FederalRepublic.net

From Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As Americans face a deadline for filing taxes, President George W. Bush on Saturday pressed Congress to extend tax cuts, saying they create jobs and economic growth.

A push by House and Senate Republicans for $70 billion in tax cuts was derailed earlier this month before lawmakers went on a two-week spring recess.

The tax cuts would have extended the maximum 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends beyond 2008. Without congressional action, capital gains taxes would jump to 20 percent and dividends would be taxed as regular income.

“Tax relief has done exactly what it was designed to do: It has created jobs and growth for the American people,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

“Yet some here in Washington are now proposing that we raise taxes, either by repealing the tax cuts or letting them expire,” he said. “To keep our economy creating jobs and opportunity, Congress needs to make the tax relief permanent.”

Link

To help allow the United States to have economic prosperity into the end of the decade, it would be wise for Congress to extend and/or make permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2003. By extending the tax cuts, Congress allows the potential for millions of citizens and businesses to have more money in their own pockets, allowing them additional capital to invest and plenty more to spend.

While tax cuts are wholly beneficial for the economy, we must work to do more. Congress must become fiscally conservative, cutting spending and programs which are no longer needed. Congress must also work to eliminate overlapping programs that have the same job or programs that are not needed anymore. Not only will cutting spending help the Congress move toward balancing the federal budget, it will also help to offset federal budget deficits and long term debt.

By Lee Hamilton

Even among those who are aware of it, the current account deficit ranks low on the list of America’s top concerns. Yet our growing debt to the rest of the world is a serious problem, and threatens the long-term prosperity of the U.S. economy and the ordinary American.
 
America is saving too little and spending too much, just as we produce far less than we consume. The U.S. current account deficit — the difference between what we export and what we import — stands at $805 billion, well over 6 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP). In 2005, our trade deficit, which accounts for most of our current account deficit, rose to $723 billion, nearly double what it was in 2001, and a 19 percent increase from 2004. To use one bilateral example, the Chinese now export nearly six times as much to the U.S. as we export to China.

These imbalances are worrisome. To begin with, the U.S. economy could become less competitive. Already, good jobs that support a high standard of living have been lost to other countries in sectors ranging from manufacturing to high-technology services, and the trade deficit has pushed down wages across the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, individual Americans and the U.S. government are borrowing more and more money to purchase goods and services that keep our country running and economy growing.

Another result is a dangerous dependence on foreign investors, principally from China, Japan and oil-rich Persian Gulf states. Together, foreign investors own more than half of U.S. government bonds. These foreign investors buy U.S. dollars (and bonds) to keep the value of their own currencies down and their exports to U.S. markets up. As a result, our government can run an annual budget deficit of nearly $400 billion, while enabling low interest rates and home mortgage costs for Americans. Warren Buffet, the influential American investor, recently summed up these concerns by warning that the U.S. is moving away from an “ownership society” and is instead becoming a “sharecropper’s society.”

-Snip-

Yet we have been spared the gravest consequences of debt thus far only because foreigners have been willing to take our IOU’s; that means the fate of our own economy is out of our own hands at a time when we face rising competitors like China and India, and volatility in international energy markets. We must significantly reduce our budget deficits, so government revenues are more in line with spending. We need to save more and spend less. And we should bolster American competitiveness through investments in education, science and technology and the development of American productivity, particularly in 21st-century industries.

Link

This author is indeed correct by concluding America is living on borrowed time, not to mention borrowed money. By allowing our budget deficits to become quasi-permanent fixtures on the federal budget, the United States government allows itself to depend more and more on foreign markets and investors, at the expense of American taxpayers.

By being fiscally irresponsible with the budget, the Congress and the president have slowly given our economy to foreign markets and stockholders, increasing our dependence on foreign sources of investment and capital. There may be a time when foreign investment dollars dry up, allowing the United States to default on its debts. This would have a large impact on the American economy, leading to an increased risk of recession, higher interest rates, and higher taxes. It is only in the interest of the United States to get back to being fiscally conservative, while giving the principle of a balanced budget another look.

By Andrew Taylor

President Bush said Friday he would use his power to veto spending bills if Congress does not cut the federal budget as he has asked.

In over five years in office, Bush has never vetoed any bill. But he said that restraining spending was crucial to cutting the deficit in half by 2009 as he has promised. “If necessary, I will enforce spending restraint through the exercise of the veto,” the president said.

Bush’s brief statement from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room came a day after feuds among rival Republican factions led House GOP leaders to pull a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint from the floor. The collapse of the measure threatens to send Republicans into the fall election season with deficits on the rise and no plan in place to contain them.

In addition, separate talks aimed at extending Bush’s previously passed tax cuts for capital gains and dividends stalled. With lawmakers headed home for a two-week recess with few accomplishments to show constituents, the president said Congress must break the logjam.

“Our economy grows when the American people make the decisions about how to save, spend and invest their money,” he said. “To keep our economy creating jobs and opportunity, Congress needs to show its trust in the American people and make the tax relief permanent.”

Link

The current political environment in Washington has proven the GOP and Congress in general, will definately encounter difficulty in passing a fiscally conservative budget. At $2.8 trillion dollars, the budget is filled with pork-laden projects and social programs this country does not need.

While many say talk is cheap, President Bush must make his veto threat real to the Congress and the American people. As many times as Bush has threatened to veto bills passed by Congress, he’s made good on none of those threats. Thus, government spending and debt have surpassed well beyond fiscally responsible levels.

The president and conservatives around the country must realize being a so-called “compassionate conservative” does not give Congress nor the president a blank check to enact all types of unneeded federal programs or give permission to enact legislation on a national level, which should be up to the states to decide. These unconstitutional programs include education, healthcare, abortion, gun laws, and many others.

By Andrew Taylor

A bill exceeding by more than $15 billion President Bush’s request for the war in Iraq and new hurricane aid could grow even larger, much to the dismay of GOP conservatives hoping to improve their record on spending.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the bill Tuesday after adding about $10 billion for everything from rebuilding highways to enhancing port security.

Farmers suffering from drought, storms and high energy costs got $4 billion in aid, while $594 million would be sprinkled across 30 states to repair highways damaged by earlier disasters but put off after aid was focused on the Gulf Coast.

The extras are sure to provoke a reaction from GOP conservatives already complaining about their party’s free-spending ways. But the temptation to use the must-pass bill containing $67.8 billion for the Pentagon’s mission in Iraq _ and some $27 billion in additional hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast _ as a locomotive to drive even more spending proved too irresistible for senators to pass up.

Overall, the bill would cost about $107 billion.

That’s still not enough for Gulf Coast senators like Mary Landrieu, D-La., who marched from the Senate Appropriations Committee vote to the Senate Press Gallery to demand an additional $5 billion-plus to reflect new Army Corps of Engineers estimates of what will be needed for Louisiana levees.

Landrieu vows to block Senate confirmation of every Bush administration appointment until the president supports the new and higher figure.

Senators piled the extra money into the bill on a series of voice votes _ at a pace of almost $100 million per minute of debate _ with high-ranking Republicans such as Majority Whip Mitch McConnell of Kentucky sitting by in silence.

The additional funding includes:

-$4 billion for farmers hit by drought, floods and high energy costs. Top supporters were Sens. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., and Conrad Burns, R-Mont. Burns faces a difficult re-election battle.

-$2.3 billion to combat the avian flu. It was offered by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, as championed but not officially requested by the White House.

-$1.1 billion for various projects to bring back Gulf Coast fisheries, replace fishing equipment and facilities and provide aid to workers and fishing companies. The funding, pushed by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., includes $100 million to rehabilitate damaged oyster and shrimp beds.

-$648 million for port security projects, obtained by the top panel Democrat, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., cast the only “nay” vote, in absentia. Even before the $10 billion in add-ons, Gregg said the $96.7 billion version drafted by Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran, R-Miss., had “ballooned out of control.”

Link

This is another blatant example of conservative backstabbing when it comes to fiscal responsibility and taking care of the people’s money. Bill after bill leaving committees these days are filled with pork-barrel projects, while our respresentatives reject anything resembling fiscal discipline.

While both conservatives and liberals denounce the ballooning federal deficit and speak out against pork-filled legislation, their actions speak much louder than their words. To force our Congressmen to turn away from fiscally irresponsible practices, we must do two things. First, we must vote for change. Only a rough election or the loss of one will put politicians in their place. Their responsibility lies with the people, not lobbyists. Second, we must promote a society of personal responsibility and remove the lazy, “blame someone else first” mentality in America.

In today’s trying times, we must work to give politicians a reality check, while changing the mindsets of millions of Americans back toward classic American values like individual responsibility and work ethic.

By Herman Cain

Every good liberal will tell you that low tax rates cause tax revenues to drop, hurt the economy, benefit only the wealthy and cause skyrocketing budget deficits. A Wall Street Journal article last week blew a hole in those liberal lies. The Journal reported that federal tax revenues for the first five months of fiscal year 2006 are up 10.3 percent from the same period a year ago. The 2006 revenue growth adds to a 15 percent tax revenue increase from 2004 to 2005. This good fortune for U.S. Treasury coffers is attributed to the steady and growing economy, which is largely a product of the 2003 cuts in income, dividend and capital gains tax rates.

The parallel growth in the economy and tax revenues is not a fluke and did not occur by chance. History has shown us that every time tax rates are cut, federal tax revenues rise, the economy responds positively and the wealthy pay a larger share of the tax bill.

Presidents Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge significantly cut tax rates in the 1920s, which caused both the national economy and federal revenues to grow. Harding repealed the World War I excess profits tax, dropped the top tax rate on individuals from 73 to 58 percent and set the capital gains tax rate at 12.5 percent. Coolidge further reduced individual tax rates and inheritance taxes. The Harding and Coolidge tax rate cuts caused income tax revenues to rise 61 percent from 1921 to 1929. At the same time, the economy grew by 59 percent. Additionally, the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans grew from just over 44 percent in 1921 to over 78 percent by 1928.

President John F. Kennedy introduced a plan in 1963 to lower the highest individual tax rate of 91 to 70 percent, and the top corporate rate from 52 to 48 percent. The Revenue Act of 1964, passed after Kennedy’s death, containted his proposed rate cuts and sparked considerable economic growth. Federal tax revenues rose 68 percent through 1968, and the economy grew 42 percent. The share of tax revenues paid by the wealthiest in the 1960s dwarfed the amounts paid by the middle class and poor. Tax revenues from those individuals making over $50,000 rose by 57 percent following the Kennedy rate cuts, while revenues from those making under $50,000 rose by just 11 percent.

When President Ronald Reagan came to office in 1981, the economy was mired in high interest rates, high unemployment and stagflation produced by policies of the 1970s. Reagan cut the highest individual tax rate in 1981 from 70 to 50 percent, and cut the lowest rate from 14 to 11 percent. In 1986 he further cut the top rate from 50 to 28 percent.

Reagan’s tax rate cuts helped produce the longest period of peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. Total tax revenues grew by over 99 percent during the 1980s, and the economy grew by an average of 4 percent each year. As we saw in the 1960s, the wealthiest Americans paid the most taxes following Reagan’s rate cuts. The top 10 percent of income earners went from paying 48 percent of all taxes in 1981, to over 57 percent by 1988.

The other lie liberals perpetually tell is that low tax rates cause budget deficits. History proves just the opposite – that cuts in income, capital gains and dividends tax rates increase the amount of federal revenues available for Congress to spend. The only thing that can cause a budget deficit is when Congress spends in excess of available revenues, and the president at the time signs off on that spending. Members of Congress who blame tax cuts for causing deficits might as well argue that gun manufacturers cause homicides, fast food restaurants cause obesity and cigarette makers cause lung cancer. Surely no one would agree with that flawed logic.

Link

Here we see flawed thinking of the Democratic left when it comes to promoting tax increases, or shall I say, “rolling back the Bush tax cuts.” Time and time again we’ve seen that tax cuts do help to spur economic growth, producing federal revenue gains and expanded economic growth. However, Congress has been unwilling thus far to help the president make his 2003 tax cuts permanent.

By making the President Bush’s tax cuts permanent, the Congress would allow the United States to have the means and capital to expand the economy. Tax cuts help to put the taxpayers in charge of their own money, a responsibility the people can manage much better than the federal government can. Even a Democrat like John F. Kennedy realized this principle.

For Congress to bring about economic prosperity, tax cuts, spending cuts, and reduction of regulations must be key items to take into consideration. Tax cuts will help to promote economic activity, spending cuts will help to curb the budget deficit and needless spending, and reduction of regulations will help to get rid of the economic red tape Americans deal with on a daily basis.

By Andrew Taylor

A $2.8 trillion Republican budget plan approved by a conservative-dominated House panel faces a worrisome hurdle for GOP leaders plotting a floor debate for next week.

A rift between Republican conservatives eager to crack down on agency budgets and party moderates determined to reverse cuts to education and other popular programs could delay floor debate. Republican unity is essential to passing the plan, since none of the House’s Democrats are expected to back it.

“I would say there is a challenge there,” said conservative Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas.

The Budget Committee approved the GOP plan, written by Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, by a party line 22-17 vote late Wednesday. Bowing to election-year realities, Nussle dropped President Bush’s proposed cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, crop subsidies and other politically sensitive programs but preserved his plan to trim spending by most Cabinet agencies.

The plan, for the 2007 budget year beginning Oct. 1, adopts Bush’s $873 billion cap on agency budgets renewed by Congress each year. But it also assumes just $50 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, less than one-half of expected spending for the current year.

The plan endorses Bush’s call for a 7 percent increase in the core defense budget - which doesn’t include Iraq war costs - for next year. That increase comes at the expense of domestic programs like education, health research and grants to local governments and relief agencies.

The plan also assumes $226 billion in additional tax cuts over five years, more than half of which would go for extending Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, most of which are set to expire in 2010. But the committee didn’t take the necessary steps under Congress’ arcane budget process to facilitate speedy action on a tax bill.

Nussle credited earlier tax cuts with reviving an economy that was in recession when Bush took office.

“As a result of giving Americans more control over their money, we’ve seen more investment, more jobs and greater opportunities in this country,” Nussle said.

Democrats blasted the Republican blueprint, which would produce a deficit of $348 billion in 2007 and deficits totaling more than $1 trillion through 2011 if Congress enacts its policies.

And they doubted it would even meet these deficit goals, since it doesn’t account for the costs of the war in Iraq after 2007 or for shielding middle- to upper-income taxpayers from being hit by the alternative minimum tax.

Rep. John Spratt Jr., D-S.C., said the national debt would almost double to more than $9 trillion under Bush’s tenure in office, a natural result “from a fiscal policy that says you can have guns, butter, tax cuts too and never mind the deficit. … It holds no real plan or prospect of balancing the budget.”

Link

There seems to be a very active split in the GOP when it comes to the budget. I for one am tired of liberal Republicans being generous when it comes to pork-filled legislation or overspending for entitlement programs we don’t really need. In fact, there is no reason why the United States budget should even reach some $2.8 trillion dollars.

If America is to have continued prosperity over the next few decades, there must be fiscal restraint in Washington. While the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 helped to get the economy rolling again after the Clinton recession, the government must match the commitment to tax cutting with the commitment to cut government spending to balance out the budget. This only makes sense, as it is the fiscally conservative thing to do, not to mention millions of families must live their lives in this manner.

Americans must realize that a ballooning debt ceiling and budget deficits could produce an anxiety in world markets, cutting back foreign investment and the purchasing of treasury bonds, which is so vital to the economic well-being of the United States.

By Jim Meyers

The expansion of benefit programs since 2000 has led to the greatest increase in social spending in American history – with entitlement programs now accounting for more than half of all federal spending.

A USA Today analysis released Tuesday of 25 major government programs – including health care, college aid and food stamps – revealed that enrollment surged an average of 17 percent from 2000 to 2005, while the nation’s population increased by only 5 percent.

It marked the largest five-year growth in enrollment since Medicare, Medicaid and other social programs were created during Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” movement in the 1960s.

Spending on social programs was $1.3 trillion last year, an inflation-adjusted increase of 22 percent since 2000, according to the USA Today report.

Enrollment growth accounted for most of the spending increase:

-Medicaid added 18 million beneficiaries – a 50 percent increase since 2000 – and is now the nation’s largest entitlement program, costing the federal government $198 billion last year. Once a program for Americans on welfare, Medicaid has been expanded to include the working poor and now has an enrollment of 53.4 million.

-The number of Americans receiving food stamps rose 49.6 percent in the past five years and now stands at 25.7 million. Expanded eligibility led to much of the increase and helped put the 2005 tab at $33 billion.

-The number of college students receiving Pell grants increased 41 percent over five years, to 5.3 million. The program cost $13 billion in 2005.

-The five-year period also saw enrollment increases in child nutrition programs, unemployment compensation, veterans benefits and other programs.

The worse may be yet to come: The nation’s 79 million baby boomers will begin to qualify for Social Security in 2008, and for Medicare in 2011.

Link

Most of the time, I blame the liberal left for most of the problems in America. However, everyone in Congress and President Bush is certainly responsible for our growing deficit and our position when it comes to entitlement funding.

I blame every Congressman and Presidents Clinton and Bush for the outrageous welfare spending at the federal level. Not only do we have a massive deficit that the taxpayers will be unable to even get to a managed and/or comfortable level with for at least 30 years, we have so-called entitlement welfare programs that make up half the federal budget!

If Congressional Republicans would like to see our country on the road to conservative values and personal responsibility as we once were, they must end the entitlement mindset of this country, not only in the elderly who depend on Social Security and Medicare, but in the middle and lower class who shouldn’t even have these benefits in the first place.

Many people demand these programs of their respresentatives because of a mindset that government “owes me something” or always blaming someone else for their problems, instead of taking the responsibility to fix problems themselves. We must end that ”blame someone else first” mindset if we are ever to get the federal budget under control and end the coming United Welfare States of America.

By Rebecca Hagelin

Thanks to the outrageous, profligate spending habits of our elected officials, every taxpayer reading this is in serious trouble.

As Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl notes in a recent Web Memo, lawmakers are spending at such a frantic clip that if they don’t stop the madness, within a decade taxes will have to increase by nearly $7,000 per household just to balance the budget. And that’s on top of the $18,000 per family Congress is already collecting.

According to Riedl, the current spree has expanded government by 45 percent since 2001, and it shows no sign of slowing down. You and I must live within our means, but Washington politicians act as if they have absolutely no responsibility to do something as basic as paying their own way — to make sure they don’t spend more than they have, confident that somebody else will foot the bill when the party ends.

But help may be on the way — if, that is, lawmakers have the guts to get serious about changing their ways. A new budget proposal by the Republican Study Committee offers such a blueprint. Titled “Contract With America: Renewed,” it outlines the tough choices necessary to get spending under control and thus avert the crippling tax increases we would otherwise face. The RSC proposal would, for example:
 
• Balance the budget by fiscal year 2011.

• Reduce the net deficit by $392 billion.

• Promote tax policy designed to encourage economic growth.

• Eliminate all pork projects from the recent highway bill. The money, earmarked for numerous long-term projects, hasn’t been spent yet and still could be rescinded.

• Return the gas tax and the federal highway program to the states. As Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner writes in his new book, “Getting America Right,” it made sense for the federal government to build roads in 1956, when the lack of a country-wide highway system compromised interstate commerce and national defense. But it doesn’t make sense today. As Feulner writes, “Absent a clear and present national danger, are highways really Washington’s business?”

• Pare back education spending, which has soared 137 percent since 2001.

• Eliminate dozens of programs such as the Advanced Technology Program, a “notorious bit of corporate welfare,” Riedl notes.

In addition, the RSC budget includes important budget-process reforms that would change the bias toward spending that taints Washington budget-making. One such reform is a line-item veto to help shrink the federal budget. A serious proposal for a line-item veto emerged last week. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., is sponsoring the Legislative Line Item Veto Act, which, he says, would allow the president to eliminate wasteful spending and special-interest tax breaks from specific bills.

Lawmakers are never going to stop spending beyond their means (or, I should say, our means) as long as they’re able to stuff every spending bill with tons of pet projects and other boondoggles. As Feulner says in “Getting America Right,” just as it’s irresponsible to spend what you don’t have, it’s irresponsible to waste what you do have. As stewards of the people’s money, members of Congress have a duty to ensure that every penny is used as wisely and carefully as if it were their own personal funds.

Link

As I’ve written before, legislatures need to be wise with the people’s money. In this case, Congress must be wise with the people’s money. I recall a phrase I first heard on the movie “Spiderman” that said “With great power, comes great responsibility.” Now, I know I should’ve heard that somewhere other than a movie, but that is not the point. Congress has the most powerful responsibility in my view, granted by the Constitution - the power of the purse. With the power of the purse, comes a great responsibility to use it wisely. The wise thing to do in this country would be to, in addition to cutting taxes, cutting the budget and social entitlement programs.

The reality is, this country in it’s present course, cannot live within its means. Though we all have credit cards for emergency spending (Congress has the deficit), even emergency spending does not allow us a blank check. There are economic consequences to being in a deficit, including trade imbalances, loss of foreign investment, rising fiscal costs, and many others. It is important that Congress and the president through his veto power condemn massive pork barrel spending and appropriations with unclear need. Though it is Congress’ responsibility to “lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” it is also the Congress’ duty to be responsible with the people’s money. This is something the Congress just refuses to do, even under Republican Party control.

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — New post-recession revenues are pouring into state coffers across the nation, but activists in several states are leading “revolts” to make sure their governments don’t use this new wealth for tax and spend schemes without taxpayers’ approval.

“We are in a major revolt right now,” said Mary Adams, head of the petition drive to get a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) on the November ballot in Maine. Last month, the office of the secretary of state in Maine verified 50,519 citizen signatures in favor of putting the measure on the ballot.

Like in other states across the nation, the Maine effort for a TABOR is aimed at setting spending limits on the annual growth of government. It outlines the percentage of future surpluses to be returned to taxpayers in the form of rebates and the rest to be put in a reserve account. The TABOR also allows taxpayers to vote on tax hikes.

“In essence, it will put the taxpayer in control of future tax increases,” Adams said.

According to the National Taxpayers Union in Washington, D.C, similar ballot initiatives in Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, Ohio and other states are a reaction to continued tax burdens despite recent windfalls in state revenues. As of 2005, 30 states already had some form of tax and spend limitations on the books.

States are recovering from the economic slowdown and are flush with revenues and are faced with a choice — restrain spending, build up reserves and set aside tax increases,” said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the NTU. Another choice, he said, is to “listen to the pent up demands from spending interests that feel they didn’t get enough from 2001 through 2003.”

Link

As a taxpayer and a resident of a state that recently increased sales and income taxes, I believe states must look at common sense reforms, including balancing their budgets and making spending cuts. The main problem with spending and appropriations is not inflationary, but rather its the legislatures of the states increasing spending at the same rate or more than rising revenues. This allows a state to feel financial pressures and go into deficit when a downturn hits the national economy. If states would live within their means, balance their budgets every year, and keep additional spending to a minimum (or at the rate of inflation), states would be much better off fiscally. It does not make sense to implement more government programs that take up most fiscal surpluses, but it is smart, as Joseph of the Bible found out, to save and prepare for disaster in a period of plenty.

By Tim Chapman

Last night 66 senators cast their vote to disregard the congressional budget act in order to increase spending primarily for one part of the country.

The action came on an amendment from Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. Snowe has been pursuing this amendment which increases funding for the Low Income Heating Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in the Northeast states. Her amendment breaks the budget the Senate passed by $1 billion and increases LIHEAP funding for her state alone by 1500 percent! But budgets matter not to moderate Republicans and Democrats.

A good sign of what fiscal conservatives are up against came moments before last nights vote to waive the budget act with respect to the Snowe amendment. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, a proponent of the Snowe amendment and a primary beneficiary, sanctimoniously took the Senate floor to scream at fiscal conservatives at the top of his lungs. His face red with self-righteous indignation, Dodd looked across the aisle and pointed his finger in the direction of Jeff Sessions, a budgetary realist and fiscal conservative “You tell my people they can’t have what they need!” shouted the New England liberal.

Nevermind that Senator Sessions was right. Shame on him to point out that this winter is one of the warmest winters on record. And who cares that spring is just around the corner. And what does it matter if we rob fiscal year 2007 funds to pay for fiscal year 2006 allocations? Sessions pointed out the folly of such a plan. “What happens if in 2007 the winter is actually a cold one?” asked Sessions? Do we just go on breaking the budget year after year?

Even Senator Ted Kennedy (who of course got it wrong in the end by voting with the budget busters) agreed with the merit of the argument. On February 22 Kennedy told the Boston Globe that “Robbing 2007 funds to pay for 2006 home heating costs makes no sense.” One wonders why he did it anyway.

But this kind of logic is lost on bleeding hearts who are always looking for the next federally funded happy meal to bring home to their constituents.

Link

One of the ultimate problems in Washington is the problem of pork barrel legislation; it’s been a problem for decades. I do not see why Congress continues to raise the debt limit and the deficit when most Americans must live within their means. Sure, there are emergencies one must pay for from time to time (i.e. the War on Terror). However, there needs to be some control. We must not let politics get in the way of sound financial planning and the care of the PEOPLE’S money! Since the beginning of the income tax collection, our country has gone deeper and deeper into debt. I am disappointed in Congress for letting pork somehow get into all major pieces of legislation and I am disappointed in the President for not vetoeing one piece of legislation which includes massive pork appropriations.