, I praised his performance. When he did poorly, I was critical. I believe in being fair and if I am willing to critique, I had better be willing to give kudos. Bob was relatively good on Second Amendment issues, but he had a serious problem with staying within the powers granted to Congress. He wrote and sponsored many bills that were patently unconstitutional. Then again, most congressmen have that same problem.
One thing that Bob Etheridge was known for was bringing federal tax money home to his district for various projects and issues. I remember seeing countless photo opportunities in which Bob was giving a symbolic giant check for road improvements, fire and police services, farmers, or whatever the current gimmick was.
I have relatives who literally were his neighbors and think that Bob Etheridge is a great, honest politician. From my experiences with him, I think that he was the stereotypical, constitutionally illiterate, dishonest sleazeball who was more concerned with his own re-election than with the well being of his constituency. Believe me, that has made for some interesting conversation at family gatherings. The measure of a good politician is not how much money is brought back to his home district from Washington, D.C., but rather how much money stays at home to begin with.
Bob Etheridge was quoted in the News and Observer as saying, “I’m like any American right now – frustrated at what is going on with our tea party folks up there. I think they have pushed our country to the brink three times this year, and lost our country its AAA bond rating as a result of that."
Say what? No, Bob, it is not the Tea Party that has been the issue. As a matter of fact, I am rather disappointed with the Tea Party candidates, in general. After one year in office, they have not done all that We The People have elected them to do...to undo what politicians like you did while you were in Congress. There has been the occasional slight glimmer of hope, but we eventually get the same old garbage that got us into this mess. Still, I will take a flawed Renee Ellmers over a politician like Bob Etheridge any day. We lost our AAA bond rating as a result of the reckless spending that has been rampant for the last two decades, for which the majority thereof, Bob, you were a member of Congress.
What irks me is that since the recent redistricting, Bob Etheridge now lives in the 4th Congressional District. He wants to run for office in the 2nd District, which was the seat he recently lost. For some incredibly stupid reason, law allows him to do that. If I have to live in the 2nd District in order to vote for representatives from the 2nd District, the representative should have to reside within the 2nd District. This is just another outrageous example of politicians writing the laws so that they themselves will not have to abide by them.
If you are not outraged by the current state of governmental affairs, then you are not paying attention. Our government was instituted by God (Romans 13), and in this country, we were entrusted with a form of government that requires our participation and assent. To that end, we must keep dishonest weasels out of office and elect morally strong, constitutionally literate individuals who will be more like statesmen than politicians. But, do we actually have any to elect?
Old Bob has been around a long time in North Carolina politics. I remember after he decided to leave his position at the Department of Public Instruction to run for Congress. I interviewed Mr. Etheridge on numerous occasions when I was working in radio. I had a habit of asking tough questions, regardless of party affiliation. I quizzed Democrats and Republicans alike with similar zeal. When it became evident to Old Bob that I would not throw softball questions at him each time he called the radio station, he stopped trying to get free public relations airtime.
I have followed Bob Etheridge’s congressional career over the fourteen years he was in office. When he did well on issues, I praised his performance. When he did poorly, I was critical. I believe in being fair and if I am willing to critique, I had better be willing to give kudos. Bob was relatively good on Second Amendment issues, but he had a serious problem with staying within the powers granted to Congress. He wrote and sponsored many bills that were patently unconstitutional. Then again, most congressmen have that same problem.
One thing that Bob Etheridge was known for was bringing federal tax money home to his district for various projects and issues. I remember seeing countless photo opportunities in which Bob was giving a symbolic giant check for road improvements, fire and police services, farmers, or whatever the current gimmick was.
I have relatives who literally were his neighbors and think that Bob Etheridge is a great, honest politician. From my experiences with him, I think that he was the stereotypical, constitutionally illiterate, dishonest sleazeball who was more concerned with his own re-election than with the well being of his constituency. Believe me, that has made for some interesting conversation at family gatherings. The measure of a good politician is not how much money is brought back to his home district from Washington, D.C., but rather how much money stays at home to begin with.
Bob Etheridge was quoted in the News and Observer as saying, “I’m like any American right now – frustrated at what is going on with our tea party folks up there. I think they have pushed our country to the brink three times this year, and lost our country its AAA bond rating as a result of that."
Say what? No, Bob, it is not the Tea Party that has been the issue. As a matter of fact, I am rather disappointed with the Tea Party candidates, in general. After one year in office, they have not done all that We The People have elected them to do...to undo what politicians like you did while you were in Congress. There has been the occasional slight glimmer of hope, but we eventually get the same old garbage that got us into this mess. Still, I will take a flawed Renee Ellmers over a politician like Bob Etheridge any day. We lost our AAA bond rating as a result of the reckless spending that has been rampant for the last two decades, for which the majority thereof, Bob, you were a member of Congress.
What irks me is that since the recent redistricting, Bob Etheridge now lives in the 4th Congressional District. He wants to run for office in the 2nd District, which was the seat he recently lost. For some incredibly stupid reason, law allows him to do that. If I have to live in the 2nd District in order to vote for representatives from the 2nd District, the representative should have to reside within the 2nd District. This is just another outrageous example of politicians writing the laws so that they themselves will not have to abide by them.
If you are not outraged by the current state of governmental affairs, then you are not paying attention. Our government was instituted by God (Romans 13), and in this country, we were entrusted with a form of government that requires our participation and assent. To that end, we must keep dishonest weasels out of office and elect morally strong, constitutionally literate individuals who will be more like statesmen than politicians. But, do we actually have any to elect?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Column for Dec. 22, 2011
I can’t believe the piece of junk mail I got today. I get plenty of solicitations for credit cards, usually more than one a day. I get junk mail from my mortgage company, my life insurance company, travel agencies, car dealers, lawyers, and the list goes on. Today I got one that insulted my sensibilities.
My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.
Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.
For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.
In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.
The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.
When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.
What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.
My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.
Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.
For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.
In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.
The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.
When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.
What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Column for September 29, 2011
When will these people get it? Liberal tax and spend Democrats (and even some Republicans) don’t know what the word, “NO!” means or understand basic economics. I was reading a news story about a North Carolina State Legislator who wants to bring back a one cent sales tax increase for us citizens to pay. It did not take long to comprehend why it is being proposed again. Bill Faison is a state representative from near Berkley East, meaning liberal Orange County.
The plan that he has been pitching is to reinstate a one penny (1%) sales tax hike to fund state jobs that have recently been cut. His wants to rehire over 6,400 state employees that were laid off because of budget cuts. His claim is that the tax hike would bring in over a billion dollars a year. His slogan is “Give a penny, hire a state worker.” I will admit that a one cent sales tax would be nearly invisible to the average shopper. When I go to Wal-Mart and spend a few hundred dollars, I may never notice the increase in the tax. However, over a year’s course of time, that one penny sales tax hike adds up.
Several things occurred to me as I read the news story. First is that someone is actually proposing a tax hike in a down economy. That is abject stupidity. Of course that is exactly what is currently happening on the national level, not just the state level. The second thing is that state employees were laid off. Obviously they were not essential to the workings of the government, hence their dismissal. That tells me that they was extra baggage that was attached to an already bloated bureaucracy. I feel for the people who lost their jobs. We had to deal with it in our own household, too, as my wife used to be a government employee. I know first hand as a former state employee that there are more employees than are necessary for the efficient running of the government. I also know that some agencies are anemic on employees whereas other departments are employee laden and bloated.
On December 15, 1802, Thomas Jefferson said in his annual address to Congress, “...when merely by avoiding false objects of expense we are able, without a direct tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing to make large and effectual payments toward the discharge of public debt and the emancipation of our posterity from that mortal canker, it is an encouragement, fellow citizens, of the highest order to proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation...” Congress, along with the previous two administrations had instituted certain taxes. Jefferson decided to eliminate those taxes and instead allow the economy to grow. A growing economy with lower taxes actually eventually brings in an increased amount of revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush also knew this principle.
One oft overlooked portion of that quote is “avoiding false objects of expense”. This simply means cutting spending levels and unnecessary expenditures. Jefferson also endeavored to eliminate the public debt rather than allow what he considered a moral canker to affect future generations. In all of the presidential administrations from George Washington to George W. Bush, the national government accrued some $12 trillion in debt. Under the present administration alone, we have doubled that figure. Jefferson would have most certainly considered this more than just a moral canker.
The Town of Smithfield has not figured out simple economics yet, either. Smithfield is attempting to force new businesses just outside of their public utility boundary to use their services rather than allowing them to use the cheaper, equally available electricity provided directly from Progress Energy. It is all about bringing in more revenue into the town. It has nothing to do with fostering a business friendly climate under which a company can thrive. It is all about feeding the voracious appetite of government.
I have written of my views on public power grids and their detrimental affect upon citizens and business. It would be one thing if Smithfield offered rates the same as Progress Energy, but they don’t. Furthermore, it is unconscionable to me to force businesses to go with a higher energy cost just because a town wants to use its governing power to gain more revenue. Lower overhead costs like the cost of electricity will help foster a better business climate, not forced, punitive, higher rates. Anything higher than what the power company would charge is nothing more than a tax increase, and I doubt that Thomas Jefferson would find it to be anything more than yet another moral canker.
The plan that he has been pitching is to reinstate a one penny (1%) sales tax hike to fund state jobs that have recently been cut. His wants to rehire over 6,400 state employees that were laid off because of budget cuts. His claim is that the tax hike would bring in over a billion dollars a year. His slogan is “Give a penny, hire a state worker.” I will admit that a one cent sales tax would be nearly invisible to the average shopper. When I go to Wal-Mart and spend a few hundred dollars, I may never notice the increase in the tax. However, over a year’s course of time, that one penny sales tax hike adds up.
Several things occurred to me as I read the news story. First is that someone is actually proposing a tax hike in a down economy. That is abject stupidity. Of course that is exactly what is currently happening on the national level, not just the state level. The second thing is that state employees were laid off. Obviously they were not essential to the workings of the government, hence their dismissal. That tells me that they was extra baggage that was attached to an already bloated bureaucracy. I feel for the people who lost their jobs. We had to deal with it in our own household, too, as my wife used to be a government employee. I know first hand as a former state employee that there are more employees than are necessary for the efficient running of the government. I also know that some agencies are anemic on employees whereas other departments are employee laden and bloated.
On December 15, 1802, Thomas Jefferson said in his annual address to Congress, “...when merely by avoiding false objects of expense we are able, without a direct tax, without internal taxes, and without borrowing to make large and effectual payments toward the discharge of public debt and the emancipation of our posterity from that mortal canker, it is an encouragement, fellow citizens, of the highest order to proceed as we have begun in substituting economy for taxation...” Congress, along with the previous two administrations had instituted certain taxes. Jefferson decided to eliminate those taxes and instead allow the economy to grow. A growing economy with lower taxes actually eventually brings in an increased amount of revenue. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush also knew this principle.
One oft overlooked portion of that quote is “avoiding false objects of expense”. This simply means cutting spending levels and unnecessary expenditures. Jefferson also endeavored to eliminate the public debt rather than allow what he considered a moral canker to affect future generations. In all of the presidential administrations from George Washington to George W. Bush, the national government accrued some $12 trillion in debt. Under the present administration alone, we have doubled that figure. Jefferson would have most certainly considered this more than just a moral canker.
The Town of Smithfield has not figured out simple economics yet, either. Smithfield is attempting to force new businesses just outside of their public utility boundary to use their services rather than allowing them to use the cheaper, equally available electricity provided directly from Progress Energy. It is all about bringing in more revenue into the town. It has nothing to do with fostering a business friendly climate under which a company can thrive. It is all about feeding the voracious appetite of government.
I have written of my views on public power grids and their detrimental affect upon citizens and business. It would be one thing if Smithfield offered rates the same as Progress Energy, but they don’t. Furthermore, it is unconscionable to me to force businesses to go with a higher energy cost just because a town wants to use its governing power to gain more revenue. Lower overhead costs like the cost of electricity will help foster a better business climate, not forced, punitive, higher rates. Anything higher than what the power company would charge is nothing more than a tax increase, and I doubt that Thomas Jefferson would find it to be anything more than yet another moral canker.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Column for July 7, 2011
In last week’s edition of “The Selma News”, it was announced that Councilwoman Cheryl Oliver will run for mayor instead of re-election for her own seat on the Town Council. If Charles Hester follows through with his announced intention to run for re-election, that will make for an interesting race. The town politics rivalry between the Baptists and the Methodists should be very interesting. For years I have heard about the unofficial rivalry between the congregants of the Selma Baptist Church and Edgerton Memorial United Methodist Church.
One thing that I will say for Cheryl Oliver is that she had a well run and polished campaign when she first ran for town council. Ms. Oliver has been one of the most responsive individuals whenever I have had a comment or concern. I may not always agree with her decisions, but kudos belong to whom they are due.
Cheryl Oliver said that she wants to promote and implement a higher level of teamwork between our citizens, elected officials, town staff, committees, merchants, etc. Also, to increase the level of community involvement in critical matters affecting the town. I am in full agreement, though I don’t see those as two different items but one and the same. I have not much cared for the dictatorial, bullying style of management that I have witnessed over the past six years or so. I let my term expire on two town committees since they were either never utilized or rarely heeded, and did not appreciate the indifference that resulted in frustration and wasted time.
One other issue that Ms. Oliver raised is ensuring “a high level of fiscal responsibility that addresses the realities of today and the possibilities of tomorrow”. Ms. Oliver’s marketing background obviously shows in all of her points, especially this one, but again, I am in agreement. We are in times of tight budgets. There have been high calls for fiscal responsibility at all levels of government, and people are growing weary of the freedom and resources that have been taken from them in order to support the opulent spending of government and power grabs over the last 60 plus years. We have to look no further than next door to the Town of Smithfield and the recent spending issues they encountered with unauthorized, hefty pay increases for an example.
In the same vein as fiscal responsibility, I look again to “The Selma News”, this time from two weeks ago when the town looked (yet again) at the idea of a new town hall building. I am a huge proponent of taking care of the facilities that we have rather than acquiring new ones. I am not saying that I am in favor of doing anything at all with facility improvements, since inaction in this case is indeed a very viable option. However, when faced with the two options of renovation of the existing building or erecting a new edifice elsewhere, I can only look at the numbers and location. The numbers show a difference of $400,000 betwixt the two options. To a small town like ours, that is significant, so renovation gets my choice as the lesser of two evils. The present town hall is right smack in the middle of our downtown district, which is where a town hall ought to be.
I have a problem with the argument that the existing building does not meet building code as a reason to build a new one. I have found that officials or consultants will throw out generally ambiguous and often specious “code requirement” arguments in order to affect a desired result. I have my suspicions on this report and the direction it points. Perhaps things have radically changed since I got my NC State Building Code class certificate years ago. Perhaps not.
As to the desired “future growth” for town hall, why would we need to grow? I don’t want any government growing, especially that of the town. Town governments are often the most overlooked but can be the most impacting. Towns affect how and where you can build, how you use your property, affect trash collection, electrical use, the roads on which you drive, and your tax rates. And yet people often dismiss local elections and government as being unworthy of their time or effort. I certainly don’t see it that way. If a government grows, it means that it is taking in more revenue in order to feed that growth. With said growth often comes erosion of liberty.
I have already edited out much from this column and have so much more to say, but I have to wind it up for the sake of brevity. I am not endorsing any candidate for the mayoral race. The filing period does not close for another week, and I am anxious to see who else may file for not only mayor, but for town council as well. One thing is for sure, though. I am looking for fiscal responsibility and teamwork from any candidate who may be running for office in my town.
One thing that I will say for Cheryl Oliver is that she had a well run and polished campaign when she first ran for town council. Ms. Oliver has been one of the most responsive individuals whenever I have had a comment or concern. I may not always agree with her decisions, but kudos belong to whom they are due.
Cheryl Oliver said that she wants to promote and implement a higher level of teamwork between our citizens, elected officials, town staff, committees, merchants, etc. Also, to increase the level of community involvement in critical matters affecting the town. I am in full agreement, though I don’t see those as two different items but one and the same. I have not much cared for the dictatorial, bullying style of management that I have witnessed over the past six years or so. I let my term expire on two town committees since they were either never utilized or rarely heeded, and did not appreciate the indifference that resulted in frustration and wasted time.
One other issue that Ms. Oliver raised is ensuring “a high level of fiscal responsibility that addresses the realities of today and the possibilities of tomorrow”. Ms. Oliver’s marketing background obviously shows in all of her points, especially this one, but again, I am in agreement. We are in times of tight budgets. There have been high calls for fiscal responsibility at all levels of government, and people are growing weary of the freedom and resources that have been taken from them in order to support the opulent spending of government and power grabs over the last 60 plus years. We have to look no further than next door to the Town of Smithfield and the recent spending issues they encountered with unauthorized, hefty pay increases for an example.
In the same vein as fiscal responsibility, I look again to “The Selma News”, this time from two weeks ago when the town looked (yet again) at the idea of a new town hall building. I am a huge proponent of taking care of the facilities that we have rather than acquiring new ones. I am not saying that I am in favor of doing anything at all with facility improvements, since inaction in this case is indeed a very viable option. However, when faced with the two options of renovation of the existing building or erecting a new edifice elsewhere, I can only look at the numbers and location. The numbers show a difference of $400,000 betwixt the two options. To a small town like ours, that is significant, so renovation gets my choice as the lesser of two evils. The present town hall is right smack in the middle of our downtown district, which is where a town hall ought to be.
I have a problem with the argument that the existing building does not meet building code as a reason to build a new one. I have found that officials or consultants will throw out generally ambiguous and often specious “code requirement” arguments in order to affect a desired result. I have my suspicions on this report and the direction it points. Perhaps things have radically changed since I got my NC State Building Code class certificate years ago. Perhaps not.
As to the desired “future growth” for town hall, why would we need to grow? I don’t want any government growing, especially that of the town. Town governments are often the most overlooked but can be the most impacting. Towns affect how and where you can build, how you use your property, affect trash collection, electrical use, the roads on which you drive, and your tax rates. And yet people often dismiss local elections and government as being unworthy of their time or effort. I certainly don’t see it that way. If a government grows, it means that it is taking in more revenue in order to feed that growth. With said growth often comes erosion of liberty.
I have already edited out much from this column and have so much more to say, but I have to wind it up for the sake of brevity. I am not endorsing any candidate for the mayoral race. The filing period does not close for another week, and I am anxious to see who else may file for not only mayor, but for town council as well. One thing is for sure, though. I am looking for fiscal responsibility and teamwork from any candidate who may be running for office in my town.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Column for May 12, 2011
In a time when governments are running a deficit and having to make budget cuts, I am amazed at the mentality of many people who are on the government dole. The elections of last November were supposed to send a message to the state and federal governments that we have had enough of reckless spending. To stop spending means just that. It means that we have to cease spending in some areas. The whole “not in my program”, “but it’s for the children”, and “leave my entitlements alone” stuff just ticks me off.
I have in front of me three different news stories about whining people who decry spending cuts for their own benefit or that of pet projects. Make no mistake that most all opposition to budget cuts is not about the “overall good”. It is almost always about personal gain.
About a week ago, thousands of teachers gathered in Raleigh to protest possible budget cuts. The funny thing is that some of these public school employees were not smart enough to realize that states don’t fund the military. Some were carrying signs whining that we should fund public services, not wars. Why would one protest state government spending cuts by whining about federal military spending? And these people are educating our children?
What were thousands of “educators” doing at a protest rally instead of teaching our children, anyway? If they were really about the children rather than their own personal benefit, they would have been in the classroom instead of chanting while carrying signs on sticks. Of course the rallying cry, “It’s for our pockets” is not as effective as “It’s for the children”. I don’t buy the claims of catastrophe and dire consequences for cutting spending in education along with all other areas.
Education funding is not the only controversial subject of potential cuts. The North Carolina health fund is a program that is under scrutiny. It is a trust fund that finances anti-tobacco and obesity programs for children and teenagers. The argument against cutting that program is that the prevention efforts will be cheaper than the cost of health care later.
Call me crazy, but I figure that the responsibility of raising children is that of a parent and not the government. It is not the job of the state to keep teenagers from smoking or dipping snuff. It is not the job of the state to keep kids from putting on a few extra pounds. That is the job of a parent. As to the idea of health care later, is it not also the job of a parent to take care of a child’s health needs and not that of every other taxpayer in the state? I have two children under the age of nine. One of them has a birth defect and I do not expect the government to pay for his treatment. That is up to me as his parent and not everyone else reading this newspaper. By the same token, any other parent bears their own responsibility for their children’s health care. And truth be told, the effects of the use of tobacco products or obesity in children will probably not be felt until the children reach the age of an adult. Then it is their own responsibility, not that of the taxpayer.
I read another article about some very selfish people. In November, America overwhelmingly elected conservative legislators in the federal and state governments. Recently, Congressional Republicans went home on break and many of them held town hall style meetings to meet their constituents. Some Congressmen were booed, shouted at, and jeered by older citizens whining about any possible cuts to their Medicare, food stamps, and Social Security benefits.
I have sympathy for them, I really do. But I have said it before and I will say it again. If your plan in life was to rely upon the government to take care of you and you made no provision for your own retirement, then that is your own fault. If you bought the lie that was handed to you that you can coast in life when you reach a certain age at the expense of the taxpayer, then you have used poor judgment in life. It is not my responsibility as a taxpayer and citizen to take care of you or anyone else outside of my family. We as a people simply can no longer afford to keep doling out the cash.
In 1753, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday will soon cease to be holidays. 'Six days shalt thou labor,' though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” It is as true today as it was 258 years ago. To demand or expect otherwise is selfishness.
I have in front of me three different news stories about whining people who decry spending cuts for their own benefit or that of pet projects. Make no mistake that most all opposition to budget cuts is not about the “overall good”. It is almost always about personal gain.
About a week ago, thousands of teachers gathered in Raleigh to protest possible budget cuts. The funny thing is that some of these public school employees were not smart enough to realize that states don’t fund the military. Some were carrying signs whining that we should fund public services, not wars. Why would one protest state government spending cuts by whining about federal military spending? And these people are educating our children?
What were thousands of “educators” doing at a protest rally instead of teaching our children, anyway? If they were really about the children rather than their own personal benefit, they would have been in the classroom instead of chanting while carrying signs on sticks. Of course the rallying cry, “It’s for our pockets” is not as effective as “It’s for the children”. I don’t buy the claims of catastrophe and dire consequences for cutting spending in education along with all other areas.
Education funding is not the only controversial subject of potential cuts. The North Carolina health fund is a program that is under scrutiny. It is a trust fund that finances anti-tobacco and obesity programs for children and teenagers. The argument against cutting that program is that the prevention efforts will be cheaper than the cost of health care later.
Call me crazy, but I figure that the responsibility of raising children is that of a parent and not the government. It is not the job of the state to keep teenagers from smoking or dipping snuff. It is not the job of the state to keep kids from putting on a few extra pounds. That is the job of a parent. As to the idea of health care later, is it not also the job of a parent to take care of a child’s health needs and not that of every other taxpayer in the state? I have two children under the age of nine. One of them has a birth defect and I do not expect the government to pay for his treatment. That is up to me as his parent and not everyone else reading this newspaper. By the same token, any other parent bears their own responsibility for their children’s health care. And truth be told, the effects of the use of tobacco products or obesity in children will probably not be felt until the children reach the age of an adult. Then it is their own responsibility, not that of the taxpayer.
I read another article about some very selfish people. In November, America overwhelmingly elected conservative legislators in the federal and state governments. Recently, Congressional Republicans went home on break and many of them held town hall style meetings to meet their constituents. Some Congressmen were booed, shouted at, and jeered by older citizens whining about any possible cuts to their Medicare, food stamps, and Social Security benefits.
I have sympathy for them, I really do. But I have said it before and I will say it again. If your plan in life was to rely upon the government to take care of you and you made no provision for your own retirement, then that is your own fault. If you bought the lie that was handed to you that you can coast in life when you reach a certain age at the expense of the taxpayer, then you have used poor judgment in life. It is not my responsibility as a taxpayer and citizen to take care of you or anyone else outside of my family. We as a people simply can no longer afford to keep doling out the cash.
In 1753, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday will soon cease to be holidays. 'Six days shalt thou labor,' though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” It is as true today as it was 258 years ago. To demand or expect otherwise is selfishness.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Column for Feb. 24, 2011
Well, Governor Bev Perdue finally did it. She submitted her budget and proposed to cut spending and jobs. All it took was a little discipline and courage. It isn't really all that hard. We had to do the same thing in our household. My wife has been out of work for two years now and we are living almost entirely on my salary. Some extra spending had to go. Essential items get paid for first, then other bills. If there is anything left over, then we contemplate our charitable giving budget, our dining budget, gift giving, and the like. The state of North Carolina should be no different in its approach.
The governor and I do not agree on all of the areas in which to cut spending. Just recently, I took the governor's budget cutting challenge that was on a state web site. I not only was able to balance the budget by cutting $2,633,800,000 in spending, I was also able to create a surplus of $1,233,800,000 according to the computer model. According to the model, I cut 27,027 jobs from the state's payroll.
Of course I believe that the computer model is purposely biased. There were options for increasing class size in K-12 schools by one, two, or three students. The same option was available for secondary education. I Seriously doubt that adding another few students per class is going to be detrimental to the education system and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the model. Somehow I have a hard time believing that by increasing class size by an average of 3 students per classroom, I would be cutting 18,027 jobs.
I understand the fears that many families have when being faced with job cuts. I was a state employee myself for several years. I have friends and family who work for state government. If layoffs come, who knows if they would be affected? Under the governor's plan, many unfilled job slots will be eliminated. 3,000 jobs will be cut from the state payroll that are presently filled by employees. The state is bloated with employees in some areas and lean in others. I know several state employees that are swamped with work while I have personally witnessed other positions that are overkill and unnecessary.
We have to determine what services are vital and what ones are not. That is what the governor promises to do in this budget, eliminating funding for 68 of what Perdue labeled as "nonessential programs". If they are "nonessential", then why were we paying for them to begin with?
Though I will give Beverly Perdue kudos for looking to cut the budget, I am still not as optimistic as many that we will actually end up with the sort of spending level we truly should have. I will say that at least our state executive seems to be more up front and honest about the problems of government spending that our national executive.
President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened to veto deep spending cuts proposed by Congress. Though the President was just on television giving lip service to responsible spending, he is threatening against responsible spending. What sort of double standard is that? You can not have it both ways. Either you support budget cuts or you don't. You can not be directly responsible for the most reckless spending that we have seen in the history of America, call for responsible spending, then take action against responsible spending. That is just political double-speak and twaddle. When the Department of Health and Human Services budget alone is bigger than the entire federal budget under Lyndon Johnson, something is seriously wrong.
We have far too many people dependent upon government for their means of supply. Whether that supply be the result of employment or social welfare programs, we can not maintain the previous levels of spending. If I borrowed 45% of everything I spent in my household on a consistent basis, I would rapidly be filing bankruptcy. The difference is that the government can print more money and issue more bonds and I can not.
If we had more people in elected office who cared more about the population in general rather than their own level of power and those who are most likely to help them attain it, we would have the very thing that James Madison wrote about our republic. Speaking of a government that applies both to the elected and the general population, he wrote,
The governor and I do not agree on all of the areas in which to cut spending. Just recently, I took the governor's budget cutting challenge that was on a state web site. I not only was able to balance the budget by cutting $2,633,800,000 in spending, I was also able to create a surplus of $1,233,800,000 according to the computer model. According to the model, I cut 27,027 jobs from the state's payroll.
Of course I believe that the computer model is purposely biased. There were options for increasing class size in K-12 schools by one, two, or three students. The same option was available for secondary education. I Seriously doubt that adding another few students per class is going to be detrimental to the education system and I seriously doubt the accuracy of the model. Somehow I have a hard time believing that by increasing class size by an average of 3 students per classroom, I would be cutting 18,027 jobs.
I understand the fears that many families have when being faced with job cuts. I was a state employee myself for several years. I have friends and family who work for state government. If layoffs come, who knows if they would be affected? Under the governor's plan, many unfilled job slots will be eliminated. 3,000 jobs will be cut from the state payroll that are presently filled by employees. The state is bloated with employees in some areas and lean in others. I know several state employees that are swamped with work while I have personally witnessed other positions that are overkill and unnecessary.
We have to determine what services are vital and what ones are not. That is what the governor promises to do in this budget, eliminating funding for 68 of what Perdue labeled as "nonessential programs". If they are "nonessential", then why were we paying for them to begin with?
Though I will give Beverly Perdue kudos for looking to cut the budget, I am still not as optimistic as many that we will actually end up with the sort of spending level we truly should have. I will say that at least our state executive seems to be more up front and honest about the problems of government spending that our national executive.
President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened to veto deep spending cuts proposed by Congress. Though the President was just on television giving lip service to responsible spending, he is threatening against responsible spending. What sort of double standard is that? You can not have it both ways. Either you support budget cuts or you don't. You can not be directly responsible for the most reckless spending that we have seen in the history of America, call for responsible spending, then take action against responsible spending. That is just political double-speak and twaddle. When the Department of Health and Human Services budget alone is bigger than the entire federal budget under Lyndon Johnson, something is seriously wrong.
We have far too many people dependent upon government for their means of supply. Whether that supply be the result of employment or social welfare programs, we can not maintain the previous levels of spending. If I borrowed 45% of everything I spent in my household on a consistent basis, I would rapidly be filing bankruptcy. The difference is that the government can print more money and issue more bonds and I can not.
If we had more people in elected office who cared more about the population in general rather than their own level of power and those who are most likely to help them attain it, we would have the very thing that James Madison wrote about our republic. Speaking of a government that applies both to the elected and the general population, he wrote,
"It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny."(Federalist Papers # 57). We have reached that degeneration already.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Column for Nov. 25, 2010
My house is 60 years old. I think I will start calling it historic. This year I sold my historic automobile, since it is technically almost an antique. The flag pole in front of the Selma Post Office is old, too. Maybe we should designate it as historic and name it after someone in town who was a dedicated mail carrier for years.
Everyone wants a legacy. Everyone wants to feel important. In little old Selma, it seems that people want to feel that our town is big and important. Not only that, but we need to name some of our important structures after Selma residents or past residents. And apparently we need to spend tax money on these things.
I have long said that just because something is old does not mean that it is of historical value. Residential neighborhoods in a town that have been around for 50 to 100 years are not necessarily important other than to those living in those homes. Let’s face it, the only really big claims to fame for Selma are that we are a convenient halfway stop between Miami and New York City and that Vicks Vaporub was invented here. Maybe we should have a Vicks museum and vending machines on every corner that dispense jars of Vaporub.
I read that the town is going to spend money “to apply for a historical designation for a residential area in town”. This will cost almost $22,500 just for a consultant to make the application. To what end, I wonder? Just because we have some old buildings does not make us historic. I barely consider the Mitchener Station building historic, and it certainly is not serving the public in its present usage or location. I have heard a lot of talk about doing something with that building, but that is all it has been, just talk. How many visitors to our town does that building attract?
I doubt seriously that an aging, nothing special, and rather unattractive residential neighborhood is going to do the public any more good with an expensive historic designation as opposed to without one. I seriously doubt that the town will recover the $22,500 from sales tax revenue from visitors flocking to Selma to see some aging, average houses. If this was Colonial Williamsburg, I would think differently. Even at that, Williamsburg is over rated. I have seen better, older neighborhoods still in use in New England. Other than making a few residents feel good about their houses at the expense of the rest of the town residents and taxpayers, the idea of an “historic” residential neighborhood designation will do little for the town.
On an almost related note, I was glad to see that the Town Council in Selma saw fit to refrain from naming every building, water tower, and flag pole after someone from Selma. I have no problem with honoring someone from time to time, but where does it stop? What is wrong with calling the Selma Police Station, “the Selma Police Station”? That works for me. Why do we waste time and money naming every water tower and building after someone? Why did we pay for brick columns and engraved plaques with a dedication? In my experience, those who want monuments erected to others often want to set a precedent for some to be erected for themselves.
In my hometown, the local police station was named in honor of a police officer who was slain in Afghanistan. I knew this man personally. We were in high school together, on the same football team, were in the fire department together, and he eventually served as a police officer in our hometown. He was in the National Guard and ended up serving in Afghanistan. He was killed by an improvised explosive device as his vehicle flipped over after the explosion. That town has several buildings named after a few past prominent citizens, like most towns do. When this man came home in a casket, his memory and life were honored as having an impact on the town. The town named the police station after him. This was the exception rather than the rule in that town. That is the way it should be, rather than automatically naming every edifice, street, park, tower, fence, light pole, and outhouse after a town resident.
Like I said, everyone wants a legacy. I don’t want mine to be a building with my name on it. I want mine to be that I had an impact on my community, that I gave my children a heritage full of faith and values, and the knowledge that I stood firmly and lived by what I believed.
Everyone wants a legacy. Everyone wants to feel important. In little old Selma, it seems that people want to feel that our town is big and important. Not only that, but we need to name some of our important structures after Selma residents or past residents. And apparently we need to spend tax money on these things.
I have long said that just because something is old does not mean that it is of historical value. Residential neighborhoods in a town that have been around for 50 to 100 years are not necessarily important other than to those living in those homes. Let’s face it, the only really big claims to fame for Selma are that we are a convenient halfway stop between Miami and New York City and that Vicks Vaporub was invented here. Maybe we should have a Vicks museum and vending machines on every corner that dispense jars of Vaporub.
I read that the town is going to spend money “to apply for a historical designation for a residential area in town”. This will cost almost $22,500 just for a consultant to make the application. To what end, I wonder? Just because we have some old buildings does not make us historic. I barely consider the Mitchener Station building historic, and it certainly is not serving the public in its present usage or location. I have heard a lot of talk about doing something with that building, but that is all it has been, just talk. How many visitors to our town does that building attract?
I doubt seriously that an aging, nothing special, and rather unattractive residential neighborhood is going to do the public any more good with an expensive historic designation as opposed to without one. I seriously doubt that the town will recover the $22,500 from sales tax revenue from visitors flocking to Selma to see some aging, average houses. If this was Colonial Williamsburg, I would think differently. Even at that, Williamsburg is over rated. I have seen better, older neighborhoods still in use in New England. Other than making a few residents feel good about their houses at the expense of the rest of the town residents and taxpayers, the idea of an “historic” residential neighborhood designation will do little for the town.
On an almost related note, I was glad to see that the Town Council in Selma saw fit to refrain from naming every building, water tower, and flag pole after someone from Selma. I have no problem with honoring someone from time to time, but where does it stop? What is wrong with calling the Selma Police Station, “the Selma Police Station”? That works for me. Why do we waste time and money naming every water tower and building after someone? Why did we pay for brick columns and engraved plaques with a dedication? In my experience, those who want monuments erected to others often want to set a precedent for some to be erected for themselves.
In my hometown, the local police station was named in honor of a police officer who was slain in Afghanistan. I knew this man personally. We were in high school together, on the same football team, were in the fire department together, and he eventually served as a police officer in our hometown. He was in the National Guard and ended up serving in Afghanistan. He was killed by an improvised explosive device as his vehicle flipped over after the explosion. That town has several buildings named after a few past prominent citizens, like most towns do. When this man came home in a casket, his memory and life were honored as having an impact on the town. The town named the police station after him. This was the exception rather than the rule in that town. That is the way it should be, rather than automatically naming every edifice, street, park, tower, fence, light pole, and outhouse after a town resident.
Like I said, everyone wants a legacy. I don’t want mine to be a building with my name on it. I want mine to be that I had an impact on my community, that I gave my children a heritage full of faith and values, and the knowledge that I stood firmly and lived by what I believed.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Column for August 26, 2010
I was at a loss about what to write this week, but one thing kept hitting me every time I read a newspaper, news web site, or local news report today. That was local spending. Every news source seemed to carry some story about local taxes, local spending, local grants received for more spending, and the list goes on.
During my perusing through my favorite sources for news, I found a report from George Mason University that showed that state and local spending in the United States as a whole has increased nearly ten times since 1950. Private spending has only increased five times in the same time period. What does that tell us? Government spending is out of control. Where does government get its money? From taxpaying citizens, which explains why private spending rose only about half of the government rates.
Guilford County is looking at another sales tax increase. North Carolina is looking at tollbooths on I-95. Cities like Philadelphia are requiring people like myself to pay for a business privilege license fee in order to have an internet blog. The cost of the license is $300, regardless of whether the blog is kept as a hobby or as a business, or even if the fee far exceeds any profits from the web site. That is nothing more than sheer governmental greed to feed an insatiable appetite for local spending.
Locally, I have seen grants and loans from the federal government for local spending on police and fire departments, schools and educational equipment, public library system computers, and local road paving projects. One major source of local money supply seems to be the US Department of Agriculture via loans and grants. I fail to see what local water systems, police department facilities, and road paving projects have to do with agriculture.
Just as frustrating to me is the idea that the federal government is making local towns, counties, and states increasingly dependent upon it as a money supply. Either way, the money is from taxation. Taxation comes from our pockets, not some magical, inexhaustible, deep well of cash in Washington, D.C.
When we get taxation on both ends, I am reminded of the admonition from an opponent to the US Constitution's ratification in an Anti-federalist letter written in October of 1787. The author identified himself only as "Federal Farmer" and was thought to possibly be Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, whose resolution was passed by the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776 declaring independence from Great Britain.
In this letter, Federal Farmer (in letter number 3) wrote, "…to lay and collect internal taxes in this extensive country must require a great number of congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the people; these must continually interfere with the state laws and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction till the one system of laws or the other, operating upon the same subjects, shall be abolished".
Basically he thought that two levels of government attempting to rule on the same topic would clash and cause one or the other to be abolished. Unfortunately, we instead have a huge codependency of one on the other. Both, however, have the same insatiable appetite for tax money. One government is following in the footsteps of the other and taking more and more money from the citizenry to feed itself. Local and state governments following suit have, as I stated, raised local government spending ten fold since 1950 while private spending by contrast has only risen five fold.
As recently as the 1920's local governments did not constantly look to the federal government as a source from which to suckle money. During Calvin Coolidge's administration (a greatly underrated President, in my opinion), there was great flooding along the Mississippi River, far worse than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet the federal government was not in the business of feeding the spending of local and state governments, even in the face of widespread disaster. Nowadays, a town can not pave Main Street or renovate a fire station without looking to Uncle Sam for money to do so.
We fell for this insidious plot decades ago and now it has caught up to us. Our federal deficit has grown (according to the Congressional Budget Office) by $4.4 Trillion since Barack Obama took office only a year and a half ago. States are going bankrupt. States are suckling more borrowed cash from the federal nipple. Local towns are raising taxes to keep up with their smaller yet nonetheless insatiable appetites for control and spending.
I have been decrying this for decades. Now we may have gone well past the rubicon of financial destruction. If so, we have done it to ourselves.
During my perusing through my favorite sources for news, I found a report from George Mason University that showed that state and local spending in the United States as a whole has increased nearly ten times since 1950. Private spending has only increased five times in the same time period. What does that tell us? Government spending is out of control. Where does government get its money? From taxpaying citizens, which explains why private spending rose only about half of the government rates.
Guilford County is looking at another sales tax increase. North Carolina is looking at tollbooths on I-95. Cities like Philadelphia are requiring people like myself to pay for a business privilege license fee in order to have an internet blog. The cost of the license is $300, regardless of whether the blog is kept as a hobby or as a business, or even if the fee far exceeds any profits from the web site. That is nothing more than sheer governmental greed to feed an insatiable appetite for local spending.
Locally, I have seen grants and loans from the federal government for local spending on police and fire departments, schools and educational equipment, public library system computers, and local road paving projects. One major source of local money supply seems to be the US Department of Agriculture via loans and grants. I fail to see what local water systems, police department facilities, and road paving projects have to do with agriculture.
Just as frustrating to me is the idea that the federal government is making local towns, counties, and states increasingly dependent upon it as a money supply. Either way, the money is from taxation. Taxation comes from our pockets, not some magical, inexhaustible, deep well of cash in Washington, D.C.
When we get taxation on both ends, I am reminded of the admonition from an opponent to the US Constitution's ratification in an Anti-federalist letter written in October of 1787. The author identified himself only as "Federal Farmer" and was thought to possibly be Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, whose resolution was passed by the Continental Congress on July 2, 1776 declaring independence from Great Britain.
In this letter, Federal Farmer (in letter number 3) wrote, "…to lay and collect internal taxes in this extensive country must require a great number of congressional ordinances, immediately operating upon the body of the people; these must continually interfere with the state laws and thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction till the one system of laws or the other, operating upon the same subjects, shall be abolished".
Basically he thought that two levels of government attempting to rule on the same topic would clash and cause one or the other to be abolished. Unfortunately, we instead have a huge codependency of one on the other. Both, however, have the same insatiable appetite for tax money. One government is following in the footsteps of the other and taking more and more money from the citizenry to feed itself. Local and state governments following suit have, as I stated, raised local government spending ten fold since 1950 while private spending by contrast has only risen five fold.
As recently as the 1920's local governments did not constantly look to the federal government as a source from which to suckle money. During Calvin Coolidge's administration (a greatly underrated President, in my opinion), there was great flooding along the Mississippi River, far worse than the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet the federal government was not in the business of feeding the spending of local and state governments, even in the face of widespread disaster. Nowadays, a town can not pave Main Street or renovate a fire station without looking to Uncle Sam for money to do so.
We fell for this insidious plot decades ago and now it has caught up to us. Our federal deficit has grown (according to the Congressional Budget Office) by $4.4 Trillion since Barack Obama took office only a year and a half ago. States are going bankrupt. States are suckling more borrowed cash from the federal nipple. Local towns are raising taxes to keep up with their smaller yet nonetheless insatiable appetites for control and spending.
I have been decrying this for decades. Now we may have gone well past the rubicon of financial destruction. If so, we have done it to ourselves.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Column for August 12, 2010
For those who are on the internet a lot, like myself, you probably get a good amount of "spam" email. For those who are not inclined to be in the cyberworld, spam is not just processed meat, it is a term used for junk electronic mail. I got what I consider a spam email from Congressman Bob Etheridge.
I opened the email to see what old Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge had to say this time. Here is some of what he had to say.
"My top priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives have been jobs, jobs, and jobs. Specifically, I support common sense policies that will create an economy that works for the middle class so every North Carolinian who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given abilities."
Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with him so far. Is a Democrat allowed to say "God-given"? I would have thought that would be viewed by liberals as a "separation of church and state" issue. What else did Bob have in store?
"We need to rebuild America and restore the American Dream. Economic recovery in our country will be powered by small businesses. I have been working to enact eight separate tax cuts for small businesses to jumpstart hiring and boost the economy."
He is correct. We do need to rebuild America. Small business is indeed the engine that keeps America going. I find it amusing that both a man and a political party that have been supportive of massive spending and tax increases would recognize that tax cuts are what stimulate the economy. Tax cuts worked for John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Why then do Democrats feel the need to pass Cap and Trade, health care legislation, and financial regulation packages that will only increase taxes, increase federal spending, and increase government intrusion into the economic and business sector?
This is simply talking out of both sides of one's mouth. You can not have it both ways. Either you are for tax cuts or you are for tax and spending increases. If tax cuts are so beneficial, then why does Congress propose these piddly little tax cuts while refusing to make the previous tax cuts under the Bush administration permanent? The answer is easy to find further down in the letter.
Congressman Etheridge continued, "The recent recession cost us 8 million American jobs—and years of policies that favored the special interests cost us 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs. Although too many people are out of work and family budgets are getting squeezed, bold action to correct the failed policies of the past has started to turn our economy around."
This is a classic case of blame everything bad on George Bush. In fact, the current recession is primarily because of the direct involvement in the economy by the Democrat controlled Congress in conjunction with a willing President Obama.
Don't get me wrong, I am not letting the Republicans slide on this at all. Republicans had control of Congress for years and did not act like they were in power. They were also corrupt and spent money in huge quantities, as well. I blame them just as much as I blame Democrats for the huge borrowing and spending problems that eventually led to an economic crash. These spending issues were hugely magnified and sped along under President Obama and his far left, socialistic agenda. Etheridge is claiming he is working to solve the very problems he helped create.
Since I only have so much space in which to critique, I will choose one last item. Etheridge wrote, "Long term, we need budget discipline and smart investments like Pell Grants and higher education assistance and school construction."
I wholeheartedly agree that we need budget discipline, but we will never achieve it when congressmen like Bob Etheridge vote for spending programs that will cost trillions of dollars. As to Pell Grants, education assistance, and school construction, I have yet to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives the power to Congress to either spend money on these things or regulate them.
Bob Etheridge's letter is unfortunately typical of most politicians in office today. They take credit for things they did not do, blame others for their own failings, try to "have it both ways" in order to look good, and attempt to tickle the ears of a predominantly ignorant constituency. Remember this when you vote in November.
I opened the email to see what old Bob "Who are you?" Etheridge had to say this time. Here is some of what he had to say.
"My top priorities in the U.S. House of Representatives have been jobs, jobs, and jobs. Specifically, I support common sense policies that will create an economy that works for the middle class so every North Carolinian who is willing to work hard has the opportunity to make the most of his or her God-given abilities."
Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with him so far. Is a Democrat allowed to say "God-given"? I would have thought that would be viewed by liberals as a "separation of church and state" issue. What else did Bob have in store?
"We need to rebuild America and restore the American Dream. Economic recovery in our country will be powered by small businesses. I have been working to enact eight separate tax cuts for small businesses to jumpstart hiring and boost the economy."
He is correct. We do need to rebuild America. Small business is indeed the engine that keeps America going. I find it amusing that both a man and a political party that have been supportive of massive spending and tax increases would recognize that tax cuts are what stimulate the economy. Tax cuts worked for John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush. Why then do Democrats feel the need to pass Cap and Trade, health care legislation, and financial regulation packages that will only increase taxes, increase federal spending, and increase government intrusion into the economic and business sector?
This is simply talking out of both sides of one's mouth. You can not have it both ways. Either you are for tax cuts or you are for tax and spending increases. If tax cuts are so beneficial, then why does Congress propose these piddly little tax cuts while refusing to make the previous tax cuts under the Bush administration permanent? The answer is easy to find further down in the letter.
Congressman Etheridge continued, "The recent recession cost us 8 million American jobs—and years of policies that favored the special interests cost us 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs. Although too many people are out of work and family budgets are getting squeezed, bold action to correct the failed policies of the past has started to turn our economy around."
This is a classic case of blame everything bad on George Bush. In fact, the current recession is primarily because of the direct involvement in the economy by the Democrat controlled Congress in conjunction with a willing President Obama.
Don't get me wrong, I am not letting the Republicans slide on this at all. Republicans had control of Congress for years and did not act like they were in power. They were also corrupt and spent money in huge quantities, as well. I blame them just as much as I blame Democrats for the huge borrowing and spending problems that eventually led to an economic crash. These spending issues were hugely magnified and sped along under President Obama and his far left, socialistic agenda. Etheridge is claiming he is working to solve the very problems he helped create.
Since I only have so much space in which to critique, I will choose one last item. Etheridge wrote, "Long term, we need budget discipline and smart investments like Pell Grants and higher education assistance and school construction."
I wholeheartedly agree that we need budget discipline, but we will never achieve it when congressmen like Bob Etheridge vote for spending programs that will cost trillions of dollars. As to Pell Grants, education assistance, and school construction, I have yet to find anywhere in the United States Constitution that gives the power to Congress to either spend money on these things or regulate them.
Bob Etheridge's letter is unfortunately typical of most politicians in office today. They take credit for things they did not do, blame others for their own failings, try to "have it both ways" in order to look good, and attempt to tickle the ears of a predominantly ignorant constituency. Remember this when you vote in November.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Column for Feb. 4, 2010
Just about every year, one of my friends ends up asking me if I am going to see "the show". The show he refers to is The State of the Union Speech each January. Often times my answer is no, since I often prefer to read the transcript later rather than utter bad language aimed at the television. My friend is right. It is a show, not an address actually containing the state of our Union.
According to the United States Constitution Article II Section III, (referring to the President) "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." I look each year for a complying, constitutional message. Each time I fail at this endeavor.
The US Constitution does not require a speech. It does not require a specified time for the address to happen. Nor does it state in what form it must be delivered. There are some things the Constitution does indeed leave open to interpretation, this being one of them. Every President since Woodrow Wilson has grandstanded his views, policies, and wish lists before Congress.
Well, I got suckered into watching this year's address on television right up until the time I could not take it any more. I found myself shouting at the TV, "You lying sack of [censored]!" fairly often and finally just turned the show off. For you Obama supporters, don't get too upset. I often said the same about Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Not only do most Presidents use this address as a way of feeding their need to be an attention whore, they totally disregard the entire raison d'être of the speech to begin with. They pimp their personal agenda items rather than actually telling us what the state of our Union truly is. I want to hear real facts and figures about our budget, our military readiness, our national security level, and the like. Instead we get ideas about what programs to begin, expand, and what constitutional principles we should violate as a nation, almost all of which are not "necessary and expedient".
What amazed me this year is that as usual, the blame for everything wrong was put on George W. Bush. I am so tired of this tactic. Sure, I was no fan of Bush, but the things whined about in this speech can certainly not be blamed on Bush and were abject hyperbole. For instance, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
No, we were not on a verge of financial collapse…at least not until Obama signed a so-called stimulus bill into law. We are more deeply in debt under his administration in just one year than we were for the previous 220 years of our present form of government.
Today has to be the kicker to the speech for me, though. Obama spent much of his speech touting the need to reduce deficits, freezing government spending, eliminating earmark spending, eliminating programs that are unaffordable or don't work, and tax cuts. Then today (Monday) I read the headline "Obama unveils 2011 budget with $3.83T in spending" $3.83 trillion dollars in one budget? That is a full trillion dollars more than the Bush Administration 2007 budget and $800 billion more than the 2008 budget.
Where are the reductions in deficits coming from? Where are the tax cuts going to be? If we are going to eliminate failed or unaffordable programs, why is Obama calling for a national health care system and increasing the budget $800 billion over previous year? This is incompatible with his speech, which was in reality a wish list for more government spending.
I have the full text of the speech in front of me as well as an outline compiled of the points he made for quicker reference. Quite honestly, I am disturbed by the contents of the speech just like I tend to be each and every year. I am disturbed that we have yet to have an actual statement of the Union's state of being. I am disturbed by the blatant disparity between the President's words and his actions. I am just glad that I resisted the urge to throw something at my nice, new television.
According to the United States Constitution Article II Section III, (referring to the President) "He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." I look each year for a complying, constitutional message. Each time I fail at this endeavor.
The US Constitution does not require a speech. It does not require a specified time for the address to happen. Nor does it state in what form it must be delivered. There are some things the Constitution does indeed leave open to interpretation, this being one of them. Every President since Woodrow Wilson has grandstanded his views, policies, and wish lists before Congress.
Well, I got suckered into watching this year's address on television right up until the time I could not take it any more. I found myself shouting at the TV, "You lying sack of [censored]!" fairly often and finally just turned the show off. For you Obama supporters, don't get too upset. I often said the same about Presidents Bush and Clinton.
Not only do most Presidents use this address as a way of feeding their need to be an attention whore, they totally disregard the entire raison d'être of the speech to begin with. They pimp their personal agenda items rather than actually telling us what the state of our Union truly is. I want to hear real facts and figures about our budget, our military readiness, our national security level, and the like. Instead we get ideas about what programs to begin, expand, and what constitutional principles we should violate as a nation, almost all of which are not "necessary and expedient".
What amazed me this year is that as usual, the blame for everything wrong was put on George W. Bush. I am so tired of this tactic. Sure, I was no fan of Bush, but the things whined about in this speech can certainly not be blamed on Bush and were abject hyperbole. For instance, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed."
No, we were not on a verge of financial collapse…at least not until Obama signed a so-called stimulus bill into law. We are more deeply in debt under his administration in just one year than we were for the previous 220 years of our present form of government.
Today has to be the kicker to the speech for me, though. Obama spent much of his speech touting the need to reduce deficits, freezing government spending, eliminating earmark spending, eliminating programs that are unaffordable or don't work, and tax cuts. Then today (Monday) I read the headline "Obama unveils 2011 budget with $3.83T in spending" $3.83 trillion dollars in one budget? That is a full trillion dollars more than the Bush Administration 2007 budget and $800 billion more than the 2008 budget.
Where are the reductions in deficits coming from? Where are the tax cuts going to be? If we are going to eliminate failed or unaffordable programs, why is Obama calling for a national health care system and increasing the budget $800 billion over previous year? This is incompatible with his speech, which was in reality a wish list for more government spending.
I have the full text of the speech in front of me as well as an outline compiled of the points he made for quicker reference. Quite honestly, I am disturbed by the contents of the speech just like I tend to be each and every year. I am disturbed that we have yet to have an actual statement of the Union's state of being. I am disturbed by the blatant disparity between the President's words and his actions. I am just glad that I resisted the urge to throw something at my nice, new television.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Column for Sept. 24, 2009
The whole country is still abuzz over the proposed health care reform bill before Congress. The gigantic bill that has not been read by most of the Congress and is being pushed heavily, including by our own Congressman, Bob Etheridge, is seeing various proposed amendments and proposals come forth. Just recently, it was proposed that insurance coverage be procured by every individual in the nation or face a $3800 fine by the government.
I had a sad but interesting conversation with someone I had not seen in over twenty-five years. He thought it was horrible that in a civilized nation such as ours, we do not consider health care to be a basic human right. He further went on to deride health insurance companies for rapacious profits. For those who do not know what rapacious means, the adjective is defined as "taking by force; plundering; greedy; ravenous".
I simply said that I do not see in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to provide a health care system. I was informed that he was not an originalist, which is a euphemism for being one who is either too intellectually lazy or non-caring to believe that words mean things and that we have a supreme law to follow. Rather, he believes that we can bend the Constitution to mean whatever we want or ignore it completely.
I found his term rapacious interesting, since the definition surely fits the federal government better than it does the free market system. We have the "War on Poverty" that transfers trillions of dollars from taxpayers to leaches. Social Security is broke after almost 75 years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went broke and cost us taxpayers billions in bail-outs later. Medicaid and Medicare are broke. The Post Office is perpetually broke. The so-called "stimulus" spending gave us all time high debt and spending to no real avail. The so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program went broke in just a few weeks, burning through $3 billion. Now people want to trust the same government bureaucratic system to handle one of the largest sections of our economy?
While my old acquaintance is a self-proclaimed non-originalist, I am one to go to the original documents and opinions of the ones who wrote the Constitution. James Madison, arguably the most influential man in the writing of the document, wrote in The Federalist Papers # 45 the following. "We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?" Basically he asks "does the government serves the people or do the people serve the government?" If you believe that the people serve the government, then you believe we should all line up, turn over our hard earned money to them, and allow those all wise, all knowing masters to redistribute our wealth as they see fit.
Madison further wrote in that same letter, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…[to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." I do not see health care as one of the few and defined powers in the Constitution. Madison wrote much of the document. Who are we to argue with him?
I will quote myself from my own short, well-received Twitter commentary. "Nobody should feel entitled to my money to pay for their health care nor empowered to tell me what sort of health care to provide myself."
If you robbed me at gunpoint to get money to pay for your insurance coverage, you would go to jail. If you and millions of others get the government to do it on your behalf, it is considered legal and yet is no more ethical.
This old acquaintance, that is admittedly a heathen, even tried to cite Jesus' admonition to do unto others and to care for the poor to support his desire for a public health care system. I would simply cite the 8th Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."
Just because there is a majority consensus to forcibly, rapaciously steal from the majority and give it to the minority does not make the theft ethical or even Constitutional. You can apply the principle of that last sentence to many government actions at all levels. A right is not a right if the government has to steal from other people to provide it.
I had a sad but interesting conversation with someone I had not seen in over twenty-five years. He thought it was horrible that in a civilized nation such as ours, we do not consider health care to be a basic human right. He further went on to deride health insurance companies for rapacious profits. For those who do not know what rapacious means, the adjective is defined as "taking by force; plundering; greedy; ravenous".
I simply said that I do not see in the Constitution where the federal government is allowed to provide a health care system. I was informed that he was not an originalist, which is a euphemism for being one who is either too intellectually lazy or non-caring to believe that words mean things and that we have a supreme law to follow. Rather, he believes that we can bend the Constitution to mean whatever we want or ignore it completely.
I found his term rapacious interesting, since the definition surely fits the federal government better than it does the free market system. We have the "War on Poverty" that transfers trillions of dollars from taxpayers to leaches. Social Security is broke after almost 75 years. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went broke and cost us taxpayers billions in bail-outs later. Medicaid and Medicare are broke. The Post Office is perpetually broke. The so-called "stimulus" spending gave us all time high debt and spending to no real avail. The so-called "Cash for Clunkers" program went broke in just a few weeks, burning through $3 billion. Now people want to trust the same government bureaucratic system to handle one of the largest sections of our economy?
While my old acquaintance is a self-proclaimed non-originalist, I am one to go to the original documents and opinions of the ones who wrote the Constitution. James Madison, arguably the most influential man in the writing of the document, wrote in The Federalist Papers # 45 the following. "We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form?" Basically he asks "does the government serves the people or do the people serve the government?" If you believe that the people serve the government, then you believe we should all line up, turn over our hard earned money to them, and allow those all wise, all knowing masters to redistribute our wealth as they see fit.
Madison further wrote in that same letter, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined…[to] be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected." I do not see health care as one of the few and defined powers in the Constitution. Madison wrote much of the document. Who are we to argue with him?
I will quote myself from my own short, well-received Twitter commentary. "Nobody should feel entitled to my money to pay for their health care nor empowered to tell me what sort of health care to provide myself."
If you robbed me at gunpoint to get money to pay for your insurance coverage, you would go to jail. If you and millions of others get the government to do it on your behalf, it is considered legal and yet is no more ethical.
This old acquaintance, that is admittedly a heathen, even tried to cite Jesus' admonition to do unto others and to care for the poor to support his desire for a public health care system. I would simply cite the 8th Commandment, "Thou shalt not steal."
Just because there is a majority consensus to forcibly, rapaciously steal from the majority and give it to the minority does not make the theft ethical or even Constitutional. You can apply the principle of that last sentence to many government actions at all levels. A right is not a right if the government has to steal from other people to provide it.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Column for Sept. 17, 2009
Most government programs and spending problems are caused by so called "good ideas". My cry for years has been that not every good idea, nice idea, feel good idea, or desired outcome has to be pursued by government or warrants the expenditure of tax dollars. Nowhere has this been more prevalent than at the federal government level. However, this happens at the state, county, and even municipal levels as well.
I am somewhat of a "news hound", though I do not read every article, listen to every detail in every news cast, or go into endless detail on some issues. Sometimes I stop and read with great interest. I just read two local stories with great interest. Both are so called good ideas that are going to expend your tax money for someone's desired result.
In Smithfield, there is a problem that is dear to the hearts of the police department. The dear problem is deer. According to the news story, "for the past three years, police officers have been instructed to reduce the overabundance of white-tailed deer by shooting them." The police officers will "use deer stands, archery equipment, and shotguns to control the deer heard along the Neuse River basin in South Smithfield."
Do we not already have a North Carolina Wildlife Management Division for such things? Is killing deer a law enforcement function? Are the deer breaking the law? Is the penalty for Bambi's jay walking now a death sentence?
I have no problem with either hunting or with guns. I have some rifles that would serve nicely as deer hunting instruments. I personally am not into shooting Bambi and his cousins, nor have I seen Bambi Helper at my local Food Lion to use for cooking the meat. Many hunters I know are not really hunters, anyway. I shoot for fun and use open sights. A lot of hunters are not hunters at all, but rather snipers with high powered scopes and shoot from great distances. Nonetheless, I would rather the thinning of the deer population be reserved for private citizens who would be willing to take care of the problem at zero expense to tax paying citizens and reserve law enforcement officers for law enforcement activities.
I would have other concerns, such as whether the Town of Smithfield can disregard laws regarding hunting seasons, the types of weapons used in hunting, and the like. Those things are governed by the state, not a municipality. Are law enforcement officers being paid to break the law? What about the liability associated with any mistakes they commit while trying to whack a white tail?
A second thing I read that made me scratch my head was the Town of Selma's desire to build a $28,000 train-viewing platform. Yes, Selma has taken the moniker of a railroad town. Yes, there are some people who like to sit and watch trains from time to time. Yes, there is federal DOT money leftover from the remodel project. Yet, this is money that was forcibly taken from taxpayers.
Like I said at the outset, not every nice project is something we need to sink tax money into. I would rather see that money sent to Amtrak to help offset its budget deficits or lower the unreasonably high ticket prices that often are higher than airfare. Believe me, I have done some comparison shopping just within the past week.
I just had the conversation with a buddy of mine about the amount of use that such a platform would get. He said he knows folks who come to Selma just to sit, watch trains, and listen to the railroad radio traffic on scanners. My reply was that instead of spending $28,000 for an overblown gazebo (albeit a nice gazebo), I could spend $40 a piece for some benches at Big Lots and mount a scanner and speaker for far less.
I was also informed that some of his friends who come pack a lunch, take lawn chairs, and make a day of train watching. First, I can not imagine what it would be like to not have a life, like those folks, but bringing a lunch and loitering at the station does not bring tourism dollars except maybe for a few Coca Colas at the local Short Stop convenience store.
If you enjoy paying for police officers to summarily execute stags and does for breathing air and taking up space, or can equate train spotting in Selma to seeing planes take off at RDU Airport from observation decks, then you are going to love staying here in Johnston County. And if Selma does build such a train observation deck, at least I can hook up the town with someone I know who does excellent work. I am sure I can get a kickback somehow, thereby returning some of my tax money to me.
I am somewhat of a "news hound", though I do not read every article, listen to every detail in every news cast, or go into endless detail on some issues. Sometimes I stop and read with great interest. I just read two local stories with great interest. Both are so called good ideas that are going to expend your tax money for someone's desired result.
In Smithfield, there is a problem that is dear to the hearts of the police department. The dear problem is deer. According to the news story, "for the past three years, police officers have been instructed to reduce the overabundance of white-tailed deer by shooting them." The police officers will "use deer stands, archery equipment, and shotguns to control the deer heard along the Neuse River basin in South Smithfield."
Do we not already have a North Carolina Wildlife Management Division for such things? Is killing deer a law enforcement function? Are the deer breaking the law? Is the penalty for Bambi's jay walking now a death sentence?
I have no problem with either hunting or with guns. I have some rifles that would serve nicely as deer hunting instruments. I personally am not into shooting Bambi and his cousins, nor have I seen Bambi Helper at my local Food Lion to use for cooking the meat. Many hunters I know are not really hunters, anyway. I shoot for fun and use open sights. A lot of hunters are not hunters at all, but rather snipers with high powered scopes and shoot from great distances. Nonetheless, I would rather the thinning of the deer population be reserved for private citizens who would be willing to take care of the problem at zero expense to tax paying citizens and reserve law enforcement officers for law enforcement activities.
I would have other concerns, such as whether the Town of Smithfield can disregard laws regarding hunting seasons, the types of weapons used in hunting, and the like. Those things are governed by the state, not a municipality. Are law enforcement officers being paid to break the law? What about the liability associated with any mistakes they commit while trying to whack a white tail?
A second thing I read that made me scratch my head was the Town of Selma's desire to build a $28,000 train-viewing platform. Yes, Selma has taken the moniker of a railroad town. Yes, there are some people who like to sit and watch trains from time to time. Yes, there is federal DOT money leftover from the remodel project. Yet, this is money that was forcibly taken from taxpayers.
Like I said at the outset, not every nice project is something we need to sink tax money into. I would rather see that money sent to Amtrak to help offset its budget deficits or lower the unreasonably high ticket prices that often are higher than airfare. Believe me, I have done some comparison shopping just within the past week.
I just had the conversation with a buddy of mine about the amount of use that such a platform would get. He said he knows folks who come to Selma just to sit, watch trains, and listen to the railroad radio traffic on scanners. My reply was that instead of spending $28,000 for an overblown gazebo (albeit a nice gazebo), I could spend $40 a piece for some benches at Big Lots and mount a scanner and speaker for far less.
I was also informed that some of his friends who come pack a lunch, take lawn chairs, and make a day of train watching. First, I can not imagine what it would be like to not have a life, like those folks, but bringing a lunch and loitering at the station does not bring tourism dollars except maybe for a few Coca Colas at the local Short Stop convenience store.
If you enjoy paying for police officers to summarily execute stags and does for breathing air and taking up space, or can equate train spotting in Selma to seeing planes take off at RDU Airport from observation decks, then you are going to love staying here in Johnston County. And if Selma does build such a train observation deck, at least I can hook up the town with someone I know who does excellent work. I am sure I can get a kickback somehow, thereby returning some of my tax money to me.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Column for Sept. 10, 2009
I found an article in this newspaper interesting. You, the taxpayers, are paying for local businesses to borrow money for their businesses. To quote the article, "A $75,000 loan fund, made available to the town of Selma through a USDA grant, has made it possible for six Selma businesses to finance their operations in the midst of a tough market." This is not the first such program I have read about here in Selma.
Let me start with this disclaimer. I have absolutely no issue with any business or business owner that would take advantage of a program for them to finance a business. I get it. I was a business owner, myself. I just have a problem with a government that would use taxpayer money for such purposes.
I owned three small businesses that were running concurrently. Two of them were profitable. The third made a profit, as well, but was more of a hobby with which I made a few dollars or did work pro bono. My two main businesses were both at the point where I had to either expand or get out of business, since the growth was overwhelming on one and as a result, the other was being neglected and was more of a nuisance to keep running, though profitable.
I owned a used book business that grew huge on the internet and I really needed to either open a brick and mortar retail location or get some warehouse space. I had more books than the town library stuffed in my home. Like all businesses, the revenue was in direct proportion to the amount of effort expended in the endeavor. Already having a decent full time job, I could not afford the time to make book sales a full time job in addition to my regular one. Unfortunately, my business partner decided to be a slacker and failed to put any appreciable effort into the venture, although it was rather profitable and easy to do. If I had been more engaged full time in that business as a livelihood, I might very well have considered the revolving loan program provided through the USDA grant to the Town of Selma.
I am looking at the US Department of Agriculture web site right now. There are many programs that they administer for rural areas. They are involved in water and environment programs, housing loans, tourism promotion, rural economy loans and grants, utility services, etc.
I have been racking my brain trying to find where the US Constitution authorizes these activities. The 10th Amendment seems to reserve any such things for the individual states. Furthermore, since these programs are administered through the USDA, I am trying to figure out what business development in downtown Selma has to do with agriculture. The last I knew, we did not grow corn, wheat, tobacco, hogs, or cows in antique shops, bridal stores, and furniture factories. Again, it is hard to blame a business for taking advantage of a program. It is not hard to fault a government entity for violating its constitutional authority, forcibly taking billions of dollars of tax money and giving it away to towns, and earmark that money for private enterprise.
From a taxpayer perspective, there is possibly one good part to the program. The money from the USDA is a grant and not a loan to the town. If this were a loan to the town, we would have been taxed on the one end to provide the original funds and then taxed on the other end by the town to pay back the money. Being taxed twice to provide loans to small business is just plain unethical; not that taxing us once for the program is exactly in and of itself ethical, either.
Are you fed up with the level of federal taxation? Look no further than programs such as this. Not every good idea necessarily should be implemented or is fair to all. Multiply this single grant of $75,000 times the literally thousands of rural areas in the country that have similar grants, and we have budgets of billions of dollars. If we are to ever get spending under control on the federal level (not to mention state, county, and municipal levels), then we have to start somewhere. I, for one, am tired of paying for others' businesses and households to operate. I have my own household to keep rolling financially.
When does it all end, people? With how much public debt and taxation are we going to saddle future generations? When are we as a nation going to abide by our own constitution?
Let me start with this disclaimer. I have absolutely no issue with any business or business owner that would take advantage of a program for them to finance a business. I get it. I was a business owner, myself. I just have a problem with a government that would use taxpayer money for such purposes.
I owned three small businesses that were running concurrently. Two of them were profitable. The third made a profit, as well, but was more of a hobby with which I made a few dollars or did work pro bono. My two main businesses were both at the point where I had to either expand or get out of business, since the growth was overwhelming on one and as a result, the other was being neglected and was more of a nuisance to keep running, though profitable.
I owned a used book business that grew huge on the internet and I really needed to either open a brick and mortar retail location or get some warehouse space. I had more books than the town library stuffed in my home. Like all businesses, the revenue was in direct proportion to the amount of effort expended in the endeavor. Already having a decent full time job, I could not afford the time to make book sales a full time job in addition to my regular one. Unfortunately, my business partner decided to be a slacker and failed to put any appreciable effort into the venture, although it was rather profitable and easy to do. If I had been more engaged full time in that business as a livelihood, I might very well have considered the revolving loan program provided through the USDA grant to the Town of Selma.
I am looking at the US Department of Agriculture web site right now. There are many programs that they administer for rural areas. They are involved in water and environment programs, housing loans, tourism promotion, rural economy loans and grants, utility services, etc.
I have been racking my brain trying to find where the US Constitution authorizes these activities. The 10th Amendment seems to reserve any such things for the individual states. Furthermore, since these programs are administered through the USDA, I am trying to figure out what business development in downtown Selma has to do with agriculture. The last I knew, we did not grow corn, wheat, tobacco, hogs, or cows in antique shops, bridal stores, and furniture factories. Again, it is hard to blame a business for taking advantage of a program. It is not hard to fault a government entity for violating its constitutional authority, forcibly taking billions of dollars of tax money and giving it away to towns, and earmark that money for private enterprise.
From a taxpayer perspective, there is possibly one good part to the program. The money from the USDA is a grant and not a loan to the town. If this were a loan to the town, we would have been taxed on the one end to provide the original funds and then taxed on the other end by the town to pay back the money. Being taxed twice to provide loans to small business is just plain unethical; not that taxing us once for the program is exactly in and of itself ethical, either.
Are you fed up with the level of federal taxation? Look no further than programs such as this. Not every good idea necessarily should be implemented or is fair to all. Multiply this single grant of $75,000 times the literally thousands of rural areas in the country that have similar grants, and we have budgets of billions of dollars. If we are to ever get spending under control on the federal level (not to mention state, county, and municipal levels), then we have to start somewhere. I, for one, am tired of paying for others' businesses and households to operate. I have my own household to keep rolling financially.
When does it all end, people? With how much public debt and taxation are we going to saddle future generations? When are we as a nation going to abide by our own constitution?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Column for Aug. 13, 2009
Are you enjoying helping other people buy their new cars?
Have you purchased a new car recently? If so, have you enjoyed either helping others buy their new cars? Or have you been enjoying others buying your car for you? With $3 billion now into this boondoggle, the "Cash for Clunkers" program has been in full swing. The automobile industry may love it, but as a taxpayer, I detest it.
Sorry people, but a new car is not a necessity, it is a luxury. Just because your car is older and may get a little worse gas mileage than you would prefer does not entitle you to government money.
I see nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to authorize such expenditure of public money. And yet we are paying for people to have the luxury of a new car.
One part of the Cash for Clunkers catastrophe that falls under the “law of unintended consequences” is (as I just read) that the price of new cars is being driven up because of the lack of a need to discount prices to attract customers.
A second consequence is that the cars traded in for new ones have to be destroyed under the law. Good, older used cars will not be available to the less fortunate or those who do not have the budget for something newer. As long as the populace in general is getting hosed on such a boondoggle, lawmakers could have had the charitable foresight to give away these used cars to the less fortunate. At least then, welfare recipients without a car could wake up before noon and have transportation to go find a job.
The original Cash for Clunkers program was supposed to last all summer and only require a $1 billion budget. Now they are two billion dollars over their original budget. Are we sure that we want the same people who could not run such a simple program like this to be in charge of our health care system, as well?
What is the bottom line purpose behind the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers, as it is called)? Control. When more money is taken out of your pocket and redistributed, it is control over your life. If you look to the government as your supply, then you will tend to re-elect those who gave you money. This principle transcends all levels of government. Follow the money trail and it always shows the hidden agenda.
To continue on the idea of a hidden agenda, I was watching a news report that users of the Car Allowance Rebate System web site (CARS.gov) must agree to a term of use that says you agree to give up ownership of your computer. You actually have to agree to the fine print stating that your computer has become part of a government computer network and that the computer is now under the ownership of the US Government.
A software application gets installed on your computer and you agree that all files on your computer are accessible by the government. Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. I just report what I have read and seen.
I don’t know about you, but that is just Big Brother at work. For the $4,500 or so in the form of a rebate, I am not willing to totally relinquish my cyber privacy and allow any jack booted brown shirt to come from the government to claim my personal property as that of the government.
One way to ponder the $3 billion for CARS is that though it is a pittance compared to the overall national budget, it is huge when put into perspective locally. The $3 billion is 15.789 percent of our entire North Carolina state budget.
We certainly would not have a $900 million tax increase with that sort of money added to our state budget instead of being blown on new cars. Also, more people would have directly benefited. Three billion dollars is 174.446729115106755 times the entire annual town of Selma budget.
Before I pop a blood vessel thinking about how our tax dollars are being spent, I need to wrap up this week’s column.
Have you purchased a new car recently? If so, have you enjoyed either helping others buy their new cars? Or have you been enjoying others buying your car for you? With $3 billion now into this boondoggle, the "Cash for Clunkers" program has been in full swing. The automobile industry may love it, but as a taxpayer, I detest it.
Sorry people, but a new car is not a necessity, it is a luxury. Just because your car is older and may get a little worse gas mileage than you would prefer does not entitle you to government money.
I see nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the power to authorize such expenditure of public money. And yet we are paying for people to have the luxury of a new car.
One part of the Cash for Clunkers catastrophe that falls under the “law of unintended consequences” is (as I just read) that the price of new cars is being driven up because of the lack of a need to discount prices to attract customers.
A second consequence is that the cars traded in for new ones have to be destroyed under the law. Good, older used cars will not be available to the less fortunate or those who do not have the budget for something newer. As long as the populace in general is getting hosed on such a boondoggle, lawmakers could have had the charitable foresight to give away these used cars to the less fortunate. At least then, welfare recipients without a car could wake up before noon and have transportation to go find a job.
The original Cash for Clunkers program was supposed to last all summer and only require a $1 billion budget. Now they are two billion dollars over their original budget. Are we sure that we want the same people who could not run such a simple program like this to be in charge of our health care system, as well?
What is the bottom line purpose behind the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers, as it is called)? Control. When more money is taken out of your pocket and redistributed, it is control over your life. If you look to the government as your supply, then you will tend to re-elect those who gave you money. This principle transcends all levels of government. Follow the money trail and it always shows the hidden agenda.
To continue on the idea of a hidden agenda, I was watching a news report that users of the Car Allowance Rebate System web site (CARS.gov) must agree to a term of use that says you agree to give up ownership of your computer. You actually have to agree to the fine print stating that your computer has become part of a government computer network and that the computer is now under the ownership of the US Government.
A software application gets installed on your computer and you agree that all files on your computer are accessible by the government. Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. I just report what I have read and seen.
I don’t know about you, but that is just Big Brother at work. For the $4,500 or so in the form of a rebate, I am not willing to totally relinquish my cyber privacy and allow any jack booted brown shirt to come from the government to claim my personal property as that of the government.
One way to ponder the $3 billion for CARS is that though it is a pittance compared to the overall national budget, it is huge when put into perspective locally. The $3 billion is 15.789 percent of our entire North Carolina state budget.
We certainly would not have a $900 million tax increase with that sort of money added to our state budget instead of being blown on new cars. Also, more people would have directly benefited. Three billion dollars is 174.446729115106755 times the entire annual town of Selma budget.
Before I pop a blood vessel thinking about how our tax dollars are being spent, I need to wrap up this week’s column.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Column for July 2, 2009
Sacred cows are mighty tasty. Especially when they are slaughtered by hypocritical politicians. For years, we have heard the mantra, "But it's for the children!" as an excuse to pass tax hikes, bond referenda, and implement spending and education plans that allegedly benefit children.
I had a debate with a friend of mine recently on the proposed budget cut proffered by the NC State Legislature's Health & Human Services conference subcommittee. The budget constraints are forcing across the board budget cuts, and that subcommittee has recommended cutting the SmartStart budget by $28.2 million.
According to the SmartStart's web site, "Smart Start is North Carolina's nationally recognized and award-winning early childhood initiative designed to ensure that young children enter school healthy and ready to succeed." Here we have an award-winning program that is being used as a pattern for similar programs across the nation being essentially gutted of the majority of its recurring expenditures.
As a parent of one child and about to have another within a couple of weeks, do I want my children to enter school "healthy and ready to succeed"? Of course I do. I just believe that such a thing is my responsibility and not a burden for the taxpayers of North Carolina.
I do not believe in the indoctrination of children by an education system, whether administered through a private organization or a state run school. I believe in a parent taking an active roll in their children's education and development. For many parents, programs such as SmartStart, More at Four, What to Be at Three, or Stuff To Do At Two are merely free babysitting services. But of course they are not free. We taxpayers pay the freight on those services. Sorry, but it is not the responsibility of the government to become surrogate parents or provide day care. If you can not afford the expense of children, I am sure that birth control prescriptions will be much cheaper.
I thought that the lottery was supposed to be the savior of education programs in this state. Personally, I am ambivalent towards a lottery. I could not care less whether the state has one or not, as I am not the prudish "it is gambling and a sin" type of guy on that subject. What bothered me about the lottery was that it was portrayed as the necessary savior of our education program funding woes. The lottery legislation was passed under questionable circumstances and on a false premise. That one sacred cow has failed to deliver the promised milk yield.
Now the same sorts of people who wanted to have government intervention and cradle to grave indoctrination systems have decided to cut their precious day care for toddler aged children. Their sacred cow is being butchered one piece at a time. Personally, I am finding it mighty tasty to watch the grilling commence. The "but it is for the children" crowd are eating burgers of their own creation.
If legislators in Raleigh really cared about education, they would have supported the school choice option. Just within the last few weeks, a viable alternative for local education had to shut down. Johnston Christian Academy on Buffalo Road in Smithfield ceased operation. That institution was one of my considerations for schooling of my own child. Now that choice has been removed.
If parents had the ability to take their allotted per child government spending to a school of their choice, then perhaps schools that will offer competitive learning environments would flourish, much as some charter schools do. Competition for students will have the effect of forcing higher quality education services to attract students, including at the government schools. It may not be politically correct, but it would surely be "for the children" and one more sacred cow we could slaughter.
I have heard it argued that the SmartStart proposed cuts would disproportionately affect children who do not speak English, can not afford day care, or have incompetent parents. I have compassion for them, I really do. However, since when it is the government's responsibility to remedy every single family's maladies? More sacred burgers to enjoy, perhaps? I hope so.
I had a debate with a friend of mine recently on the proposed budget cut proffered by the NC State Legislature's Health & Human Services conference subcommittee. The budget constraints are forcing across the board budget cuts, and that subcommittee has recommended cutting the SmartStart budget by $28.2 million.
According to the SmartStart's web site, "Smart Start is North Carolina's nationally recognized and award-winning early childhood initiative designed to ensure that young children enter school healthy and ready to succeed." Here we have an award-winning program that is being used as a pattern for similar programs across the nation being essentially gutted of the majority of its recurring expenditures.
As a parent of one child and about to have another within a couple of weeks, do I want my children to enter school "healthy and ready to succeed"? Of course I do. I just believe that such a thing is my responsibility and not a burden for the taxpayers of North Carolina.
I do not believe in the indoctrination of children by an education system, whether administered through a private organization or a state run school. I believe in a parent taking an active roll in their children's education and development. For many parents, programs such as SmartStart, More at Four, What to Be at Three, or Stuff To Do At Two are merely free babysitting services. But of course they are not free. We taxpayers pay the freight on those services. Sorry, but it is not the responsibility of the government to become surrogate parents or provide day care. If you can not afford the expense of children, I am sure that birth control prescriptions will be much cheaper.
I thought that the lottery was supposed to be the savior of education programs in this state. Personally, I am ambivalent towards a lottery. I could not care less whether the state has one or not, as I am not the prudish "it is gambling and a sin" type of guy on that subject. What bothered me about the lottery was that it was portrayed as the necessary savior of our education program funding woes. The lottery legislation was passed under questionable circumstances and on a false premise. That one sacred cow has failed to deliver the promised milk yield.
Now the same sorts of people who wanted to have government intervention and cradle to grave indoctrination systems have decided to cut their precious day care for toddler aged children. Their sacred cow is being butchered one piece at a time. Personally, I am finding it mighty tasty to watch the grilling commence. The "but it is for the children" crowd are eating burgers of their own creation.
If legislators in Raleigh really cared about education, they would have supported the school choice option. Just within the last few weeks, a viable alternative for local education had to shut down. Johnston Christian Academy on Buffalo Road in Smithfield ceased operation. That institution was one of my considerations for schooling of my own child. Now that choice has been removed.
If parents had the ability to take their allotted per child government spending to a school of their choice, then perhaps schools that will offer competitive learning environments would flourish, much as some charter schools do. Competition for students will have the effect of forcing higher quality education services to attract students, including at the government schools. It may not be politically correct, but it would surely be "for the children" and one more sacred cow we could slaughter.
I have heard it argued that the SmartStart proposed cuts would disproportionately affect children who do not speak English, can not afford day care, or have incompetent parents. I have compassion for them, I really do. However, since when it is the government's responsibility to remedy every single family's maladies? More sacred burgers to enjoy, perhaps? I hope so.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
